Abstract
The fields of nanomedicine, risk analysis, and decision science have evolved considerably in the past decade, providing developers of nano-enabled therapies and diagnostic tools with more complete information than ever before and shifting a fundamental requisite of the nanomedical community from the need for more information about nanomaterials to the need for a streamlined method of integrating the abundance of nano-specific information into higher-certainty product design decisions. The crucial question facing nanomedicine developers that must select the optimal nanotechnology in a given situation has shifted from “how do we estimate nanomaterial risk in the absence of good risk data?” to “how can we derive a holistic characterization of the risks and benefits that a given nanomaterial may pose within a specific nanomedical application?” Many decision support frameworks have been proposed to assist with this inquiry; however, those based in multicriteria decision analysis have proven to be most adaptive in the rapidly evolving field of nanomedicine—from the early stages of the field when conditions of significant uncertainty and incomplete information dominated, to today when nanotoxicology and nano-environmental health and safety information is abundant but foundational paradigms such as chemical risk assessment, risk governance, life cycle assessment, safety-by-design, and stakeholder engagement are undergoing substantial reformation in an effort to address the needs of emerging technologies. In this paper, we reflect upon 10 years of developments in nanomedical engineering and demonstrate how the rich knowledgebase of nano-focused toxicological and risk assessment information developed over the last decade enhances the capability of multicriteria decision analysis approaches and underscores the need to continue the transition from traditional risk assessment towards risk-based decision-making and alternatives-based governance for emerging technologies.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bates ME, Grieger KD, Trump BD, Keisler JM, Plourde KJ, Linkov I (2015) Emerging technologies for environmental remediation: integrating data and judgment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50(1):349–358
Blaunstein, R., Trump, B., & Linkov, I. (2014). Nanotechnology risk management: an insurance industry perspective. Nanotechnology Environmental Health and Safety. Risks, Regulation, and Management, 247–263
Chen G, Roy I, Yang C, Prasad PN (2016) Nanochemistry and nanomedicine for nanoparticle-based diagnostics and therapy. Chem Rev 116(5):2826–2885
Collier ZA, Kennedy AJ, Poda AR, Cuddy MF, Moser RD, MacCuspie RI, Harmon A, Plourde K, Haines CD, Steevens JA (2015) Tiered guidance for risk-informed environmental health and safety testing of nanotechnologies. J Nanopart Res 17(3):155
Collier ZA, Trump BD, Wood MD, Chobanova R, Linkov I (2016) Leveraging stakeholder knowledge in the innovation decision making process. Int. J. Bus. Continuity Risk Manag. 6(3):163–181
Conde J, Dias JT, Grazú V, Moros M, Baptista PV, de la Fuente JM (2014) Revisiting 30 years of biofunctionalization and surface chemistry of inorganic nanoparticles for nanomedicine. Frontiers in chemistry 2
Cornelissen, R., Jongeneelen, F., Van Broekhuizen, P. and Van Broekhuizen, F., 2011 Guidance working safely with nanomaterials and products, the guide for employers and employees. FNV, VNO-NCV and CNV
Dawidczyk CM, Kim C, Park JH, Russell LM, Lee KH, Pomper MG, Searson PC (2014) State-of-the-art in design rules for drug delivery platforms: lessons learned from FDA-approved nanomedicines. J Control Release 187:133–144
Dhingra R, Naidu S, Upreti G, Sawhney R (2010) Sustainable nanotechnology: through green methods and life-cycle thinking. Sustainability 2(10):3323–3338
Elkington J (1997) Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone Publishing, Oxford
Etheridge ML, Campbell SA, Erdman AG, Haynes CL, Wolf SM, McCullough J (2013) The big picture on nanomedicine: the state of investigational and approved nanomedicine products. Nanomedicine 9(1):1–14
Genske A, Engel-Glatter S (2016) Rethinking risk assessment for emerging technology first-in-human trials. Med Health Care Philos 19(1):125–139
Geraci C, Heidel D, Sayes C, Hodson L, Schulte P, Eastlake A, Brenner S (2015) Perspectives on the design of safer nanomaterials and manufacturing processes. J Nanopart Res 17(9):366
Gopinath, P. M., Ranjani, A., Dhanasekaran, D., Thajuddin, N., Archunan, G., Akbarsha, M. A., and Padmanabhan, P. (2016) Multi-functional nano silver: a novel disruptive and theranostic agent for pathogenic organisms in real-time. Scientific reports 6
Gupta AS (2011) Nanomedicine approaches in vascular disease: a review. Nanomedicine 7(6):763–779
Hansen SF, Jensen KA, Baun A (2014) NanoRiskCat: a conceptual tool for categorization and communication of exposure potentials and hazards of nanomaterials in consumer products. J Nanopart Res 16(1):2195
Höck J, Epprecht T, Furrer E, Hofmann H, Höhner K, Krug H, Lorenz C, Limbach L, Gehr P, Nowack B, Riediker M, Schirmer K, Schmid B, Som C, Stark W, Studer C, Ulrich A, von Götz N, Weber A, Wengert S, Wick P (2011) Guidelines on the precautionary matrix for synthetic nanomaterials. Federal Office of Public Health and Federal Office for the Environment, Berne Version 2.1
Hutchison JE (2016) The road to sustainable nanotechnology: challenges, progress and opportunities. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 4(11):5907–5914
Knowles III, E.E., 2005. Emerging health, safety and environmental issues associated with nanotechnology. In ASSE Professional Development Conference and Exposition. American Society of Safety Engineers
Lines MG (2008) Nanomaterials for practical functional uses. J Alloys Compd 449(1):242–245
Linkov, I., & Moberg, E. (2011) Multi-criteria decision analysis: environmental applications and case studies. CRC Press
Linkov, I. and Satterstrom, F.K., 2008 Nanomaterial risk assessment and risk management. In Real-time and deliberative decision making (pp. 129–157). Springer Netherlands
Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Steevens J, Pleus R (2007) Multi-criteria decision analysis and nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 9:543–554
Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Corey LM (2008) Nanotoxicology and nanomedicine: making hard decisions. Nanomedicine 4(2):167–171
Linkov I, Loney D, Cormier S, Satterstrom FK, Bridges T (2009) Weight-of-evidence evaluation in environmental assessment: review of qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sci Total Environ 407(19):5199–5205
Linkov I, Trump BD, Pabon N, Collier ZA, Keisler JM, Scriven J (2012a) A decision analytic approach for Department of Defense acquisition risk management. Mil Oper Res 17(2):57–70
Linkov I, Rosoff H, Valverde LJ, Bates ME, Trump B, Friedman D, Keisler J (2012b) Civilian response corps force review: the application of multi-criteria decision analysis to prioritize skills required for future diplomatic missions. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 19(3–4):155–168
Linkov I, Bates ME, Trump BD, Seager TP, Chappell MA, Keisler JM (2013) For nanotechnology decisions, use decision analysis. Nano Today 8(1):5–10
Linkov I, Trump BD, Wender BA, Seager TP, Kennedy AJ, Keisler JM (2017) Integrate life-cycle assessment and risk analysis results, not methods. Nat Nanotechnol 12(8):740–743
Liu, E., Zhang, M. and Huang, Y., 2016 Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) of bionanomaterials. Biomedical Nanomaterials
Malloy, T., Trump, B. D., & Linkov, I. (2016) Risk-based and prevention-based governance for emerging materials
Marchant GE, Sylvester DJ, Abbott KW (2008) Risk management principles for nanotechnology. NanoEthics 2(1):43–60
Marchant, G.E., Sylvester, D.J., Abbott, K.W. and Danforth, T.L., 2009 International harmonization of regulation of nanomedicine. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 3(3)
Mohan M, Trump BD, Bates ME, Monica JC Jr, Linkov I (2012) Integrating legal liabilities in nanomanufacturing risk management. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46(15):7955–7962
Nanotechnology Characterization Laboratory, National Cancer Institute (2017). “About Us.” https://ncl.cancer.gov/about-ncl/about-us. Accessed 2 May 2017
National Research Council Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of Risks to Public Health (1983) Risk assessment in the federal government: managing the process. National Academies Press, Washington
Ostiguy, C., Riediker, M., Triolet, J., Troisfontaines, P. and Vernez, D., 2010 Development of a specific control banding tool for nanomaterials. French Agency for food, environmental and occupational health and safety (ANSES)
Paik SY, Zalk DM, Swuste P (2008) Application of a pilot control banding tool for risk level assessment and control of nanoparticle exposures. Ann Occup Hyg 52(6):419–428
Paluri, S.L., Ryan, J.D., Lam, N.H., Nepal, D. and Sizemore, I.E., 2017 Analytical-based methodologies for examining the in vitro absorption, distribution, metabolism, and elimination (ADME) of silver nanoparticles. Small
Pelaz B, Alexiou C, Alvarez-Puebla RA, Alves F, Andrews AM, Ashraf S, Balogh LP, Ballerini L, Bestetti A, Brendel C, Bosi S (2017) Diverse applications of nanomedicine. ACS Nano 11(3):2313–2381
Ragelle, H., Danhier, F., Préat, V., Langer, R. and Anderson, D.G., 2016 Nanoparticle-based drug delivery systems: a commercial and regulatory outlook as the field matures. Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery 1–14
Renn O, Roco MC (2006) Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. J Nanopart Res 8(2):153–191
Rycroft, T., Larkin, S., Ganin, A., Thomas, T., Matheson, J., Van Grack, T., Chen, X., Plourde, K., and Linkov, I, (in preparation) A framework and pilot tool for the risk-based prioritization of nano-enabled consumer products
Sahoo SK, Parveen S, Panda JJ (2007) The present and future of nanotechnology in human health care. Nanomedicine 3(1):20–31
Saraiva C, Praça C, Ferreira R, Santos T, Ferreira L, Bernardino L (2016) Nanoparticle-mediated brain drug delivery: overcoming blood–brain barrier to treat neurodegenerative diseases. J Control Release 235:34–47
Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Marcomini A, Linkov I (2014) Sustainable nanotechnology: defining, measuring and teaching. Nano Today 9(1):6–9
Thomas K, Aguar P, Kawasaki H, Morris J, Nakanishi J, Savage N (2006) Research strategies for safety evaluation of nanomaterials, part VIII: international efforts to develop risk-based safety evaluations for nanomaterials. Toxicol Sci 92(1):23–32
Tong R, Kohane DS (2016) New strategies in cancer nanomedicine. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 56:41–57
Trump, B. D. (2017) Synthetic biology regulation and governance: lessons from TAPIC for the United States, European Union, and Singapore. Health Policy
Trump, B., Cummings, C., Kuzma, J., & Linkov, I. (2017a) A decision analytic model to guide early-stage government regulatory action: applications for synthetic biology. Regulation & Governance
Trump, B. D., Pabon, N., Barber, M., Hartz, R., Linkov, F., & Linkov, I. (2017b) Risk assessment and decision analysis within surgical applications. In Gastrointestinal operations and technical variations (pp. 7–17). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49878-1_2
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2016). “Considering whether an FDA-regulated product involves the application of nanotechnology.” https://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/transparency/basics/ucm269834.htm. Accessed 2 May 2017
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2017a). “Nanotechnology programs at FDA.” https://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/Nanotechnology/default.htm. Accessed 17 Jan 2018
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2017b). “How FDA evaluates regulated products: drugs.” https://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/transparency/basics/ucm269834.htm. Accessed 2 May 2017
U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2016). “Prevention through design: program mission.” https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ptd/. Accessed 31 Aug 2016
U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2017a). “Current Intelligence Bulletin 63: Occupational Exposure to Titanium Dioxide.” https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2011-160/pdfs/2011-160.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2017
U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2017b). “Current Intelligence Bulletin 65: Occupational Exposure to Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers.” https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2013-145/pdfs/2013-145.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2017
U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative (2017). “About the NNI—NNI budget.” http://www.nano.gov/about-nni/what/funding. Accessed 2 May 2017
U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (2017). “Working safely with nanomaterials—current occupational exposure limits for nanomaterials.” https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA_FS-3634.html. Accessed 2 May 2017
Walters, C., Pool, E. and Somerset, V., 2016 Nanotoxicology: a review. Toxicology-New Aspects to this Scientific Conundrum 45
Wang J, Mao W, Lock LL, Tang J, Sui M, Sun W, Cui H, Xu D, Shen Y (2015) The role of micelle size in tumor accumulation, penetration, and treatment. ACS Nano 9(7):7195–7206
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing financial interest or funding for this article.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rycroft, T., Trump, B., Poinsatte-Jones, K. et al. Nanotoxicology and nanomedicine: making development decisions in an evolving governance environment. J Nanopart Res 20, 52 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-018-4160-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-018-4160-3