Designing oversight for nanomedicine research in human subjects: Systematic analysis of exceptional oversight for emerging technologies

Susan M Wolf; Cortney M. Jones

doi:10.1007/s11051-011-0237-y

Designing oversight for nanomedicine research in human subjects: Systematic analysis of exceptional oversight for emerging technologies

Susan M Wolf, Cortney M. Jones

Academics (Law)

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

14 Scopus citations

Abstract

The basic procedures and rules for oversight of U.S. human subjects research have been in place since 1981. Certain types of human subjects research, however, have provoked creation of additional mechanisms and rules beyond the Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS) Common Rule and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) equivalent. Now another emerging domain of human subjects research - nanomedicine - is prompting calls for extra oversight. However, in 30 years of overseeing research on human beings, we have yet to specify what makes a domain of scientific research warrant extra oversight. This failure to systematically evaluate the need for extra measures, the type of extra measures appropriate for different challenges, and the usefulness of those measures hampers efforts to respond appropriately to emerging science such as nanomedicine. This article evaluates the history of extra oversight, extracting lessons for oversight of nanomedicine research in human beings. We argue that a confluence of factors supports the need for extra oversight, including heightened uncertainty regarding risks, fast-evolving science yielding complex and increasingly active materials, likelihood of research on vulnerable participants including cancer patients, and potential risks to others beyond the research participant. We suggest the essential elements of the extra oversight needed.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	1449-1465
Number of pages	17
Journal	Journal of Nanoparticle Research
Volume	13
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-011-0237-y
State	Published - Apr 2011

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
Acknowledgments Preparation of this article was supported in part by National Science Foundation (NSF) grant #SES-0608791 on ‘‘NIRT: Evaluating Oversight Models for Active Nanostructures and Nanosystems: Learning from Past Technologies in a Societal Context’’ (Susan M. Wolf, PI; Efrosini Kokkoli, Jennifer Kuzma, Jordan Paradise, Gurumurthy Ramachandran, Co-PIs) and by National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) grant #1RC-1HG005338-01 on ‘‘Nanodiagnostics and Nanotherapeutics: Building Research Ethics and Oversight’’ (Susan M. Wolf, PI; Ralph Hall, Jeffrey Kahn, Jeffrey McCullough, Co-Is). All views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily the views of NSF, NIH, or NHGRI. Thanks for helpful discussion to members of the NIH-funded project who participated in discussion of exceptional oversight, including Linda Hogle, Jeff Kahn, George Khushf, Nancy King, Gary Marchant, and Andrea Mosher. Thanks also to Moira Keane for helpful comments.

Keywords

Exceptional oversight
Governance
Human subjects research
IRBs
Nanomedicine
Research oversight

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Publisher link

10.1007/s11051-011-0237-y

Find It

Find It at U of M Libraries

Cite this

@article{f4d39f252fd74657a5f26fc4d0b80928,

title = "Designing oversight for nanomedicine research in human subjects: Systematic analysis of exceptional oversight for emerging technologies",

abstract = "The basic procedures and rules for oversight of U.S. human subjects research have been in place since 1981. Certain types of human subjects research, however, have provoked creation of additional mechanisms and rules beyond the Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS) Common Rule and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) equivalent. Now another emerging domain of human subjects research - nanomedicine - is prompting calls for extra oversight. However, in 30 years of overseeing research on human beings, we have yet to specify what makes a domain of scientific research warrant extra oversight. This failure to systematically evaluate the need for extra measures, the type of extra measures appropriate for different challenges, and the usefulness of those measures hampers efforts to respond appropriately to emerging science such as nanomedicine. This article evaluates the history of extra oversight, extracting lessons for oversight of nanomedicine research in human beings. We argue that a confluence of factors supports the need for extra oversight, including heightened uncertainty regarding risks, fast-evolving science yielding complex and increasingly active materials, likelihood of research on vulnerable participants including cancer patients, and potential risks to others beyond the research participant. We suggest the essential elements of the extra oversight needed.",

keywords = "Exceptional oversight, Governance, Human subjects research, IRBs, Nanomedicine, Research oversight",

author = "Wolf, {Susan M} and Jones, {Cortney M.}",

note = "Funding Information: Acknowledgments Preparation of this article was supported in part by National Science Foundation (NSF) grant #SES-0608791 on {\textquoteleft}{\textquoteleft}NIRT: Evaluating Oversight Models for Active Nanostructures and Nanosystems: Learning from Past Technologies in a Societal Context{\textquoteright}{\textquoteright} (Susan M. Wolf, PI; Efrosini Kokkoli, Jennifer Kuzma, Jordan Paradise, Gurumurthy Ramachandran, Co-PIs) and by National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) grant #1RC-1HG005338-01 on {\textquoteleft}{\textquoteleft}Nanodiagnostics and Nanotherapeutics: Building Research Ethics and Oversight{\textquoteright}{\textquoteright} (Susan M. Wolf, PI; Ralph Hall, Jeffrey Kahn, Jeffrey McCullough, Co-Is). All views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily the views of NSF, NIH, or NHGRI. Thanks for helpful discussion to members of the NIH-funded project who participated in discussion of exceptional oversight, including Linda Hogle, Jeff Kahn, George Khushf, Nancy King, Gary Marchant, and Andrea Mosher. Thanks also to Moira Keane for helpful comments.",

year = "2011",

month = apr,

doi = "10.1007/s11051-011-0237-y",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "13",

pages = "1449--1465",

journal = "Journal of Nanoparticle Research",

issn = "1388-0764",

publisher = "Springer Netherlands",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Designing oversight for nanomedicine research in human subjects

T2 - Systematic analysis of exceptional oversight for emerging technologies

AU - Wolf, Susan M

AU - Jones, Cortney M.

N1 - Funding Information: Acknowledgments Preparation of this article was supported in part by National Science Foundation (NSF) grant #SES-0608791 on ‘‘NIRT: Evaluating Oversight Models for Active Nanostructures and Nanosystems: Learning from Past Technologies in a Societal Context’’ (Susan M. Wolf, PI; Efrosini Kokkoli, Jennifer Kuzma, Jordan Paradise, Gurumurthy Ramachandran, Co-PIs) and by National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) grant #1RC-1HG005338-01 on ‘‘Nanodiagnostics and Nanotherapeutics: Building Research Ethics and Oversight’’ (Susan M. Wolf, PI; Ralph Hall, Jeffrey Kahn, Jeffrey McCullough, Co-Is). All views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily the views of NSF, NIH, or NHGRI. Thanks for helpful discussion to members of the NIH-funded project who participated in discussion of exceptional oversight, including Linda Hogle, Jeff Kahn, George Khushf, Nancy King, Gary Marchant, and Andrea Mosher. Thanks also to Moira Keane for helpful comments.

PY - 2011/4

Y1 - 2011/4

N2 - The basic procedures and rules for oversight of U.S. human subjects research have been in place since 1981. Certain types of human subjects research, however, have provoked creation of additional mechanisms and rules beyond the Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS) Common Rule and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) equivalent. Now another emerging domain of human subjects research - nanomedicine - is prompting calls for extra oversight. However, in 30 years of overseeing research on human beings, we have yet to specify what makes a domain of scientific research warrant extra oversight. This failure to systematically evaluate the need for extra measures, the type of extra measures appropriate for different challenges, and the usefulness of those measures hampers efforts to respond appropriately to emerging science such as nanomedicine. This article evaluates the history of extra oversight, extracting lessons for oversight of nanomedicine research in human beings. We argue that a confluence of factors supports the need for extra oversight, including heightened uncertainty regarding risks, fast-evolving science yielding complex and increasingly active materials, likelihood of research on vulnerable participants including cancer patients, and potential risks to others beyond the research participant. We suggest the essential elements of the extra oversight needed.

AB - The basic procedures and rules for oversight of U.S. human subjects research have been in place since 1981. Certain types of human subjects research, however, have provoked creation of additional mechanisms and rules beyond the Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS) Common Rule and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) equivalent. Now another emerging domain of human subjects research - nanomedicine - is prompting calls for extra oversight. However, in 30 years of overseeing research on human beings, we have yet to specify what makes a domain of scientific research warrant extra oversight. This failure to systematically evaluate the need for extra measures, the type of extra measures appropriate for different challenges, and the usefulness of those measures hampers efforts to respond appropriately to emerging science such as nanomedicine. This article evaluates the history of extra oversight, extracting lessons for oversight of nanomedicine research in human beings. We argue that a confluence of factors supports the need for extra oversight, including heightened uncertainty regarding risks, fast-evolving science yielding complex and increasingly active materials, likelihood of research on vulnerable participants including cancer patients, and potential risks to others beyond the research participant. We suggest the essential elements of the extra oversight needed.

KW - Exceptional oversight

KW - Governance

KW - Human subjects research

KW - IRBs

KW - Nanomedicine

KW - Research oversight

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79956116537&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79956116537&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11051-011-0237-y

DO - 10.1007/s11051-011-0237-y

M3 - Review article

C2 - 23226969

AN - SCOPUS:79956116537

SN - 1388-0764

VL - 13

SP - 1449

EP - 1465

JO - Journal of Nanoparticle Research

JF - Journal of Nanoparticle Research

IS - 4

ER -

Designing oversight for nanomedicine research in human subjects: Systematic analysis of exceptional oversight for emerging technologies

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

UN SDGs

Publisher link

Find It

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this