Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring Societal Impact of Nanomedicine Using Public Value Mapping

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Nanotechnology and the Challenges of Equity, Equality and Development

Part of the book series: Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society ((YNTS,volume 2))

Abstract

Scholars looking to promote the idea that public values, like equity, should guide scientific research often run into a tricky problem: who decides which values are most important? It can be a bit presumptuous for individual scholars to claim that they know what is best for the world and which values should be pursued. One recent technique developed to deal with this dilemma is Public Value Mapping or PVM. The basic idea behind PVM is that while deciding which values should be pursued by scientific institutions can open a can of worms in regards to representation and ethics, at the very least institutions should be held accountable for the values they public claim they are pursuing.

Originally presented at the Workshop on Nanotechnology, Equity, and Equality at Arizona State University on November 21, 2008.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Agres, T. 2004. Opportunity awaits small thinkers. Drug Discovery and Development 7 (2): 15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M.M. 2006. Summer conference. Embryonic innovation: Path creation in nanotechnology. Paper presented at the DRUID Conference on Knowledge, Innovation and Competitiveness; Dynamics of Firms, Networks, Regions and Institutions, Copenhagen, Denmark.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bainbridge, W.S. 2004. Sociocultural meanings of nanotechnology: Research methodologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 6: 285–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Best, R., and G. Khushf. 2006. The social conditions for nanomedicine: Disruption, systems, and lock-in. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34 (4): 733–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B. 2003. Public value mapping of science outcomes: Theory and method. In Knowledge flows and knowledge collectives: Understanding the role of science and technology policies in development, ed. Daniel Sarewitz, 3–48. Center for Science, Policy and Outcomes. Vol 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B. 2007. Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic individualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., and M. Gaughan. 2002. Public value mapping: The case of breast cancer research. New York, NY: Center for Science, Policy and Outcomes—Report to the Rockefeller Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., P. Laredo, and V. Mangematin. 2007. Understanding the emergence and deployment of ‘nano’ SandT: Introduction. Research Policy 36 (6): 807–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., and D. Sarewitz. 2005. Public values and public failure in US science policy. Science and Public Policy 32 (2): 119–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, D.W., M. Jones, D. Buchanan, and J. Russo. 2006. Reducing cancer disparities for minorities: A multidisciplinary research agenda to improve patient access to health systems, clinical trials, and effective cancer therapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology 24 (14): 2209–2215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cicatiello, J.S. 2000. A perspective of health care in the past: Insights and challenges for a health care system in the new millennium. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 25 (1): 18–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colon-Otero, G., R.C. Smallridge, L.A. Solberg Jr., T.D. Keith, T.A. Woodward, F. B. Willis, et al. 2008. Disparities in participation in cancer clinical trials in the United States. Cancer 112 (3): 447–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Melo-Martin, I. 2009. Creating reflective Spaces: Interactions between philosophers and biomedical scientists. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 52 (1): 39–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerich, D.F., and C.G. Thanos. 2003. Nanotechnology and medicine. Expert Opinion On Biological Therapy 3 (4): 655–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faunce, T., and K. Shats. 2007. Researching safety and cost-effectiveness in the life cycle of nanomedicine. Journal Of Law And Medicine 15 (1): 128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feeney, M.K., and B. Bozeman. 2007. Public values and public failure. Public Integrity 9 (2): 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, E., and R.L. Mahajan. 2006. Contradictory intent? US federal legislation on integrating societal concerns into nanotechnology research and development. Science and Public Policy 33: 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, E., C. Selin., and J. Wetmore, eds. 2008. The yearbook of nanotechnology in society, Vol. 1: Presenting Futures. New York, NY: Springer Science and Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, J.G., M.W. Howerton, G.Y. Lai, T.L. Gary, S. Bolen, M.C. Gibbons, et al. 2008. Barriers to recruiting underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials: A systematic review. Cancer 112 (2): 228–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garber, M., and R. Arnold. 2006. Promoting the participation of minorities in research. American Journal of Bioethics 6 (3): W14–W20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Getz, K., and L. Faden. 2008. Racial disparities among clinical research investigators. American Journal of Therapeutics 15 (1): 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goorden, L., M. Van Oudheusden, J. Evers, and M. Deblonde. 2008. Nanotechnologies for tomorrow’s society: A case for reflective action research in Flanders, Belgium, In The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Vol. 1: Presenting Futures, ed. E. Fisher, C. Selin, and J. Wetmore. New York, NY: Springer Science and Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A. 2002. Ensuring ‘safe use’ of biotechnology in India: Key challenges. Economic and Political Weekly 6: 2762–2769.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D.H. 2000. Between politics and science: Assuring the integrity and productivity of research. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D.H. 2008. Innovation policy: Not just a jumbo shrimp. Nature 454 (7207): 940–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D.H., and Sarewitz, D. 2002. Real-time technology Assessment. Technology in Society 24: 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healthy People 2010 and United States Department of Health and Human Services. 2000. Healthy people 2010: Understanding and improving health. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, J.R., and M.E. Davis. 2008. Nanotechnology and cancer. Annual Review of Medicine 59: 251–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hede, S., and N. Huilgol. 2006. ‘Nano’: The new nemesis of cancer. Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics 2 (4): 186–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, K.L. 2008. Moving research from bench to bedside to community: There is still more to do. Journal of Clinical Oncology 26 (4): 523–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky, eds. 2000. Choices, values and frames. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenk, C., and N. Biller-Andorno. 2007. Nanomedicine-emerging or re-emerging ethical issues? A discussion of four ethical themes. Medicine, Health Care, And Philosophy 10 (2): 173–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, J.A., V.W. Chang, S.A. Ibrahim, and D.A. Asch. 2004. Update on the health disparities literature. Annals of Internal Medicine 141: 805–812.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehta, M.D. 2004. The future of nanomedicine looks promising, but only if we learn from the past. Health Law Review 13: 16–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murashov, V., and J. Howard. 2008. The U.S. must help set international standards for nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology 3: 635–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murthy, V.H., H.M. Krumholz, and C.P. Gross. 2004. Participation in cancer clinical trials: Race-, sex-, and age-based disparities. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 291 (22): 2720–2726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Cancer Institute. 2006. The NCI strategic plan for leading the nation to eliminate the suffering and death due to cancer (No. NIH Publication No. 06-5773). Bethesda, MD: Department of Health and Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science and Technology Council. 2008. The science of science policy: A federal research roadmap. Report on the Science of Science Policy to the National Science and Technology Council, Office of Science and Technology Policy. November.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. 2000. The sources of economic growth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, B., and D. Noonan. 2007. Ecology and valuation: Big changes needed. Ecological Economics 63 (4) 664–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinto, H.A., W. McCaskill-Stevens, P. Wolfe, and A.C. Marcus. 2000. Physician perspectives on increasing minorities in cancer clinical trials: An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) initiative. Annals of Epidemiology, 10 (8 Suppl): S78–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D.B., and S.S. Tinkle. 2007. Ethical issues in clinical trials involving nanomedicine. Contemporary Clinical Trials 28: 433–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roco, M.C., and W.S. Bainbridge. 2005. Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology: Maximizing human benefit. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 7, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romig Jr, A.D., A.B. Baker, J. Johannes, T. Zipperian, K. Eijkel, B. Kirchhoff, H.S. Mani, C.N.R. Rao, and S. Walsh. 2007. An introduction to nanotechnology policy: Opportunities and constraints for emerging and established economies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74: 1634–1642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, D., and E. Woodhouse. 2003. Small is powerful. In Living with the genie: Essays on technology and the quest for human mastery, ed. A.P. Lightman, D.R. Sarewitz, and C. Desser, 307–336. Washington, DC: Island.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele, D.A., E.A. Corley, T. Shih, K. Dallrymple, and S. Ho. 2009. Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the U.S. Nature Nanotechnology 4 (2): 91–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele, D.A. and B.V. Lewenstein. 2005. The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 7:651–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slade, C. Forthcoming. Public value mapping of equity in emerging nanomedicine. Minerva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparrow, R. 2009. The social implications of nanotechnology: An ethical and political analysis, Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (1): 13–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, G.M., and A.J. Ward. 1995. Recruiting minorities into clinical trials toward a participant-friendly system. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 87: 1747–1759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wonglimpiyarat, J. 2005. The nano-revolution of Schumpeter’s Kondratieff cycle. Technovation 25: 1349–1354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yancy, C.W. 2008. Race-based therapeutics. Current Hypertension Reports 10: 276–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes, Tempe, USA

    Catherine P. Slade

  2. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Catherine P. Slade

Authors
  1. Catherine P. Slade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine P. Slade .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Oak Brooke Way 1147, Atlanta, 30319, USA

    Susan E. Cozzens

  2. Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA

    Jameson Wetmore

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Slade, C.P. (2010). Exploring Societal Impact of Nanomedicine Using Public Value Mapping. In: Cozzens, S., Wetmore, J. (eds) Nanotechnology and the Challenges of Equity, Equality and Development. Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9615-9_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation