Theoretical and Practical Principles on Nanoethics: A Narrative Review Article

  • Saeed BIROUDIAN Department of Medical Ethics, School of Traditional Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Mahmoud ABBASI Ethics and Law Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Mehrzad KIANI Department of Medical Ethics, School of Traditional Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Keywords: Nanomedicine; Nanoethics; Comparative study

Abstract

  Abstract Background: Interests in nanotechnology and its application in medical research, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases continuously grow. The study identified the theoretical and practical principles of ethics in developed countries’ nanomedical research to be used as the first step of development of a national nanoethics standard or guideline in Iran and developing countries. Methods: The present study was done between 2012-2016 in Ethics and Law Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, which comprised a literature review and a comparative study to describe and compare the nanoethics situation and considerations of nanoethics in Australia, Canada, and USA. Results: The main ethical considerations in the three countries contain two major categories, including firstly, the nature of nanoparticles such as its diversity, rapid development of new and not well-defined nanoproducts and particles and unpredictable side effects of such nanoparticles; and secondly, the application of developed nanoparticles in areas such as justice, privacy protection, patient-physician relations, etc. Conclusion: It is controversial to develop an independent nanoethics standard or codes; however, national priorities and concerns, as well as specific nanoethics considerations, should be investigated before deciding to create such standards in each country. Overall, careful considerations have to take into account the justice, privacy protection, the inherent risks of nanomaterials and their possible side effects on patients and other study subjects, as well as considering characteristics of new developed nanoproducts and particles.    

References

1. Kato K (2013). Development trend of na-nomedicines. Yakugaku Zasshi, 133(1): 43-51.
2. Le Roux R (2015). A matter of accuracy. Nanobiochips in diagnostics and in re-search: ethical issues as value trade-offs. Sci Eng Ethics, 21(2): 343-58.
3. Ying M, Chen G, Lu W (2015). Recent Ad-vances and Strategies in Tumor Vascula-tureTargeted Nano-Drug Delivery Sys-tems. Curr Pharm Des, 21(22): 3066-75.
4. Ali I, Rahis-Uddin, Salim K et al (2011). Ad-vances in nanodrugs for cancer chemo-therapy. Curr Cancer Drug Targets, 11(2):135-46.
5. Bhushan B (2017). Springer Handbook of Nano-technology. 1st ed. Springer, Berlin Heidel-berg.
6. Duncan R (2005). Nanomedicine gets clini-cal. Materials Today, 8(8): 16–17.
7. European Science Foundation (2005). ESF Scientific Forward Look on Nanomedi-cine. European Science Foundation, France. http://archives.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/Nanomedicine_01.pdf
8. Wu JM, Li ZJ (2013). Applications of nano-technology in biomedicine. Chin Sci Bull, 58(35): 4515-4518.
9. Allhoff F, Lin P, Moor JH et al (2007). Nano-ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Nanotechnology. Wiley-Interscience.
10. Jain KK (2015). Future of nanomedicine: impact on healthcare & society. Nanomedi-cine (Lond), 10(21): 3199-202.
11. Gupta N, Fischer AR, Frewer LJ (2015). Ethics, Risk and Benefits Associated with Different Applications of Nanotechnolo-gy: a Comparison of Expert and Con-sumer Perceptions of Drivers of Societal Acceptance. Nanoethics, 9(2): 93-108.
12. Allhoff F, Lin P, Moor D (2010). What Is Nanotechnology and Why Does It Matter? from science to ethics. Willey-Blackwell.
13. Bawa R, Johnson S (2009). Emerging Issues in Nanomedicine and Ethics. In Nano-technology & Society. Eds, F Allhoff and P Lin, Springer, Netherlands.
14. Iran Nanotechnology Innovation Council (INIC). History. http://en.nano.ir/page.php?id=62
15. StatNano (2018). Iran. https://statnano.com/country/iran
16. Iran Nano Safety Network (INSN). History. www.nanosafety.ir
17. National Committee of Ethics in Biomedical Research (2014). General guidelines of ethics in medical research in Islamic Re-public of Iran. Ministry of Health, Teh-ran, Iran.
18. Janoski T (1991). Synthetic Strategies in Comparative Sociological Research: Methods and Problems of Internal and External Analysis. Int J Comp Sociol, 32(1): 59-81.
19. Ludlow K (2007). More than science: ethical and socio-legal concerns in nanotechnol-ogy regulation in Australia. In: New Global Frontiers in Regulation: The Age of Nanotech-nology. Eds, GA Hodge, D Bowman, K Ludlo. Edward Elgar Publishing.
20. The Australian Nanotechnology Network (2009). Ethics and Regulation in Nano-technology Workshops, Canberra, 2006 to 2009. Available from: www.ausnano.net
21. Dana N (2004). Challenges and Opportuni-ties for Nanotechnology Policies: An Australian Perspective. Nanotechnology Law & Business, 1(4):446.
22. Bainbridge WS (2007). Nanotechnology: Societal Implications: I: Maximising Benefits for Humani-ty; II: Individual Perspectives. Springer.
23. Agar N (2004). Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement. Wily-Blackwell.
24. Naam R (2005). More than Human: Embracing the Promise of Biological Enhancement. Random House Inc., New York.
25. Hughes J (2004). Citizen Cyborg: Why Demo-cratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future. Westview Press, Cambridge.
26. Decima Research, Canada. Industry Canada (2006). Emerging Technologies Tracking Re-search. Industry Canada, Canada.
27. Have H (2007). Nanotechnologies, ethics and poli-tics. UNESCO Pub, Paris, France.
28. US-Canada RCC Nanotechnology Policy Principles for Decision-Making Concern-ing Regulation and Oversight of Nano-technology and Nanomaterials (2014). Nanoportal, Government of Canada. www.nanoportal.gc.ca
29. Report of Canadian Workshop on Multidis-ciplinary Research on Nanotechnology: Gaps, Opportunities and Priorities, Ed-monton, Alberta (2008). Canadian Insti-tutes of Health Research, Government of Canada. www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca
30. Science Policy Council (2007). Nanotechnol-ogy White Paper. EPA 100/B-17/001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. www.epa.gov/osa
31. Institute of Medicine (US) Roundtable on Environmental Health Sciences, Research, and Medicine (2005). Implications of Nanotechnology for Environmental Health Research. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, US.
32. George PS (2000). Human Rights and Biomedi-cine. Kluwer Law International, Hague, Netherlands.
33. The National Nanotechnology Initiative, US Government (n.d.). Frequently Asked Questions. www.nano.gov/nanotech-101/nanotechnology-facts
34. Frolov D, Yakovlev A (2011). Threats and Risks of Nanoindustry Development. Equilibrium, 6(2): 125-137.
35. Sheremeta L (2004). Nanotechnology and the ethical conduct of research involving human subjects. Health Law Rev, 12(3): 47-56.
36. Schummer J (2007). Identifying Ethical Is-sues of Nanotechnologies. In Nanotechnol-ogies, ethics and politics. Ed, A. Have. UNESCO Pub, Paris, France.
Published
2019-10-04
How to Cite
1.
BIROUDIAN S, ABBASI M, KIANI M. Theoretical and Practical Principles on Nanoethics: A Narrative Review Article. Iran J Public Health. 48(10):1760-1767.
Section
Review Article(s)