Effects of disciplinary cultures of researchers and research trainees on the acceptability of nanocarriers for drug delivery in different contexts of use: a mixed-methods study
Source abstract
Abstract
The acceptability of nanomedical applications, which have the potential to generate ethical and societal impacts, is a significant factor in the deployment of nanomedicine. A lack of fit between nanomedical applications and society's values may result from a partial consideration of such impacts. New approaches for technological evaluation focused on impact perception, acceptance, and acceptability are needed to go beyond traditional technology assessment approaches used with nanotechnology, which focus mainly on toxicological and safety criteria. Using a new evaluative approach based on perceived impacts of nanotechnology, the objective of this study was to assess perceptions among researchers and research trainees familiar with emergent technologies and from different disciplinary background the scope of acceptability judgments made towards the use of nanocarriers. This mixed-methods study was based on scenarios presenting two types of drug-delivery nanocarriers (carbon, synthetic DNA) in two contexts of use (lung cancer treatment, seasonal flu treatment). Researchers and research trainees in the natural sciences and engineering, and the social sciences and the humanities were invited by email to take part in this project. An online questionnaire followed by semi-directed interviews allowed characterization of disciplinary divergences regarding to impact perception, acceptance, and acceptability of the scenarios. The results suggest that impact perception is influenced by disciplinary culture. Also, trends can be seen between respondents' profiles and variables of acceptance and acceptability, and certain components of the acceptability judgement are specific to each disciplinary culture. The acknowledgment and consideration of these disciplinary divergences could allow, among others, for opening up interdisciplinary dialogue on matters related to the acceptability of nanomedical applications and their developments.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (54)
Show source-provided references
1. Allhoff F (2009) The coming era of nanomedicine. AJOB 9:3–11
2. Althaus CE (2005) A disciplinary perspective on the epistemological status of risk. Risk Anal 25:567–58810.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00625.x ↗
3. Bassett DR (2012) Notions of identity, society, and rhetoric in a speech code of science among scientists and engineers working in nanotechnology. Sci Commun 34:115–159. doi: 10.1177/107554701141789110.1177/1075547011417891 ↗
4. Bawa R, Johnson S (2009) Emerging issues in nanomedicine and ethics. In: Allhoff F, Lin P (eds) Nanotechnology and society—current and emerging ethical issues. Springer Netherlands, New York, pp 207–223. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6209-4_11
5. Bennett I, Sarewitz D (2006) Too little, too late? research policies on the societal implications of nanotechnology in the United States. Sci Culture 15:309–32510.1080/09505430601022635 ↗
6. Berelson B (1971) Content analysis in communication research, 2nd edn. Hafner Publishing Company, New york
7. Berne RW (2006) Nanotalk: conversations with scientists and engineers about ethics, meaning, and belief in the development of nanotechnology. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah
8. Besley JC, Kramer VL, Priest SH (2008) Expert opinion on nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and regulation. J Nanopart Res 10:549–55810.1007/s11051-007-9323-6 ↗
9. CEST (2006) Position statement—ethics and nanotechnology: a basis for action
10. Chenel V, Boissy P, Poirier M-S, Cloarec J-P, Patenaude J (2015) The acceptability of nanocarriers for drug-delivery in different contexts of use: perceptions of researchers and research trainees in the field of new technologies Int J Nanomed 10:2125–213910.2147/IJN.S78799 ↗
11. Corley EA, Kim Y, Scheufele DA (2011) Leading US nano-scientists’ perceptions about media coverage and the public communication of scientific research findings. J Nanopart Res 13:7041–705510.1007/s11051-011-0617-3 ↗
12. Davis FD (1985) A Technology Acceptance Model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
13. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13:319–34010.2307/249008 ↗
14. Denicourt G (2006) L’incidence de la culture disciplinaire sur l’évaluation des risques en éthique de la recherche (The incidence of disciplinary culture on risk assessment in research ethics). Université de Sherbrooke
15. Farokhzad OC, Langer R (2006) Nanomedicine: developing smarter therapeutic and diagnostic modalities. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 58:1456–145910.1016/j.addr.2006.09.011 ↗
16. Fisher E, Mahajan RL, Mitcham C (2006) Midstream modulation of technology: governance from within. Bull Sci Technol Soc 26:485–49610.1177/0270467606295402 ↗
17. Freitas AR (2005) What is nanomedicine? Nanomedicine 1:3–910.1016/S1549-9634(05)00019-5 ↗
18. Gaskell G, Allum N, Wagner W, Kronberger N, Torgersen H, Hampel J, Bardes J (2004) GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Anal 24:185–19410.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00421.x ↗
19. Gaskell G, Eyck TT, Jackson J, Veltri G (2005) Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Underst Sci 14:81–9010.1177/0963662505048949 ↗
20. Greenacre M (2007) Correspondance analysis in practice. Interdisciplinary statistic series. Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton
21. Grieger KD, Baun A, Owen R (2010) Redefining risk research priorities for nanomaterials. J Nanopart Res 12:383–39210.1007/s11051-009-9829-1 ↗
22. Gupta N, Saji G, Fischer ARH, Frewer LJ (2013) Expert views on societal responses to different applications of nanotechnology: a comparative analysis of experts in countries with different economic and regulatory environments. J Nanopart Res. doi: 10.1007/s11051-013-1838-4
23. Ho S, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2010) Value predispositions, mass media, and attitudes toward nanotechnology: the interplay of public and experts. Sci Commun. doi: 10.1177/107554701038038610.1177/1075547010380386 ↗
24. Hughes GA (2005) Nanostructure-mediated drug delivery. Nanomedicine 1:22–3010.1016/j.nano.2004.11.009 ↗
25. Kahan DM, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G (2009) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 4:87–9010.1038/nnano.2008.341 ↗
26. Lafontaine C (2003) Nouvelles technologies et subjectivité: les frontières renversées de l’intimité. Sociol Soc 35:203–21210.7202/008531ar ↗
27. Mnyusiwalla A, Daar AS, Singer PA (2003) ‘Mind the gap’: science and ethics in nanotechnology. Nanotechnology 14:R9–R1310.1088/0957-4484/14/3/201 ↗
28. Mucchielli R (1979) L’analyse de contenu des documents et des communications, 3rd edn. Les Editions ESF, Paris
29. Nabeshi H, Yoshikawa T, Yoshioka Y, Tsutsumi Y (2011) Safety evaluation study of nanomaterials aimed at promoting their acceptance by society. Genes Environ 33:21–2610.3123/jemsge.33.21 ↗
30. NE3LS NetWork (2014) NE3LS—network overview. http://www.ne3ls.ca/ne3ls-overview/?lang=en . Accessed 29 Oct 2014
31. Nijhara R, Balakrishnan K (2006) Bringing nanomedicines to market: regulatory challenges, opportunities, and uncertainties. Nanomedicine 2:127–136. doi: 10.1016/j.nano.2006.04.00510.1016/j.nano.2006.04.005 ↗
32. PACTE (2014) Pacte—social science research laboratory. http://www.pacte-grenoble.fr/english/ . Accessed 29 Oct 2014
33. Paillé P, Mucchielli A (2012) L’analyse qualitative en sciences humaines et sociales, 3rd edn. Armand Colin, Paris10.3917/arco.paill.2012.01 ↗
34. Patenaude J et al (2015) Framework for the analysis of nanotechnologies’ impacts and ethical acceptability: basis of an interdisciplinary approach to assessing novel technologies. Sci Eng Ethics 21:293–315. doi: 10.1007/s11948-014-9543-y10.1007/s11948-014-9543-y ↗
35. Patra D, Haribabu E, McComas KA (2010) Perceptions of nano ethics among practitioners in a developing country: a case of India. NanoEthics 4:67–75. doi: 10.1007/s11569-010-0086-710.1007/s11569-010-0086-7 ↗
36. Peer D, Karp JM, Hong S, Farokhzad CO, Margalit R, Langer R (2007) Nanocarriers as an emerging platform for cancer therapy. Nat Nanotechnol 2:751–76010.1038/nnano.2007.387 ↗
37. Powell MC (2007) New risk or old risk, high risk or no risk? How scientists’ standpoints shape their nanotechnology risk frames. Health Risk Soc 9:1810.1080/13698570701306872 ↗
38. Ranganathan R et al (2012) Nanomedicine towards development of patient-friendly drug-delivery systems for oncological applications. Int J Nanomed 7:1043–1060
39. Roco M, Renn O, Jäger A (2008) Nanotechnology Risk Governance. In: Renn O, Walker K (eds) Global risk governance: concept and practice using the IRGC framework. International risk governance council bookseries, vol 1. Springer, Berlin, pp 201–227
40. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2005) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology: maximizing human benefit. J Nanopart Res 7:1–1310.1007/s11051-004-2336-5 ↗
41. Sahoo S (2013) Would you mind, if we record this? Perceptions on regulation and responsibility among Indian nanoscientists. NanoEthics 7:231–249. doi: 10.1007/s11569-013-0182-610.1007/s11569-013-0182-6 ↗
42. Sandler R, Kay WD (2006) The GMO-Nanotech (Dis) analogy? Bull Sci Technol Soc 26:57–6210.1177/0270467605284348 ↗
43. Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7:659–66710.1007/s11051-005-7526-2 ↗
44. Schummer J (2006) Cultural diversity in nanotechnology ethics. Interdiscip Sci Rev 31:217–230. doi: 10.1179/030801806x11375710.1179/030801806X113757 ↗
45. Sechi G, Bedognetti D, Sgarrella F, Eperen LV, Marincola FM, Bianco A, Delogu LG (2014) The perception of nanotechnology and nanomedicine: a worldwide social media study. Nanomedicine (London) 9:1475–148610.2217/nnm.14.78 ↗
46. Siegrist M, Cousin M-È, Kastenholz H, Wiek A (2007a) Public acceptance of nanotechnology food and food packaging: the influence of affect and trust. Appetite 49:459–46610.1016/j.appet.2007.03.002 ↗
47. Siegrist M, Keller C, Wiek A, Frey S, Kastenholz H (2007b) Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal 27:59–6910.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00859.x ↗
48. Silva Costa H, Sethe S, Pêgo AP, Olsson AS (2011) Scientists’ perception of ethical issues in nanomedicine: a case study. Nanomedicine (London) 6:681–69110.2217/nnm.11.9 ↗
49. Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–28510.1126/science.3563507 ↗
50. te Kulve H, Konrad K, Palavicino CA, Walhout B (2013) Context matters: promises and concerns regarding nanotechnologies for water and food applications. Nanoethics 7:17–2710.1007/s11569-013-0168-4 ↗
51. Venkatesh V, Bala H (2008) Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis Sci 39:273–31510.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x ↗
52. Wang J, Asbach C, Fissan H, Hülser T, Kuhlbusch TAJ, Thompson D, Pui DYH (2011) How can nanobiotechnology oversight advance science and industry: examples from environmental, health, and safety studies of nanoparticles (nano-EHS). J Nanopart Res 13:1373–1387. doi: 10.1007/s11051-011-0236-z10.1007/s11051-011-0236-z ↗
53. Weisenfeld U, Ott I (2011) Academic discipline and risk perception of technologies: an empirical study. Res Pol 40:487–499. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.12.00310.1016/j.respol.2010.12.003 ↗
54. Willis GB (2004) Cognitive interviewing: a tool for improving questionnaire design. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks