, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp 71–86 | Cite as

Public Value Mapping of Equity in Emerging Nanomedicine



Public values failure occurs when the market and the public sector fail to provide goods and services required to achieve the core values of society such as equity (Bozeman 2007). That public policy for emerging health technologies should address intrinsic societal values such as equity is not a novel concept. However, the ways that the public values discourse of stakeholders is structured is less clear and rarely studied through the lens of public interests. This is especially true in the health sciences discourse. Using the public value mapping (PVM) model I present a case study of the intrinsic value of equity in nanomedicine for cancer and the imperatives for translational research, an instrumental value to achieve equity. After reviewing and coding nearly 700 value statements from several hundred public documents, I find that that the discourse on values varies between documents that address basic research and documents that address the application of the knowledge produced in basic research, with some especially notable disconnections. This paper demonstrates the importance of further refinement of methods for testing the PVM framework if the societal goal is to improve consistency of the public value discussion by those involved in developing and applying new technologies. The paper also demonstrates the value of a PVM approach for complex science policy analysis, especially for emerging technologies like nanomedicine.


Public values Science and society Nanotechnology Health care disparities 


  1. Agrawal, Sangeeta, Anand Bupinderinderjit, Manjoop Bhutani et al. 2005. Colorectal cancer in African Americans. The American Journal of Gastroenterology 100: 515–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Best, Robert, and George Khushf. 2006. The social conditions for nanomedicine: Disruption, systems, and lock-in. Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics 34(4): 733–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Betancourt, Joseph, Alexander Green, J. Emilio Carrillo et al. 2005. Cultural competence and health care disparities: Key perspectives and trends. Health Affairs 24(2): 499–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bland, Kirby I. 2007. Concerning trends and outcomes for National Institutes of Health funding of cancer research. Journal of Surgical Oncology 95(2): 161–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bozeman, Barry. 2002. Public value failure: When efficient markets may not do. Public Administration Review 62(2): 145–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bozeman, Barry. 2007. Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic individualism. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bozeman, Barry, and Juan Rogers. 2002. A churn model of scientific knowledge value: Internet researchers as a knowledge value collective. Research Policy 31(5): 769–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bozeman, Barry, and Daniel Sarewitz. 2005. Public values and public failure in US science policy. Science & Public Policy 32(2): 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bruner, Deborah, Michele Jones, David Buchanan, and Jose 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Colon-Otero, Gerado, Robert Smallridge, Lawrence Solberg et al. 2008. Disparities in participation in cancer clinical trials in the United States. Cancer 112(3): 447–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 1985. Report of the secretary’s task force on black and minority health. October 16, 1985. Washington, D.C.: Health Information Clearing House.Google Scholar
  12. De Melo-Martin, Immaculada. 2009. Creating reflective spaces: Interactions between philosophers and biomedical scientists. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 52(1): 39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eng, Thomas. 2005. Emerging technologies for cancer prevention and other population health challenges. Journal of Medical Internet Research. doi:10.2196/jmir.7.3.e30.
  14. Feeney, Mary Katherine, and Barry Bozeman. 2007. Public values and public failure. Public Integrity 9(2): 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ford, Jean, Mollie Howerton, Gabriel Lai et al. 2008. Barriers to recruiting underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials: A systematic review. Cancer 112(2): 228–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garber, Alan, and Robert Arnold. 2006. Promoting the participation of minorities in research. American Journal of Bioethics 6(3): W14–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gulbrandsen, Magnus, and Liv Langfeldt. 2004. In search of ‘Mode 2’: The nature of knowledge production in Norway. Minerva 42(3): 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guston, David H., and Kenneth Keniston. 1994. The fragile contract: University science and the federal government. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Healthy People 2010 and United States Department of Health and Human Services. 2010. Healthy people 2010: Understanding and improving health. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  20. Heath, James, and Mark Davis. 2008. Nanotechnology and cancer. Annual Review of Medicine 59: 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hede, Shantesh, and Nagraj Huilgol. 2006. Nano: The new nemesis of cancer. Journal of Cancer Research & Therapeutics 2(4): 186–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Helmuth, Laura. 2000. Biomedical policy: NIH, under pressure, boosts minority health research. Science 288(5466): 596–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jorgensen, Torben, and Barry Bozeman. 2007. Public values: An inventory. Administration and Society 39: 354–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kahn, Katherine. 2008. Moving research from bench to bedside to community: There is still more to do. Journal of Clinical Oncology 26(4): 523–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Long, Judith A., Virginia W. Chang, Said A. Ibrahim, and David A. Asch. 2004. Update on the health disparities literature. Annals of Internal Medicine 141: 805–812.Google Scholar
  26. Murthy, Vivek, Harlan Krumholz, and Cary P. Gross. 2004. Participation in cancer clinical trials: Race sex and age-based disparities. Journal of the American Medical Association 291(22): 2720–2726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. National Cancer Institute (NCI). 2006. The NCI Strategic Plan for leading the nation to eliminate the suffering and death due to cancer (No. NIH Publication No. 06-5773): Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  28. Pielke, Roger, Jr., and Radford Byerly. 1998. Beyond basic and applied. Physics Today 51(2): 42–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pinto, Harlan, Worta McCaskill-Stevens, Pam Wolfe, and Alfred 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–S84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Resnik, David B., and Sally S. Tinkle. 2007. Ethical issues in clinical trials involving nanomedicine. Contemporary Clinical Trials 28: 433–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Romig, Alton D., Arnold Baker, Justine Thomas et al. 2007. An introduction to nanotechnology policy: Opportunities and constraints for emerging and established economies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74(9): 1634–1642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sandler, Ronald, and Christopher J. Bosso. 2007. Tiny technology, enormous implications. Issues in Science & Technology 23: 28–36.Google Scholar
  33. Sandler, Ronald, and William D. Kay. 2006. The national nanotechnology initiative and the social good. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 34: 675–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Slade, Catherine P. 2009. Equity Issues Facing Nanotechnology in Cancer Treatment: A Public Value Mapping Case Study. Unpublished: A Case Study for NSF Grant Award 0738203. Consortium for Science Policy & Outcomes, Arizona State University.Google Scholar
  35. Smedley, Brian D., Adrienne Y. Stith, Alan R. Nelson, and The Institute of Medicine Committee on Understanding, Eliminating Racial, Ethnic Disparities in Health Care (eds.). 2003. Unequal treatment: Confronting racial and ethnic disparities in health care. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  36. Swanson, C. Marie, and Amy J. Ward. 1995. Recruiting minorities into clinical trials toward a participant-friendly system. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 87: 1747–1759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stokes, Donald E. 1997. Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  38. Sung, Nancy, William F. Crowley, Myron Genel et al. 2003. Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise. Journal of the American Medical Association 289(10): 1278–1287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Weingart, Peter. 1997. From “Finalization” to “Mode 2”: Old wine in new bottles? Social Science Information 36(4): 591–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Woodhouse, Edward, and Daniel Sarewitz. 2007. Science Policies for Reducing Societal Inequities. Science and Public Policy 34(2): 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yancy, Clyde W. 2008. Race-based therapeutics. Current Hypertension Reports 10(4): 276–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zerhouni, Elias A. 2005. US Biomedical Research: Basic, Translational, and Clinical Sciences. JAMA 294(11): 1352–1358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hull College of BusinessAugusta State UniversityAugustaGeorgia

Personalised recommendations