Skip to main content

Ethics Research Committees in Reviewing Nanotechnology Clinical Trials Protocols

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Responsibility in Nanotechnology Development

Part of the book series: The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology ((ELTE,volume 13))

  • 603 Accesses

Abstract

As we know, social developments depend mostly on scientific and technological progress. In the context of nanotechnology, nano-products and nanomaterials offer new possibilities because of their characteristics that can really contribute to making clinical trials faster and more accurate. At this time, in the United States, a search for the term ‘nanoparticles’ retrieves 153 studies, while a search for the prefix “nano” retrieves 56 clinical trials. Some of these studies are ongoing and others are just showing first results (Davis ME, Zuckerman JE, Choi CH et al., Nature 464:1067–1070, 2010) like the FDA approval of a nano-based drug in 2005. In Italy, for example, a phase II study has been taking place since Dec. 1, 2010. It is a single blinded randomized and controlled versus placebo employing a nano antibody for the study of the efficacy, and dose response for a rare disease (Osservatorio Nazionale sulla Sperimentazione Clinica dei medicinali National Report N. 8, 2009). There are incertitudes and complexities involving applications of nanotechnologies, in particular in clinical trials, but the Ethics Research Committees for human experimentation play a key, decisive role because they are the public guarantor of the respect of the rights and the welfare of subjects, while they contribute to more knowledge about human health in clinical trials. In particular, the Ethics Research Committees (ERCs) must verify that the chosen methodologies are the most suitable to the aims of the protocol, the risk to be assessed in terms of probability, magnitude and duration, to verify the identification, in the protocol, of all those elements that may influence that risk. All this is bearing in mind that nanotechnologies show different risks and toxicity and that information on them may not be very clear.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
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

  • Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) Osservatorio Nazionale per la sperimentazione clinica dei medicinali National Report N. 8, 2009. http://oss-sper-clin.agenziafarmaco.it/index_ingl.htm. Accessed 11 Feb 2012.

  • Allhoff, F. 2009. The coming era of nanomedicine. The American Journal of Bioethics 9(10): 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bawa, R., and S. Johnson. 2008. Emerging issues in nanomedicine and ethics. In Nanoethics: Emerging debates, ed. F. Allhoff and P. Lin, 207–223. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borm, P.J., and D. Müller-Schulte. 2006. Nanoparticles in drug delivery and environmental exposure: Same size, same risks? Nanomedicine 1(2): 235–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borm, P.J., D. Robbins, S. Haubold, et al. 2006. The potential risks of nanomaterials: A review carried out for ECETOC. Particle and Fibre Toxicology 3(1): 11–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ClinicalTrials.gov. n.d. U.S. National Institutes of Health. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=nano+and+clinical+trials. Accessed 11 Jan 2012.

  • Davis, M.E., J.E. Zuckerman, C.H. Choi, et al. 2010. Evidence of RNAi in humans from systematically administered siRNA via targeted nanoparticles. Nature 464: 1067–1070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 1991. Good clinical trials on medicinal products in the European community, Directive 91/507/EC 19 July. ev-lex.evzopa.ev.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Medicines Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA). 1996/2002. Note for guidance on good clinical practice – CPMP/ICH/135/95. http://www.edctp.org/fileadmin/documents/EMEA_ICH-GCP_Guidelines_July_ 2002.pdf. Accessed 6 June 2014.

  • Foster, C. 1998. Research ethics committees. In Encyclopedia of applied ethics, ed. R. Chadwich, 845–852. London: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordijn, B. 2005. Nanoethics: From utopian dreams and apocalyptic nightmares towards more balanced view. Science and Engineering Ethics 11(4): 521–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gwinn, M.R., and V. Vallyathan. 2006. Nanoparticles: Health effects – Pros and cons. Environmental Health Perspectives 114(12): 1818–1825.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoet, P.H., I. Brüske-Hohlfeld, and O.V. Salata. 2004. Nanoparticles – Known and unknown health risks. Journal of Nanobiotechnology 2(1). http://www.jnanobiotechnology.com/content/2/1/12. Accessed 20 Oct 2012.

  • Hoshino, A., K. Fujioka, T. Oku, et al. 2004. Physicochemical properties and cellular toxicity of nanocrystal quantum dots depend on their surface modification. Nano Letters 4(11): 2163–2169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International conference on harmonisation of technical requirements for regulation of pharmaceuticals for human use 1996. Tripartite guidelines for good clinical practice. Geneva: International federation of Pharmaceutical manufacturers Association. http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E6_R1/Step4/E6_R1__Guideline.pdf. Accessed 24 Jun 2014.

  • Institutional Review Board (IRB). 2005. Criteria for IRB approval of research, 45CFR46.111. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html#46.111. Accessed 11 Mar 2012.

  • Kipen, H.M., and D.L. Laskin. 2005. Smaller is not always better: Nanotechnology yields nanotoxicology. American Physiological Society American Journal of Physiology – Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology 289(5): L696–L697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, C.W., J.T. James, R. McCluskey, and R.L. Hunter. 2004. Pulmonary toxicity of single-wall carbon nanotubes in mice 7 and 90 days after intratracheal instillation. Toxicological Sciences 77(1): 126–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchant, G.E., and R.A. Lindor. 2012. Prudent precaution in clinical trials of nanomedicine. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 40(Winter): 831–840.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGinn, R.E. 2010. What’s different, ethically, about nanotechnology? Foundational questions and answers. Nanoethics 4(2): 115–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Migliore, L., D. Saracino, A. Bonelli, et al. 2010. Carbon nanotubes induce oxidative DNA damage in RAW 264.7 cells. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis 5(4): 294–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moor, J., and J. Weckert. 2004. Nanoethics: Assessing the nanoscale from an ethical point of view. In Discovering the nanoscale, ed. D. Baird, A. Nordmann, and J. Schummer, 301–310. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NIOSH - National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. 2005. Second international symposium on nanotechnology and occupational health, Minneapolis, MN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberdörster, G. 2001. Pulmonary effects of inhaled ultrafine particles. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 74(1): 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberdörster, G., E. Oberdörster, and J. Oberdörster. 2005a. Nanotoxicology: An emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environmental Health Perspectives 113(7): 823–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberdörster, G., A. Maynard, K. Donaldson, et al. 2005b. Principles for characterizing the potential human health effects from exposure to nanomaterials: Elements of a screening strategy. Particle and Fibre Toxicology 2(1): 8–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D.B., and S.S. Tinkle. 2007. Ethical issues in clinical trials involving nanomedicine. Contemporary Clinical Trials 28(4): 433–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, R. 2009. Nanomedicine and nanomedical ethics. The American Journal of Bioethics 9(10): 16–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (Scenhir). 2005. Opinion on the appropriateness of existing methodologies to assess the potential risks associated with engineered and adventitious products of nanotechnologies. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shvedova, A.A., V. Castranova, E.R. Kisin, et al. 2003. Exposure to carbon nanotube material: Assessment of nanotube cytotoxicity using human keratinocyte cells. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Sciences 66(20): 1909–1926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spagnolo, A.G. 2004. Ethics research committees: Procedures and quality of ethical review. In Ethics of biomedical research, ed. J. Vial Correa and E. Sgreccia, 234–257. Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spagnolo, A.G., and V. Daloiso. 2009. Outlining ethical issues in nanotechnologies. Bioethics 23(7): 394–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The European Group of Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE). 2007. Opinion n° 21 on the ethical aspects of nanomedicine. http://www.ec.europa.eu/European_group_ethics/activities/docs/opinion_21_nano_en.pdf. Accessed 11 Mar 2012.

  • Whareit, D.B., B.R. Laurence, K.L. Reed, et al. 2003. Comparative pulmonary toxicity Assessment of single-wall carbon nanotubes in rats. Toxicological Sciences 77(1): 117–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization (WHO). 2000. Operational guidelines for ethics committees that review biomedical research. Geneva: WHO.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Medial Association (WMA). Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects, p. 75. www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Viviana Daloiso .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Daloiso, V., Spagnolo, A.G. (2014). Ethics Research Committees in Reviewing Nanotechnology Clinical Trials Protocols. In: Arnaldi, S., Ferrari, A., Magaudda, P., Marin, F. (eds) Responsibility in Nanotechnology Development. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, vol 13. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9103-8_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics