Role of the entrepreneur in a distinct role of profit.

Stem cells are likely to be used as an alternate source of biological material for neural transplantation to treat Parkinson’s disease in the not too distant future. Among the several ethical criteria that must be fulfilled before proceeding with clinical research, a favourable benefit to risk ratio must be obtained. The potential benefits to the participant and to society are evaluated relative to the risks in an attempt to offer the participants a reasonable choice. Through examination of preclinical studies transplanting (...) stem cells in animals and the transplantation of fetal tissue in patients with Parkinson’s disease, a current set of potential benefits and risks for neural transplantation of stem cells in clinical research of Parkinson’s disease are derived. The potential benefits to research participants undergoing stem cell transplantation are relief of parkinsonian symptoms and decreasing doses of parkinsonian drugs. Transplantation of stem cells as a treatment for Parkinson’s disease may benefit society by providing knowledge that can be used to help determine better treatments in the future. The risks to research participants undergoing stem cell transplantation include tumour formation, inappropriate stem cell migration, immune rejection of transplanted stem cells, haemorrhage during neurosurgery and postoperative infection. Although some of these risks are general to neurosurgical transplantation and may not be reduced for participants, the potential risk of tumour formation and inappropriate stem cell migration must be minimised before obtaining a favourable potential benefit to risk calculus and to provide participants with a reasonable choice before they enrol in clinical studies. (shrink)

BackgroundResearch ethics committees (RECs) are tasked to assess the risks and the benefits of a trial. Currently, two procedure-level approaches are predominant, the Net Risk Test and the Component Analysis.DiscussionBy looking at decision studies, we see that both procedure-level approaches conflate the various risk-benefit tasks, i.e., risk-benefit assessment, risk-benefit evaluation, risk treatment, and decision making. This conflation makes the RECs’ risk-benefit task confusing, if not impossible. We further realize that RECs are not meant to do all the risk-benefit tasks; instead, (...) RECs are meant to evaluate risks and benefits, appraise risk treatment suggestions, and make the final decision.ConclusionAs such, research ethics would benefit from looking beyond the procedure-level approaches and allowing disciplines like decision studies to be involved in the discourse on RECs’ risk-benefit task. (shrink)

Determining whether a research risk meets or exceeds a regulatory standard of risk acceptability is difficult. Recently a framework called the systematic evaluation of research risks (SERR) has been proposed as a method of comparing research risks with predetermined standards of acceptability. SERR purports to offer a systematic and largely determinate (definite) way to compare risks and say whether a specific research risk falls below or above an acknowledged standard of acceptable risk. Here the authors review some philosophical problems with (...) this framework, which they take to be representative of determinate approaches to risk comparison, and conclude that it should not be used in a stand-alone or determinate fashion. Instead, the authors suggest that a deliberative approach may be a more viable candidate for future development. Such an approach could be informed by methods such as SERR without being rigidly bound to them. (shrink)

Nanomedicine is a rapidly growing field in the academic as well as commercial arena. While some had predicted nanomedicine sales to reach $20.1 billion in 2011, the actual growth was much more rapid, with the global nanomedicine market being valued at $53 billion in 2009, and forecast to increase at an annual growth rate of 13.5% to reach more than $100 billion in 2014. In 2006, more than 130 nanotechnology-based drugs and delivery systems had entered preclinical, clinical, or commercial development. (...) The European Medicines Agency reviewed 18 marketing authorization applications for nanomedicines in 2010. In 2011, 22 drugs that had been approved by the FDA, and 87 Phase I and Phase II clinical trials were listed in the U.S. National Institutes of Health data base, www.clinicaltrials.gov. Although the fastest growing areas of nanomedicine are applications in medical imaging and diagnosis using contrast-enhancing agents, most nanomedicine research and commercialization is in the area of cancer drug therapy, including nano gold shells. (shrink)

The article focuses on issues relating to occupational exposures of researchers and lab workers, and exposures of bystanders such as health care workers and family members during HSR using nanomaterials. Such third-party exposures give rise to unique challenges relating to oversight as well as exposures to worker groups not previously studied. Given the current state of knowledge regarding health risks from such exposures, a more precautionary approach to oversight seems advisable.

Clinical trials of nanotechnology medical products present complex risk management challenges that involve many uncertainties and important risk-risk trade-offs. This paper inquires whether the precautionary principle can help to inform risk management approaches to nanomedicine clinical trials. It concludes that prudent precaution may be appropriate for ensuring the safety of such trials, but that the precautionary principle itself, especially in its more extreme forms, does not provide useful guidance for specific safety measures.

Medical technologies, including nanomedicine products, are intended to improve health but in many cases may also create their own health risks. Medical products that create their own health risks differ from most other risk-creating technologies in that the very purpose of the medical technology is to prevent or treat health risks. This paradox of technologies intended to reduce existing risks that may have the effect of creating new risks has two conflicting implications. On one hand, we may be more tolerant (...) of health risks from medical technologies because these products are intended to, and often do, reduce overall health risks and improve our health. The health benefits of a medical technology may outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects of that same technology in an individual patient or in the overall treated population. (shrink)

Nanomedicine plays a prominent role among emerging technologies. The spectrum of potential applications is as broad as it is promising. It includes the use of nanoparticles and nanodevices for diagnostics, targeted drug delivery in the human body, the production of new therapeutic materials as well as nanorobots or nanoprotheses. Funding agencies are investing large sums in the development of this area, among them the European Commission, which has launched a large network for life-sciences related nanotechnology. At the same time government (...) agencies as well as the private sector are putting forward reports of working groups that have looked into the promises and risks of these developments. This paper will begin with an introduction to the central ethical themes as identified by selected reports from Europe and beyond. In a next step, it will analyse the most frequently invoked ethical concerns–risk assessment and management, the issues of human identity and enhancement, possible implications for civil liberties (e.g. nanodevices that might be used for covert surveillance), and concerns about equity and fair access. Although it seems that the main ethical issues are not unique to nanotechnologies, the conclusion will argue against shrugging them off as non-specific items that have been considered before in the context of other biomedical technologies, such as gene therapy or xenotransplantation. Rather, the paper will call on ethicists to help foster a rational, fair and participatory discourse on the different potential applications of nanotechnologies in medicine, which can form the basis for informed and responsible societal and political decisions. (shrink)

The Food and Drug Administration and the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products recently issued documents encouraging sponsors to consider microdose testing before launching Phase I trials, and many commentators predict that such methodologies will be applied more routinely in drug development. However, exploratory testing has provoked several ethical criticisms. Skeptics question the value and validity of microdose trials, and whether they present a reasonable balance of risks and benefits for subjects. Another major criticism is that such studies (...) serve mainly commercial ends. The present article explores these and other ethical concerns for studies conducted in the oncology setting. It concludes that microdosing is not inconsistent with prevailing practices in Phase I research, and that in principle, such studies could strengthen the ethical basis for Phase I trials by providing them better evidentiary justification. (shrink)

Many commentators have expressed concern that large investments in biomedical research over the past two decades have not been translated effectively into clinical applications. In its Critical Path Report, the Food and Drug Administration characterized the problem as a “technological disconnect between discovery and the product development process,” and documented that the number of investigational new drugs submitted to the agency had declined “significantly” since 2000. Along a similar vein, another study found that only five of 101 basic science studies (...) showing significant therapeutic promise were successfully translated into clinical applications.This perceived translational lag is stimulating a shift toward human testing of study interventions earlier in the drug development process. One indication of this trend is a recent guidance encouraging sponsors to pursue human “exploratory” studies before embarking on phase I trials. (shrink)

Risk takes center stage in ethical debates over nanomedical technologies. Yet concepts of risk may hold different meanings, and they are embedded within particular political, economic, and social contexts. This article discusses framings of risk in debates over medical innovations such as nanomedicine, and draws attention to organizational and institutional forms of risk which are less visible in bioethical policy debates. While significant, possibly unique risks may exist in specific nano-based products, risk may also arise from the very processes and (...) procedures that develop, test, and oversee any novel technology. This supports recommendations to coordinate efforts through an interagency Working Group and a Secretary-level Advisory Committee to provide flexibility and sensitivity to emerging issues of concern. (shrink)

Risk is the most often cited reason for ethical concern about any medical science or technology, particularly those new technologies that are not yet well understood, or create unfamiliar conditions. In fact, while risk and risk-benefit analyses are but one aspect of ethical oversight, ethical review and risk assessment are sometimes taken to mean the same thing. This is not surprising, since both the Common Rule and Food and Drug Administration foreground procedures for minimizing risk for human subjects and require (...) local IRBs to engage in some sort of risk-benefit analysis in decisions to approve or deny proposed research. Existing ethical review and oversight practices are based on the presumption that risk can be clearly identified within the planned activities of the protocol, that metrics can reasonably accurately predict potential hazards, and that mitigation measures can be taken to deal with unintended, harmful, or catastrophic events. (shrink)

This review addresses the current and future potential of nanomedicine, and its ethical considerations within the comprehensive framework of the four dimensions of medical ethics: Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, Respect, and Justice. From this perspective, the ethical considerations for nanomedicine are not novel, but have been addressed by precedents throughout the history of medicine. While these ethical challenges are not unique to nanomedicine, some require additional consideration, given the envisioned pervasive impact of nanomedicine on society.

While the definitions employed by different governmental agencies and scientific societies differ somewhat, the term “nanotechnology” is generally understood to refer to the manufacturing, characterization, and use of man-made devices with dimensions on the order of 1-100 nanometers. Devices that comprise a fundamental functional element that is nanotechnological are also frequently comprised within nanotechnology, as are manufactured objects with dimensions less than one micrometer. The differences in definition lead to occasional paradoxes, such as the fact that the most widely used (...) nanodrug is labeled a “nanopharmaceutical” by governments of European countries, Canada, and Australia, but it is not a nanotechnology for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. It is also common in scientific domains to restrict the term “nanotechnology” to objects that possess special, “emerging” properties that only arise because of their nanoscale dimension. (shrink)

Nanomedicine is yielding new and improved treatments and diagnostics for a range of diseases and disorders. Nanomedicine applications incorporate materials and components with nanoscale dimensions where novel physiochemical properties emerge as a result of size-dependent phenomena and high surface-to-mass ratio. Nanotherapeutics and in vivo nanodiagnostics are a subset of nanomedicine products that enter the human body. These include drugs, biological products, implantable medical devices, and combination products that are designed to function in the body in ways unachievable at larger scales. (...) Nanotherapeutics andin vivonanodiagnostics incorporate materials that are engineered at the nanoscale to express novel properties that are medicinally useful. These nanomedicine applications can also contain nanomaterials that are biologically active, producing interactions that depend on biological triggers. Examples include nanoscale formulations of insoluble drugs to improve bioavailability and pharmacokinetics, drugs encapsulated in hollow nanoparticles with the ability to target and cross cellular and tissue membranes and to release their payload at a specific time or location, imaging agents that demonstrate novel optical properties to aid in locating micrometastases, and antimicrobial and drug-eluting components or coatings of implantable medical devices such as stents. (shrink)

Novel nanomedical interventions require human testing to evaluate their safety and effectiveness. To establish a proper evidentiary basis for human trials, nanomedical innovations must first be subjected to animal and other laboratory testing. But it is uncertain whether the traditional laboratory approaches to safety evaluation will supply adequate information on nanotechnology risks to humans. This uncertainty, together with other features of nanomedical innovation, heightens the ethical challenges in conducting FIH nanotrials.

The biomedical literature and popular media are full of upbeat reports about the health benefits we can expect from medical innovations using nanotechnology. Some particularly enthusiastic reports portray nanotechnology as one of the innovations that will lead to a significantly extended human life span. Extreme enthusiasts predict that nanotechnology “will ultimately enable us to redesign and rebuild, molecule by molecule, our bodies and brains….”Nanomaterials have special characteristics that could contribute to improved patient care. But the same characteristics that make nanotechnology (...) promising also present risks to humans exposed to nanomaterials. A failure to appreciate these risks could jeopardize the research effort. As others have pointed out, if nanomedical interventions produce unexpected human harm, a loss of public and government support for nanomedicine is likely to follow.Like other forms of medical innovation, novel nanomedical interventions require human testing to evaluate their safety and effectiveness. (shrink)

This paper introduces taxonomy of clinical uncertaintes and argues that the choice of scientific method should match the underlying level of uncertainty. Clinical trial is one of these methods aiming to resolve clinical uncertainties. Whenever possible these uncertainties should be quantified. The paper further shows that the still ongoing debate about the usage of "equipoise" vs. "uncertainty principle" vs. "indifference" as an entry criterion to clinical trials actually refers to the question "whose uncertainty counts". This question is intimately linked to (...) the control of research agenda, which is not quantifiable and hence is not solvable to equal acceptability to all interested parties. The author finally shows that there is a predictable relation between [acknowledgement of] uncertainty (the moral principle) on which trials are based and the ultimate outcomes of clinical trials. That is, [acknowledgement of] uncertainty determines a pattern of success in medicine and drives clinical discoveries. (shrink)

Institutional Review Board decisions hinge on the availability and interpretation of information. This is demonstrated by the following well-known historical example. In 2001, 24-year-old Ellen Roche died from respiratory distress and organ failure as a result of her participation in a study at Johns Hopkins Asthma and Allergy Center. The non-therapeutic physiological study, “Mechanisms of Deep Inspiration-Induced Airway Relaxation,” was designed to examine airway hyperresponsiveness in healthy individuals in order to better understand the pathophysiology of asthma. Participants inhaled hexamethonium, a (...) chemical ganglionic blocker that was not FDA-approved for use as specified in the experimental protocol. Risks of inhaling hexamethonium, including lung damage, had been reported in the 1950s and ‘60s. An investigation conducted after Roche's death determined that the study's principal investigator had failed to adequately search the medical literature; the protocol submitted for IRB review cited articles indexed in online literature databases that went back only as far as the 1970s. (shrink)

Despite their crucial role in the translation of pre-clinical research into new clinical applications, phase 1 trials involving patients continue to prompt ethical debate. At the heart of the controversy is the question of whether risks of administering experimental drugs are therapeutically justified. We suggest that prior attempts to address this question have been muddled, in part because it cannot be answered adequately without first attending to the way labor is divided in managing risk in clinical trials. In what follows, (...) we approach the question of therapeutic justification for phase 1 trials from the viewpoint of five different stakeholders: the drug regulatory authority, the IRB, the clinical investigator, the referring physician, and the patient. Our analysis shows that the question of therapeutic justification actually raises multiple questions corresponding to the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders involved. By attending to these contextual differences, we provide more coherent guidance for the ethical negotiation of risk in phase 1 trials involving patients. We close by discussing the implications of our argument for various perennial controversies in phase 1 trial practice. (shrink)

First-in-human clinical trials represent a critical juncture in the translation of laboratory discoveries. However, because they involve the greatest degree of uncertainty at any point in the drug development process, their initiation is beset by a series of nettlesome ethical questions [1]: has clinical promise been sufficiently demonstrated in animals? Should trial access be restricted to patients with refractory disease? Should trials be viewed as therapeutic? Have researchers adequately minimized risks? The resolution of such ethical questions inevitably turns on claims (...) about future events like harms, therapeutic response, and clinical translation. Recurrent failures in clinical translation, like Eli Lilly's Alzheimer candidate semagacestat, highlight the severe limitations of current methods of prediction. In this case, patients in the active arm of the placebo-controlled trial had earlier onset of dementia and elevated rates of skin cancer [2]. Various authoritative accounts of human research ethics state that decision-making about risk and benefit should be careful, systematic, and non-arbitrary [3]–[5]. Yet, these sources provide little guidance about what kinds of evidence stakeholders should use to ensure their estimates of such events ground responsible ethical decisions. In this article, we suggest that investigators, oversight bodies, and sponsors often base their predictions on a flawed and inappropriately narrow preclinical evidence base. (shrink)