Addressing conflicts of interest in nanotechnology oversight: lessons learned from drug and pesticide safety testing

Discussion

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allowing conflicts of interest to influence toxicity tests, and it has the potential to commit regulatory agencies to outdated procedures.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.

Keywords

Ethics Societal dimensions of nanotechnology ELSI 

References

  1. 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
  2. Bekelman J, Lee Y, Gross C (2003) Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research. J Am Med Assoc 289:454–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Calow P, Forbes VE (2003) Does ecotoxicology inform ecological risk assessment? Environ Sci Technol 37:146A–151ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chapman PF, Crane M, Wiles J, Noppert F, McIndoe E (1996) Improving the quality of statistics in regulatory ecotoxicity tests. Ecotoxicology 5:169–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Elliott C (2004) Pharma goes to the laundry: public relations and the business of medical education. Hastings Center Report 34:18–23Google Scholar
  6. Elliott KC (2011) Is a little pollution good for you? Incorporating societal values in environmental research. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Isnard P, Flammarion P, Roman G, Babut M, Bastien Ph, Bintein S, Essermeant L et al (2001) Statistical analysis of regulatory ecotoxicity tests. Chemosphere 45:659–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Krimsky S (2003) Science in the private interest. Rowman and Littlefield, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  9. Kuzma J, Besley JC (2008) Ethics of risk analysis and regulatory review: from bio- to nanotechnology. Nanoethics 2:149–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McGarity T, Wagner W (2008) Bending science: how special interests corrupt public health research. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. McHenry L, Jureidini J (2008) Industry-sponsored ghostwriting in clinical trial reporting: a case study. Account Res 15:152–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Moffatt B, Elliott C (2007) Ghost marketing: pharmaceutical companies and ghostwritten journal articles. Persp Biol Med 50:18–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 117:309–315Google Scholar
  14. National Research Council (NRC) (2007) Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a vision and a strategy. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  15. Paustenbach DJ (2009) Human and ecological risk assessment. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 13:1345–1371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shrader-Frechette K (2007) Nanotoxicology and ethical considerations for informed consent. Nanoethics 1:47–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, USC NanoCenterUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Arnold School of Public HealthUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations