Abstract
Financial conflicts of interest raise significant challenges for those working to develop an effective, transparent, and trustworthy oversight system for assessing and managing the potential human health and ecological hazards of nanotechnology. A recent paper in this journal by Ramachandran et al., J Nanopart Res, 13:1345–1371 (2011) proposed a two-pronged approach for addressing conflicts of interest: (1) developing standardized protocols and procedures to guide safety testing; and (2) vetting safety data under a coordinating agency. Based on past experiences with standardized test guidelines developed by the international Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and implemented by national regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA), we argue that this approach still runs the risk of allowing conflicts of interest to influence toxicity tests, and it has the potential to commit regulatory agencies to outdated procedures. We suggest an alternative approach that further distances the design and interpretation of safety studies from those funding the research. In case the two-pronged approach is regarded as a more politically feasible solution, we also suggest three lessons for implementing this strategy in a more dynamic and effective manner.
References
American Public Health Association (APHA) (2003) Supporting legislation for independent post-marketing phase IV comparative evaluation of pharmaceuticals. APHA, Washington, DC. http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1265. Accessed 8 Nov 2011
Bekelman J, Lee Y, Gross C (2003) Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research. J Am Med Assoc 289:454–465
Calow P, Forbes VE (2003) Does ecotoxicology inform ecological risk assessment? Environ Sci Technol 37:146A–151A
Chapman PF, Crane M, Wiles J, Noppert F, McIndoe E (1996) Improving the quality of statistics in regulatory ecotoxicity tests. Ecotoxicology 5:169–186
Elliott C (2004) Pharma goes to the laundry: public relations and the business of medical education. Hastings Center Report 34:18–23
Elliott KC (2011) Is a little pollution good for you? Incorporating societal values in environmental research. Oxford University Press, New York
Isnard P, Flammarion P, Roman G, Babut M, Bastien Ph, Bintein S, Essermeant L et al (2001) Statistical analysis of regulatory ecotoxicity tests. Chemosphere 45:659–669
Krimsky S (2003) Science in the private interest. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham
Kuzma J, Besley JC (2008) Ethics of risk analysis and regulatory review: from bio- to nanotechnology. Nanoethics 2:149–162
McGarity T, Wagner W (2008) Bending science: how special interests corrupt public health research. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
McHenry L, Jureidini J (2008) Industry-sponsored ghostwriting in clinical trial reporting: a case study. Account Res 15:152–167
Moffatt B, Elliott C (2007) Ghost marketing: pharmaceutical companies and ghostwritten journal articles. Persp Biol Med 50:18–31
Myers J, vom Saal F, Akingbemi B, Arizono K, Belcher S, Colborn T, Chahoud I et al (2009) Why public health agencies cannot depend on good laboratory practices as a criterion for selecting data: the case of bisphenol a. Env Health Persp 117:309–315
National Research Council (NRC) (2007) Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a vision and a strategy. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
Paustenbach DJ (2009) Human and ecological risk assessment. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York
Ramachandran G, Wolf SM, Paradise J, Kuzma J, Hall R, Kokkoli E, Fatehi L (2011) Recommendations for oversight of nanobiotechnology: dynamic oversight for complex and convergent technology. J Nanopart Res 13:1345–1371
Shrader-Frechette K (2007) Nanotoxicology and ethical considerations for informed consent. Nanoethics 1:47–56
Acknowledgment
KCE acknowledges support of the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0809470.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Elliott, K.C., Volz, D.C. Addressing conflicts of interest in nanotechnology oversight: lessons learned from drug and pesticide safety testing. J Nanopart Res 14, 664 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-011-0664-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-011-0664-9