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

Journal of Nanoparticle Research

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2012, Pages

  Elliott, Kevin C ^a   Volz, David C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

ELSI; Ethics; Societal dimensions of nanotechnology

Indexed keywords

ALTERNATIVE APPROACH; CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; ECOLOGICAL HAZARDS; ELSI; ETHICS; FEASIBLE SOLUTION; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HUMAN HEALTH; INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS; REGULATORY AGENCIES; SAFETY DATA; SAFETY STUDIES; TOXICITY TEST; U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY;

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; HEALTH HAZARDS; HEALTH RISKS; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; SAFETY TESTING;

NANOTECHNOLOGY;

PESTICIDE;

DRUG SAFETY; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SAFETY; TOXICITY TESTING;

EID: 84855484798     PISSN: 13880764     EISSN: 1572896X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11051-011-0664-9     Document Type: Review

References (17)

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 289:454-465 (Pubitemid 36119966)
3. Calow P, Forbes VE (2003) Does ecotoxicology inform ecological risk assessment? Environ Sci Technol 37:146A-151A (Pubitemid 36504932)
4. Chapman PF, Crane M, Wiles J, Noppert F, McIndoe E (1996) Improving the quality of statistics in regulatory ecotoxicity tests. Ecotoxicology 5:169-186
5. Elliott C (2004) Pharma goes to the laundry: public relations and the business of medical education. Hastings Center Report 34:18-23 (Pubitemid 40310650)
6. Elliott KC (2011) Is a little pollution good for you? Incorporating societal values in environmental research. Oxford University Press, New York
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 45:659-669 (Pubitemid 32923537)
8. Krimsky S (2003) Science in the private interest. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham
9. Kuzma J, Besley JC (2008) Ethics of risk analysis and regulatory review: frombio- to nanotechnology. Nanoethics 2:149-162
10. McGarity T, Wagner W (2008) Bending science: how special interests corrupt public health research. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
11. McHenry L, Jureidini J (2008) Industry-sponsored ghostwriting in clinical trial reporting: a case study. Account Res 15: 152-167
12. Moffatt B, Elliott C (2007) Ghost marketing: pharmaceutical companies and ghostwritten journal articles. Persp Biol Med 50:18-31 (Pubitemid 46185081)
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 117:309-315
14. National Research Council (NRC) (2007) Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a vision and a strategy. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
15. Paustenbach DJ (2009) Human and ecological risk assessment. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York
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: 1345-1371
17. Shrader-Frechette K (2007) Nanotoxicology and ethical considerations for informed consent. Nanoethics 1:47-56