Medical Education
Apr 2019

Which Nanobasics Should Be Taught in Medical Schools?

Joel C. Sunshine, MD, PhD and Amy S. Paller, MD, MSci
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(4):E337-346. doi: 10.1001/amajethics.2019.337.

Abstract

The progressive growth in nanotechnology approaches to diagnostics and therapeutics, especially for cancer, necessitates training physicians in nanoethics. This article explains why it is critical for medical education to include instruction in nanotechnology, nanomedicine, nanotoxicology, and nanoethics and suggests basic concepts educators can use to infuse curricula with this content.

Introduction

As it continues to evolve to meet the needs of the next generation of clinicians, medical education should incorporate new interventions and diagnostics, among them nanotechnology applications. Nanotechnology is a science built on fundamental changes in material properties because of unique chemical, physical, mechanical, and optical properties that occur when particle size falls into the nanorange. The nanoscale ranges from 1 to 100 nm, as that is the size at which many of the special properties particular to the nanoscale arise, although most unique properties arise below 30 nm.1 However, the entire 1 to 999 nm range is sometimes included under the heading of nanotechnology. Optical properties of some materials (eg, the fluorescence signature of quantum dots and the color of nanogold) are determined simply by the size of the nanoparticles, not by the choice of material.2 At this scale, surface chemistry and charge dramatically increase bioimaging and biosensing capabilities.3,4 In addition, nanoparticle size, shape, and surface charge can dictate how nanoparticles are processed and signals are amplified in the body.5-9

Although nanotechnology has brought together the fields of materials science, engineering, and medicine in the development of diagnostic and treatment options in medicine and surgery,10 nanomedicine and nanotechnology have not been included in recent influential publications on medical education reform such as the Association of American Medical College and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s “Scientific Foundations For Future Physicians.”11 However, it is imperative that the next generation of physicians understand these developments so that they can be better prepared to provide consultation to scientists about potential applications, integrate nanotechnology-based therapeutic choices into practice, and respond to ethical challenges.12 This article explains why it is critical for medical education to include instruction in nanotechnology, nanomedicine, nanotoxicology, and nanoethics and suggests basic concepts educators can use to infuse curricula with this content.

The Importance of Nanotechnology to Medicine

While its use is still early, nanotechnology promises to revolutionize medical care. The number of nanotechnology-based drugs, devices, and diagnostics clinically available and in clinical trials is growing rapidly. Many of the early applications of nanotechnology have been in the field of drug delivery and have allowed for new agents with improved pharmacologic or pharmacodynamics profiles. Underlying these advances is the enhanced permeability and retention effect (EPR) in solid tumors, which allows for the passive or active accumulation of nanoformulated drugs at the site of solid tumors at higher levels than in the rest of the body.13 Major clinical examples of such drugs include US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved cancer nanochemotherapeutics such as nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel,14 liposomal doxorubicin,15 liposomal daunorubicin,16 liposomal daunorubicin-cytarabine,16 and liposomal vincristine.17 Emerging applications of nanotechnology for treating cancer include more targeted approaches, stimuli-responsive delivery agents, combinatorial approaches, gene therapeutics, and immunotherapies.18-21 Additionally, there are hundreds of new technologies in preclinical development.22

Early incorporation of nanotechnology into medicine has primarily involved drug delivery, which has been criticized for simply extending patent protection on blockbuster medications that are close to losing patent protection rather than truly offering paradigm-shifting improvements in patient care.23 Most first-to-market nanotechnologies, however, show improved pharmacologic or pharmacodynamic profiles,24-26 making for more convenient medication dosing and potentially better safety profiles. The increased ease of use and reduced dosing frequency of nanodrugs can enhance patient experience and adherence and potentially reduce drug-related toxicity. However, studies have not yet shown improved survival with nanodrugs compared to unmodified, carrier-free parent drugs.22

Beyond chemotherapeutics, nanoparticle formulations have shown potential for delivery of a wide spectrum of therapeutic agents that otherwise do not have “druggable” characteristics. Examples include nucleic acids and targeted inhibitors that are either in early phase clinical trials or just starting to reach the clinic to treat cancer, amyloidosis, and—as vaccines—to prevent infectious disease.27-30 Patisiran, an siRNA encapsulated in a lipid nanoparticle formulation, was recently FDA-approved for treatment of transthyretin-mediated familial amyloidosis polyneuropathy (FAP).31 Phase I clinical trials are underway for using lipid nanoparticles for delivery of mRNA as a vaccine for cytomegalovirus,32 as a vaccine for cancer,33 and as an intratumoral injectable for cancer.34,35 Additionally, otherwise toxic drugs have been formulated as nanoparticles to mitigate the associated side effect profile while maintaining or improving efficacy. For example, there are multiple clinical trials with an encochelated form of amphotericin B for treatment of mucocutaneous candidiasis36 and resistant vulvovaginal candidiasis37 and planned trials for antifungal prophylaxis in chemotherapy patients38 and for treatment of cryptococcal infection.39

Nanotechnology has other medical applications. It has been used to develop devices such as nanoporous drug-eluting stents,40 nanofluidics for advanced lab-on-a-chip design,41 and clinical assay systems, including a nanogold-based system for rapid detection and identification of infectious pathogens.42-46 Major strides have been made in the development of next-generation nanovaccines with benefits ranging from longer sustained release of antigens or adjuvants to better tissue penetration and improved cross-presentation for activation of multiple T-cell subsets.47 For example, development of a single-shot polio vaccine using nanotechnology may allow for improved vaccination strategies in Third World settings.48 Combined imaging and therapeutic agents (termed theranostics) have been developed to co-deliver imaging and therapeutic agents, such as photothermal therapy.49,50 In dermatology, nanotechnology has been used in diverse topical applications, among them improved sunscreens (nanoparticulate zinc and titanium dioxide), antiseptics (nanosilver, chlorhexidine), and follicular targeting (eg, nanoparticle delivery of retinoids for acne), and nanoconjugates have been shown in preclinical studies to be novel topical therapeutics for diabetic wound healing,51 scar identification,52 and psoriasis.53,54

Ethical Considerations in Nanomedicine

With the development of this new technology also come new ethical considerations. The majority of ethical concerns raised about nanomedicine are not novel or specific to nanotechnology in particular.55 However, due to the greater uncertainty of nanotoxicity compared to the toxicity of more traditional medications, nanotechnology clinical trials theoretically have a higher risk for participants. This increased risk has implications for informed consent in clinical trials.56-60 For example, the occurrence of side effects may be delayed, given that some nanotechnology platforms, such as nanogold, can accumulate in tissues and persist longer than traditional medicines.61 As a result, some side effects might not be captured during the trial itself or even during the first few years of postapproval long-term safety monitoring. Although clinical trials are often powered to detect strong early negative safety signals, years of experience with medications is required before clinicians can fully understand the long-term effects of exposure.

Some have argued that the additional theoretical risks of nanotechnology have been underrecognized and that insufficient regulatory attention has been paid to these nanotoxicity risks.62 These additional risks may be at least partly ameliorated through the use of biodegradable nanotechnology platforms, which by design do not persist long term and accumulate in tissues.63 Generally, the FDA has articulated a belief that standard regulatory protocols, sound science, thorough product characterization, and its own flexible and responsive regulatory oversight is sufficient for nanomedicine applications.64,65

As with much of new technology, nanomedicine is often quite expensive, and when covered by insurance plans, the cost is passed on to all covered patients via higher insurance premiums. That cost leads to concerns that nanotechnology and its applications will serve to further compromise global equality in access to health care,66 and it raises questions about the ethics of new formulations and patent exclusivity extensions.

Changing Medical Education to Keep Pace With Nanotechnology

Given the growing prevalence of nanotechnologies in medicine and their concomitant ethical risks, it is important for students to have an introduction to nanotechnology during their medical education. Multiple approaches could be envisioned to optimally integrate nanotechnology content into the medical school curriculum. Nanotechnology could be a stand-alone course that covers the fundamental scientific principles of physiochemical behavior at the nanoscale and the application of nanotechnology to imaging, drug design, and specific clinical disciplines, in addition to nanotoxicology and the risks of nanomedicine.67

A problem-based approach in a stand-alone course is well suited to an in-depth discussion of nanotechnology and its implications. For example, the pros and cons of using liposomal formulations of doxorubicin (vs free drug alone) could introduce a discussion of the benefits of nanomedicine as well as the ethics of drug pricing, patent protection windows, and the incentive structures that exist for pharmaceutical development. Additionally, problem-based coursework offers a way to discuss nanopharmacology and to consider other potential agents, formulation requirements, and future targeting capabilities. This approach might allow for a holistic view of nanotechnology and its applications.

Instruction in nanotechnology could be infused into courses in clinical pharmacology, pathology, immunology, and oncology. Clinical pharmacology coursework could include the size and scale of nanotechnology, unique properties of nanomaterials, targeted delivery systems, mechanisms of nanodrug delivery, and the interaction of nanomaterials with the host. Pathology coursework could include nanodiagnostics, nanotoxicology, and nanoethics. Immunology and infectious disease coursework could include the immune response to vaccination and nanoparticle-based cancer vaccines.47 Immunology coursework could also be modified to reflect the cross talk between nanotechnology, materials science, and innate immunity. For example, instruction on immunologic foreign body responses could highlight the way that nanotechnology applications and implantable devices have been designed to prevent the normal biological response of protein binding, opsonization, and phagocytosis, thereby reducing clearance of therapeutics. Ethics courses might review nanotoxicology, potential side effects in patients of nanotherapy, possible risks to the environment, and cost-benefit analyses. Ideally, coursework on nanotechnology would involve collaborative discussion between medical specialists, bioethicists, and researchers involved in developing these technologies or translating them into the clinic.

Conclusions

Rapid developments in nanotechnology have begun to enter the clinic and are poised to make a major impact. Nanotechnology is a multidisciplinary field, making it amenable to multiple points of entry into medical curricula, including coursework on pharmacology, pathology, immunology, and oncology. Medical education will need to meet the challenge of integrating nanomedicine, nanotoxicology, and nanoethics into the current curriculum to ensure that future physicians are prepared for a nanotechnology future.

Read More

References

  1. Auffan M, Rose J, Bottero JY, Lowry GV, Jolivet JP, Wiesner MR. Towards a definition of inorganic nanoparticles from an environmental, health and safety perspective. Nat Nanotechnol. 2009;4(10):634-641.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  2. Michalet X, Pinaud FF, Bentolila LA, et al. Quantum dots for live cells, in vivo imaging, and diagnostics. Science. 2005;307(5109):538-544.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  3. Thaxton CS, Elghanian R, Thomas AD, et al. Nanoparticle-based bio-barcode assay redefines “undetectable” PSA and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(44):18437-18442.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  4. Kim SJ, Choi SJ, Jang JS, et al. Mesoporous WO3 nanofibers with protein-templated nanoscale catalysts for detection of trace biomarkers in exhaled breath. ACS Nano. 2016;10(6):5891-5899.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  5. Sunshine JC, Perica K, Schneck JP, Green JJ. Particle shape dependence of CD8+ T cell activation by artificial antigen presenting cells. Biomaterials. 2014;35(1):269-277.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  6. Fang J, Nakamura H, Maeda H. The EPR effect: unique features of tumor blood vessels for drug delivery, factors involved, and limitations and augmentation of the effect. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2011;63(3):136-151.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  7. Kolhar P, Anselmo AC, Gupta V, et al. Using shape effects to target antibody-coated nanoparticles to lung and brain endothelium. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;11(26):10753-10758.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Albanese A, Tang PS, Chan WC. The effect of nanoparticle size, shape, and surface chemistry on biological systems. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2012;14:1-16.

    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  9. Meyer RA, Sunshine JC, Perica K, et al. Biodegradable nanoellipsoidal artificial antigen presenting cells for antigen specific T-cell activation. Small. 2015;11(13):1519-1525.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Nano on reflection. Nat Nanotechnol. 2016;11(10):828-834.

    View Article PubMed

  11. Institute AoAMCatHHM. Scientific foundations for future physicians: report of the AAMC-HHMI Committee. Association of American Medical Colleges. https://www.aamc.org/download/271072/data/scientificfoundationsforfuturephysicians.pdf. Published 2009. Accessed February 14, 2019.

  12. Sweeney AE. Nanomedicine concepts in the general medical curriculum: initiating a discussion. Int J Nanomedicine. 2015;10:7319-7331.

    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  13. Maeda H, Wu J, Sawa T, Matsumura Y, Hori K. Tumor vascular permeability and the EPR effect in macromolecular therapeutics: a review. J Control Release. 2000;65(1-2):271-284.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Miele E, Spinelli GP, Miele E, Tomao F, Tomao S. Albumin-bound formulation of paclitaxel (Abraxane ABI-007) in the treatment of breast cancer. Int J Nanomedicine. 2009;4:99-105.

    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  15. Northfelt DW, Dezube BJ, Thommes JA, et al. Pegylated-liposomal doxorubicin versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, and vincristine in the treatment of AIDS-related Kaposi’s sarcoma: results of a randomized phase III clinical trial. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(7):2445-2451.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  16. Feldman EJ, Lancet JE, Kolitz JE, et al. First-in-man study of CPX-351: a liposomal carrier containing cytarabine and daunorubicin in a fixed 5:1 molar ratio for the treatment of relapsed and refractory acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(8):979-985.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  17. O’Brien S, Schiller G, Lister J, et al. High-dose vincristine sulfate liposome injection for advanced, relapsed, and refractory adult Philadelphia chromosome-negative acute lymphoblastic leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(6):676-683.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Jensen SA, Day ES, Ko CH, et al. Spherical nucleic acid nanoparticle conjugates as an RNAi-based therapy for glioblastoma. Sci Transl Med. 2013;5(209):209ra152.

    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  19. Mura S, Nicolas J, Couvreur P. Stimuli-responsive nanocarriers for drug delivery. Nat Mater. 2013;12(11):991-1003.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  20. Naldini L. Gene therapy returns to centre stage. Nature. 2015;526(7573):351-360.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  21. Goldberg MS. Immunoengineering: how nanotechnology can enhance cancer immunotherapy. Cell. 2015;161(2):201-204.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  22. Shi J, Kantoff PW, Wooster R, Farokhzad OC. Cancer nanomedicine: progress, challenges and opportunities. Nat Rev Cancer. 2017;17(1):20-37.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  23. Jones GH, Carrier MA, Silver RT, Kantarjian H. Strategies that delay or prevent the timely availability of affordable generic drugs in the United States. Blood. 2016;127(11):1398-1402.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  24. Jain S, Spandana G, Agrawal AK, Kushwah V, Thanki K. Enhanced antitumor efficacy and reduced toxicity of docetaxel loaded estradiol functionalized stealth polymeric nanoparticles. Mol Pharm. 2015;12(11):3871-3884.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  25. Tan Q, Liu X, Fu X, Li Q, Dou J, Zhai G. Current development in nanoformulations of docetaxel. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2012;9(8):975-990.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar

  26. Caster JM, Patel AN, Zhang T, Wang A. Investigational nanomedicines in 2016: a review of nanotherapeutics currently undergoing clinical trials. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol. 2017;9(1).

    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  27. Davis ME, Zuckerman JE, Choi CH, et al. Evidence of RNAi in humans from systemically administered siRNA via targeted nanoparticles. Nature. 2010;464(7291):1064-1070.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  28. Oberli MA, Reichmuth AM, Dorkin JR, et al. Lipid nanoparticle assisted mRNA delivery for potent cancer immunotherapy. Nano Lett. 2017;17(3):1326-1335.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  29. Adams D, Gonzalez-Duarte A, O’Riordan WD, et al. Patisiran, an RNAi therapeutic, for hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(1):11-21.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  30. Pardi N, Hogan MJ, Porter FW, Weissman D. mRNA vaccines—a new era in vaccinology. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2018;17(4):261-279.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar

  31. Wood H. FDA approves patisiran to treat hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis. Nat Rev Neurol. 2018;14(10):570.

    View Article PubMed Google Scholar

  32. NCT03382405: Safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of cytomegalovirus vaccines mRNA-1647 and mRNA-1443 in healthy adults [study]. ClinicalTrials.gov. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03382405. Published December 22, 2017. Updated February 4, 2019. Accessed February 14, 2019.

  33. NCT03313778: Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of mRNA-4157 alone in subjects with resected solid tumors and in combination with pembrolizumab in subjects with unresectable solid tumors (KEYNOTE-603) [study]. ClinicalTrials.gov. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03313778. Published October 18, 2017. Updated September 19, 2018. Accessed February 14, 2019.

  34. NCT03323398: Dose escalation study of mRNA 2416 for intratumoral injection to patients with advanced malignancies [study]. ClinicalTrials.gov. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03323398. Published October 27, 2017. Updated February 6, 2019. Accessed February 14, 2019.

  35. NCT03739931: Dose escalation study of mRNA-2752 for intratumoral injection to patients with advanced malignancies [study]. ClinicalTrials.gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03739931. Published November 14, 2018. Updated February 4, 2019. Accessed February 14, 2019.

  36. NCT02629419: CAMB/MAT2203 in patients with mucocutaneous candidiasis (CAMB) [study]. ClinicalTrials.gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02629419. Published December 14, 2015. Updated January 8, 2019. Accessed February 14, 2019.

  37. NCT02971007: Safety and efficacy of oral encochleated amphotericin B (CAMB/MAT2203) in the treatment of vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) [study]. ClinicalTrials.gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02971007. Published November 22, 2016. Updated November 2, 2018. Accessed February 14, 2019.

  38. NCT03187691: Safety and PK of oral encochleated amphotericin B (CAMB/MAT2203) for antifungal prophylaxis in patients undergoing induction chemotherapy for acute myelogenous and lymphoblastic leukaemia [study]. ClinicalTrials.gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03187691. Published June 15, 2017. Updated January 7, 2019. Accessed February 14, 2019.

  39. NCT03196921: Efficacy and safety of oral encochleated amphotericin B for the treatment of cryptococcal infection (ORACLE) [study]. ClinicalTrials.gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03196921. Published June 23, 2017. Updated December 7, 2017. Accessed February 14, 2019.

  40. Zhang Y, Chen F, Muramatsu T, et al. Nine-month angiographic and two-year clinical follow-up of polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent versus durable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent for coronary artery disease: the Nano randomized trial. Chin Med J (Engl). 2014;127(11):2153-2158.
    PubMed Google Scholar
  41. Segerink LI, Eijkel JC. Nanofluidics in point of care applications. Lab Chip. 2014;14(17):3201-3205.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  42. Arroyo MA, Denys GA. Parallel evaluation of the MALDI sepsityper and verigene BC-GN assays for rapid identification of Gram-negative bacilli from positive blood cultures. J Clin Microbiol. 2017;55(9):2708-2718.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  43. Bork JT, Leekha S, Heil EL, Zhao L, Badamas R, Johnson JK. Rapid testing using the Verigene Gram-negative blood culture nucleic acid test in combination with antimicrobial stewardship intervention against Gram-negative bacteremia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59(3):1588-1595.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  44. Lefferts JA, Jannetto P, Tsongalis GJ. Evaluation of the Nanosphere Verigene System and the Verigene F5/F2/MTHFR nucleic acid tests. Exp Mol Pathol. 2009;87(2):105-108.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar

  45. Berktold M, Mutschlechner W, Orth-Holler D. Comparison of rapid hybridization-based pathogen identification and resistance evaluation in sepsis using the Verigene(R) device paired with “good old culture.” Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2017;129(11-12):435-441.

    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  46. Ledeboer NA, Lopansri BK, Dhiman N, et al. Identification of Gram-negative bacteria and genetic resistance determinants from positive blood culture broths by use of the Verigene Gram-negative blood culture multiplex microarray-based molecular assay. J Clin Microbiol. 2015;53(8):2460-2472.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  47. Smith DM, Simon JK, Baker JR Jr. Applications of nanotechnology for immunology. Nat Rev Immunol. 2013;13(8):592-605.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  48. Tzeng SY, McHugh KJ, Behrens AM, et al. Stabilized single-injection inactivated polio vaccine elicits a strong neutralizing immune response. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(23):e5269-e5278.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  49. Sancey L, Kotb S, Truillet C, et al. Long-term in vivo clearance of gadolinium-based AGuIX nanoparticles and their biocompatibility after systemic injection. ACS Nano. 2015;9(3):2477-2488.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  50. Janib SM, Moses AS, MacKay JA. Imaging and drug delivery using theranostic nanoparticles. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2010;62(11):1052-1063.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  51. Randeria PS, Seeger MA, Wang XQ, et al. siRNA-based spherical nucleic acids reverse impaired wound healing in diabetic mice by ganglioside GM3 synthase knockdown. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(18):5573-5578.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  52. Yeo DC, Wiraja C, Paller AS, Mirkin CA, Xu C. Abnormal scar identification with spherical-nucleic-acid technology. Nature Biomed Eng. 2018;2(4):227-238.
    View Article Google Scholar

  53. Nemati H, Ghahramani MH, Faridi-Majidi R, et al. Using siRNA-based spherical nucleic acid nanoparticle conjugates for gene regulation in psoriasis. J Control Release. 2017;268:259-268.

    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  54. Lewandowski KT, Thiede R, Guido N, et al. Topically delivered tumor necrosis factor-alpha-targeted gene regulation for psoriasis. J Invest Dermatol. 2017;137(9):2027-2030.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar

  55. Kuiken T. Nanomedicine and ethics: is there anything new or unique? Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol. 2011;3(2):111-118.

    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  56. Dresser R. Building an ethical foundation for first-in-human nanotrials. J Law Med Ethics. 2012;40(4):802-808.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  57. Resnik DB. Responsible conduct in nanomedicine research: environmental concerns beyond the common rule. J Law Med Ethics. 2012;40(4):848-855.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  58. Hogle LF. Concepts of risk in nanomedicine research. J Law Med Ethics. 2012;40(4):809-822.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  59. Wolf SM. Introduction: the challenge of nanomedicine human subjects research: protecting participants, workers, bystanders, and the environment. J Law Med Ethics. 2012;40(4):712-715.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  60. Resnik DB, Tinkle SS. Ethical issues in clinical trials involving nanomedicine. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007;28(4):433-441.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  61. Kreyling WG, Moller W, Holzwarth U, et al. Age-dependent rat lung deposition patterns of inhaled 20 nanometer gold nanoparticles and their quantitative biokinetics in adult rats. ACS Nano. 2018;12(8):7771-7790.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar

  62. The same old story. Nat Nanotechnol. 2008;3(12):697.

    View Article PubMed
  63. Sharma A, Madhunapantula SV, Robertson GP. Toxicological considerations when creating nanoparticle-based drugs and drug delivery systems. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2012;8(1):47-69.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar

  64. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA’s approach to regulation of nanotechnology products. https://www.fda.gov/scienceresearch/specialtopics/nanotechnology/ucm301114.htm. Updated March 23, 2018. Accessed February 14, 2019.

  65. Hamburg MA. Science and regulation. FDA’s approach to regulation of products of nanotechnology. Science. 2012;336(6079):299-300.
    View Article PubMed Google Scholar

  66. Foladori G, Invernizzi N. Nanotechnology for the poor? PLoS Med. 2005;2(8):e280.

    View Article PubMed Google Scholar
  67. Moore R. Nanomedicine: rethinking medical training. Med Device Technol. 2008;19(1):50, 52-53.
    PubMed Google Scholar

Editor's Note

Background image by Paul Dolan.

Citation

AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(4):E337-346.

DOI

10.1001/amajethics.2019.337.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Dr Paller has stock options in and is an advisory board member for Exicure, Inc. Dr Sunshine had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

The viewpoints expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the AMA.