Chemical action: what is it, and why does it really matter?
Source abstract
Abstract
Nanotechnology, as with many technologies before it, places a strain on existing legislation and poses a challenge to all administrative agencies tasked with regulating technology-based products. It is easy to see how statutory schemes become outdated, as our ability to understand and affect the world progresses. In this article, we address the regulatory problems that nanotechnology posses for the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) classification structure for “drugs” and “devices.” The last major modification to these terms was in 1976, with the enactment of the Medical Device Amendments. There are serious practical differences for a classification as a drug or device in terms of time to market and research. Drugs are classified, primarily, as acting by “chemical action.” We lay out some legal, philosophic, and scientific tools that serve to provide a useful, as well as legally and scientifically faithful, distinction between drugs and devices for the purpose of regulatory classification. These issues we raise are worth the consideration of anyone who is interested in the regulation of nano-products or other novel technologies.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Nanoparticles: synthesis and applications · Nanotechnology research and applications · Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (21)
Show source-provided references
1. 74 Cong. Rec. 4811-12 (April 2, 1935) (statements of Senator Clark)
2. 121 Cong. Rec. 10688, 10690 (April 17, 1975) (testimony by Joseph B. Davis, Director, Scientific Review of the HEW Office of Medical Devices in remarks of Sen. Nelson)
3. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. National Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)
4. Eells E (1991) Probabilistic causality. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY10.1017/CBO9780511570667 ↗
5. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (1997) Reauthorization of FDA’s Medical Device Program. Statement of Michael Friedman before the House Committee on Commerce, Subcommittee on Health and Environment. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Testimony/ucm114951.htm . Accessed 24 Nov 2010
6. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2009) Council for responsible nutrition annual symposium for the dietary supplement industry. Remarks of Joshua M. Sharfstein. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Speeches/ucm187640.htm . Accessed 24 Nov 2010
7. Fodor J (1990) Why there still has to be a language of thought. In: Artificial intelligence—a source book. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge10.1017/CBO9780511663116.030 ↗
8. Hutt PB, Merrill RA, Grossman L (2007) Food and drug law: cases and materials. Foundation Press, New York, NY
9. Lombardi O, Labarca M (2005) The ontological autonomy of the chemical world. Found Chem 7:125–14810.1007/s10698-004-0980-6 ↗
10. Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary s.v. “chemistry” (2007) Merriam-Webster, Inc., Springfield, MA
11. Merrill RA (1996) The architecture of government regulation of medical products. Virginia Law Rev 82:1753–186610.2307/1073689 ↗
12. Neurath O (2000) Physicalism. In: Lindberg JJ (ed) Analytic philosophy: beginnings to the present. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY
13. Nye MJ (1993) From chemical philosophy to theoretical chemistry: dynamics of matter and dynamics of disciplines, 1800–1950. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA
14. Rai M, Yadav A, Gade A (2009) Silver nanoparticles as a new generation of antimicrobials. Biotechnol Adv 27:76–8310.1016/j.biotechadv.2008.09.002 ↗
15. Singh M, Singh S, Prasad S, Gambhir IS (2008) Nanotechnology in medicine and antibacterial effect of silver nanoparticles. Dig J Nanomater Biostruct 3:115–122
16. Senate Report 361, 74th Cong., 1st sess. (1935)
17. Senate Report 493, 73rd Cong., 2d Session (1934)
18. Senate Report 513, 101st Cong., 2d Session (1990)
19. Sober E (2000) Philosophy of biology. Westview Press, Boulder, CO
20. United States v. Bacto-Unidisk, 394 U.S. 784 (1969)
21. Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language s.v. “chemistry” (1912) G. & C. Merriam Company, Springfield, MA