Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Defining Nano, Nanotechnology and Nanomedicine: Why Should It Matter?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nanotechnology, which involves manipulation of matter on a ‘nano’ scale, is considered to be a key enabling technology. Medical applications of nanotechnology (commonly known as nanomedicine) are expected to significantly improve disease diagnostic and therapeutic modalities and subsequently reduce health care costs. However, there is no consensus on the definition of nanotechnology or nanomedicine, and this stems from the underlying debate on defining ‘nano’. This paper aims to present the diversity in the definition of nanomedicine and its impact on the translation of basic science research in nanotechnology into clinical applications. We present the insights obtained from exploratory qualitative interviews with 46 stakeholders involved in translational nanomedicine from Europe and North America. The definition of nanomedicine has implications for many aspects of translational research including: fund allocation, patents, drug regulatory review processes and approvals, ethical review processes, clinical trials and public acceptance. Given the interdisciplinary nature of the field and common interest in developing effective clinical applications, it is important to have honest and transparent communication about nanomedicine, its benefits and potential harm. A clear and consistent definition of nanomedicine would significantly facilitate trust among various stakeholders including the general public while minimizing the risk of miscommunication and undue fear of nanotechnology and nanomedicine.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. A., & Kimmelman, J. (2014). Are phase 1 trials therapeutic? Risk, ethics, and division of labor. Bioethics, 28(3), 138–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bawa, R. (2007). Patents and nanomedicine. Nanomedicine, 2(3), 351–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bawa, R., Bawa, S., Maebius, S. B., Flynn, T., & Wei, C. (2005). Protecting new ideas and inventions in nanomedicine with patents. Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine, 1(2), 150–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, G. A. (2008). Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: A research note. Qualitative research, 8(1), 137–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bremer-Hoffmann, S., Amenta, V., & Rossi, F. (2015). Nanomedicines in the European translational process. European Journal of Nanomedicine, 7(3), 191–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cacciatore, M. A. (2014). Public engagement: The benefits of communicating. Nature Nanotechnology, 9(10), 749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cormick, C. (2009). Piecing together the elephant: Public engagement on nanotechnology challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(4), 439–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cormick, C. (2012). The complexity of public engagement. Nature Nanotechnology, 7(2), 77–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cormick, C., & Hunter, S. (2014). Valuing values: Better public engagement on nanotechnology demands a better understanding of the diversity of publics. NanoEthics, 8(1), 57–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devers, K. J., & Frenkel, R. M. (2000). Study design in qualitative research—2: Sampling and data collection strategies. Education for health, 13(2), 263–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dresser, R. (2012). Building an ethical foundation for first-in-human nanotrials. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 40(4), 802–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drexler, K. E. (2004). Nanotechnology: From Feynman to funding. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 24(1), 21–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R., & Gaspar, R. (2011). Nanomedicine (s) under the microscope. Molecular Pharmaceutics, 8(6), 2101–2141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eaton, M. (2012). Improving the translation in Europe of nanomedicines (aka drug delivery) from academia to industry. Journal of Controlled Release, 164(3), 370–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eaton, M., Levy, L., & Fontaine, O. M. (2015). Delivering nanomedicines to patients: A practical guide. Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine, 11(4), 983–992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etheridge, M. L., Campbell, S. A., Erdman, A. G., Haynes, C. L., Wolf, S. M., & McCullough, J. (2013). The big picture on nanomedicine: The state of investigational and approved nanomedicine products. Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine, 9(1), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Science Foundation. (2004). Nanomedicine—An ESF-European Medical Research Councils (EMRC) forward look report. Strasbourg Cedex, France.

  • European Technology Platform on NanoMedicine—Nanotechnology for Health. (2005). Vision paper and basis for a strategic research agenda for NanoMedicine. Luxembourg.

  • Ferrari, M., Philibert, M., & Sanhai, W. (2009). Nanomedicine and society. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 85(5), 466–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogle, L. F. (2012). Concepts of risk in nanomedicine research. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 40(4), 809–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hug, K., & Hermerén, G. (2011). Which patient groups should be asked to participate in first-in-human trials of stem-cell-based therapies? The Journal of clinical ethics, 23(3), 256–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenen, R., Arden-Jones, A., & Eeles, R. (2004). Healthy women from suspected hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families: The significant others in their lives. European Journal of Cancer Care, 13(2), 169–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimmelman, J., & John London, A. (2011). Predicting harms and benefits in translational trials: Ethics, evidence, and uncertainty. PLoS Medicine, 8(3), 355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, N. M. (2012). Nanomedicine first-in-human research: Challenges for informed consent. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 40(4), 823–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kola, I., & Landis, J. (2004). Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 3(8), 711–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostarelos, K. (2006). The emergence of nanomedicine: A field in the making. Future Medicine, 1(1), 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krabbenborg, L., & Mulder, H. A. (2015). Upstream public engagement in nanotechnology constraints and opportunities. Science Communication, 1075547015588601.

  • Lammers, T., Aime, S., Hennink, W. E., Storm, G., & Kiessling, F. (2011). Theranostic nanomedicine. Accounts of Chemical Research, 44(10), 1029–1038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenk, C., & Biller-Andorno, N. (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 

  • Master, Z., & Resnik, D. B. (2013). Hype and public trust in science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(2), 321–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McComas, K. A. (2012). Researcher views about funding sources and conflicts of interest in nanotechnology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(4), 699–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Science and Technology Council. (2014). National nanotechnology initiative strategic plan. http://www.nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/2014_nni_strategic_plan.pdf. Accessed 13 Sep 2015.

  • Niemansburg, S. L., Van Delden, J. J., Dhert, W. J., & Bredenoord, A. L. (2013). Regenerative medicine interventions for orthopedic disorders: Ethical issues in the translation into patients. Regenerative Medicine, 8(1), 65–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paull, R., Wolfe, J., Hébert, P., & Sinkula, M. (2003). Investing in nanotechnology. Nature Biotechnology, 21(10), 1144–1147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon, N., & Rogers-Hayden, T. (2007). Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’? Health, Risk & Society, 9(2), 191–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priest, S. H. (2009). Risk communication for nanobiotechnology: To whom, about what, and why? The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 37(4), 759–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramachandran, G., Howard, J., Maynard, A., & Philbert, M. (2012). Handling worker and third-party exposures to nanotherapeutics during clinical trials. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 40(4), 856–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. B. (2011). Scientific research and the public trust. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(3), 399–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roco, M. C. (2005). International perspective on government nanotechnology funding in 2005. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7(6), 707–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roco, M. C. (2011). The long view of nanotechnology development: The National Nanotechnology Initiative at 10 years. In M. C. Roco, C. A. Mirkin, & M. C. Hersam (Eds.), Nanotechnology research directions for societal needs in 2020 (pp. 1–28). Netherlands: Springer.

  • Roco, M. C., Harthorn, B., Guston, D., & Shapira, P. (2011). Innovative and responsible governance of nanotechnology for societal development. In M. C. Roco, C. A. Mirkin, & M. C. Hersam (Eds.), Nanotechnology research directions for societal needs in 2020 (pp. 561–617). Netherlands: Springer.

  • Scheufele, D. A., Corley, E. A., Shih, T.-J., Dalrymple, K. E., & Ho, S. S. (2009). Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 91–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spier, R. E., & Bird, S. J. (2003). On the management of funding of research in science and engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9(3), 298–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinkle, S., McNeil, S. E., Mühlebach, S., Bawa, R., Borchard, G., Barenholz, Y. C., et al. (2014). Nanomedicines: Addressing the scientific and regulatory gap. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1313(1), 35–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Food and Drug Administration. (2014). Guidance for industry considering whether an FDA-regulated product involves the application of nanotechnology. Biotechnology Law Report, 30(5), 613–616.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, V., Dullaart, A., Bock, A.-K., & Zweck, A. (2006). The emerging nanomedicine landscape. Nature Biotechnology, 24(10), 1211–1217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to all the respondents of this study who gave us their valuable time for the interviews in spite of their busy work schedules. We are also thankful to the constructive comments provided by two anonymous reviewers which helped us improve the manuscript further.

Author Contributions

BE had the original idea, developed the project and wrote the research grant. PS conducted all the interviews, analyzed the data, conceived the idea for the manuscript and wrote the first draft. DS was involved in data analysis. Both BE and DS provided comments and contributed to the strengthening of the arguments. All three authors contributed to writing of the final manuscript and agree with the submission.

Funding

This research project was funded by the ‘Swiss National Science Foundation’ under project Grant No. PDFMP3_137194/1.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Biomedical Ethics (IBMB), University of Basel, Bernoullistrasse 28, 4056, Basel, Switzerland

    Priya Satalkar, Bernice Simone Elger & David M. Shaw

Authors
  1. Priya Satalkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bernice Simone Elger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David M. Shaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Priya Satalkar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethical Approval

This research project was approved by the ethics commission of Basel Stadt and Basel Land.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Satalkar, P., Elger, B.S. & Shaw, D.M. Defining Nano, Nanotechnology and Nanomedicine: Why Should It Matter?. Sci Eng Ethics 22, 1255–1276 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9705-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9705-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation