Caring for social complexity in nanomedicine

References

• 1 Deleuze G, Guattari F. What is Philosophy? Verso Books, NY, USA (1994).
  Google Scholar
• 2 Barz M. Complexity and simplification in the development of nanomedicines. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(20), 3093–3097 (2015).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 3 Luxenhofer R. Polymers and nanomedicine: considerations on variability and reproducibility when combining complex systems. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(20), 3109–3119 (2015).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 4 Guchet X. What's in a word? The person of personalized (nano)medicine. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(20), 3167–3179 (2015).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 5 Pierce R. Translational nanomedicine through the therapeutic window. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(21), doi:10.2217/NNM.15.168 (2015) (In press).
  Google Scholar
• 6 Ach JS, Lüttenberg B. Nanobiotechnology, Nanomedicine and Human Enhancement. Lit-Verlag, Berlin, Germany (2009).
  Google Scholar
• 7 Allhoff F, Lin P, Moor J, Weckert J. Nanoethics. The Ethical and Social Implications of Nanotechnology. Wiley, NJ, USA (2007).
  Google Scholar
• 8 Allhof F, Lin P. Nanotechnology & Society. Current and Emergent Ethical Issues. Springer, NY, USA (2009).
  Google Scholar
• 9 Schmid G, Brune H, Grünwald A et al. Nanotechnology. Assessment and Perspective. Springer, Berlin, Germany (2006).
  Google Scholar
• 10 Kaiser M, Kurath M, Maasen S, Rehmann-Sutter CH. Governing Future Technologies. Nanotechnologies and the Rise of an Assessment Regime. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands (2010).
  Google Scholar
• 11 Kjolberg K, Wickson F (Eds). Nano Meets Macro: Social Perspectives on Nanoscaled Sciences and Technologies. Pan Stanford, Singapore (2010).
  Google Scholar
• 12 Schillmeier M. What ELSA/I makes big and small in nanotechnological research. In: Absence in Science, Security and Policy. From Research Agendas to Global Strategy. Rappert B, Balmer B (Eds). Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK, 55–77 (2015).
  Google Scholar
• 13 Schummer J, Baird D. Nanotechnology Challenges. Implications for Philosophy, Ethics and Society. World Scientific, NJ, USA (2006).
  Google Scholar
• 14 Latour B. Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (2005).
  Google Scholar
• 15 Schillmeier M. Eventful Bodies. The Cosmopolitics of Illness. Ashgate, Farnham, UK (2014).
  Google Scholar
• 16 Schillmeier M, Domènech M. New Technologies and Emerging Spaces of Care. Ashgate, Farnham, UK (2010).
  Google Scholar
• 17 Puig de la Bellacasa M. Matter of care in technoscience: assembling neglected things. Soc. Stud. Sci. 41(1), 85–106 (2011).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 18 Latour B. An Inquiry into Modes of Existence. An Anthropology of the Moderns. Harvard University Press, MA, USA, 46 (2013).
  Google Scholar
• 19 Latour B. An Inquiry into Modes of Existence. An Anthropology of the Moderns. Harvard University Press, MA, USA, 58 (2013).
  Google Scholar
• 20 Stengers I. Power and Invention. Situating Science. University of Minnesota Press, MN, USA, 12 (1997).
  Google Scholar
• 21 Serres M. Hermes IV Verteilung. Merve, Berlin, Germany (1993).
  Google Scholar
• 22 Ge Y, Li S, Wang S, Moore R. Nanomedicine. Springer, NY, USA (2014).
  Google Scholar
• 23 Webster TJ. Nanomedicine. Technologies and Applications. Woodhead, MS, USA (2012).
  Google Scholar
• 24 Tibbals HF. Medical Nanotechnology and Nanomedicine. CRC Press, FL, USA (2011).
  Google Scholar
• 25 Jain KK. The Handbook of Nanomedicine. Humana Press, NJ, USA (2010).
  Google Scholar
• 26 Malsch I, Emond C. Nanotechnology and Human Health. CRC Press, FL, USA (2014).
  Google Scholar
• 27 Roco MC, Bainbridge WS. Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance. Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands (2003).
  Google Scholar
• 28 Alexiou C (Ed.). Nanomedicine – Basic and Clinical Applications in Diagnostic and Therapy. Karger, Erlangen, Germany (2011).
  Google Scholar
• 29 Nordmann A. Enhancing material nature. In: Nano Meets Macro: Social Perspectives on Nanoscaled Sciences and Technologies. Kjolberg K, Wickson F (Eds). Pan Stanford, Singapore, 283–303 (2010).
  Google Scholar
• 30 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute Cancer Nanotechnology. Going Small for Big Advances. Cancer Diagnosis, Prevention, and Treatment. NIH Publication, MD, USA, 1 (2004).
  Google Scholar
• 31 Freitas R. Nanomedicine. Volume I: Basic Capabilities. Landes Bioscience, TX, USA, 17–18 (1999).
  Google Scholar
• 32 Etheridge ML, Campbell SA, Erdman AG, Haynes CL, Wolf SM, McCullough J. The big picture on nanomedicine: the state of investigational and approved nanomedicine products. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 9(1), 1–14 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 33 Hehenberger M. Nanomedicine: Science, Business, and Impact. Pan Stanford, Singapore (2015).
  Google Scholar
• 34 Igarashi E. Nanomedicines and Nanoproducts: Applications, Dispositions, and Toxicology in the Human Body. CRC Press, London, UK (2015).
  Google Scholar
• 35 Jain KK. The Handbook of Nanomedicine (2nd Edition). Humana Press, NJ, USA (2012).
  Google Scholar
• 36 Kostaleros K. The emergence of nanomedicine. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 1(1), 1–3 (2006).
  Google Scholar
• 37 Whitehead AN. Science and the Modern World. The Free Press, NY, USA (1967).
  Google Scholar
• 38 Stengers I. The Invention of Modern Science. University of Minnesota Press, MN, USA (2000).
  Google Scholar
• 39 Latour B. Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Harvard University Press, MA, USA (1987).
  Google Scholar
• 40 Drummond C. Replicability is not reproducibility: nor is it good Science. Presented at: Evaluation Methods for Machine Learning Workshop at the 26th ICML. Montreal, Canada, 14–18 June 2009.
  Google Scholar
• 41 Kraus WL. Do you see what I see? Quality, reliability, and reproducibility in biomedical research. Mol. Endocrinol. 28(3), 277–280 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 42 Casadevall A, Fang FF. Reproducible science. Infect. Immun. 78(12), 4972–4975 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 43 Bissell M. Reproducibility: the risks of the replication drive. Nature 503, 333–334 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 44 Trouble at the lab. The Economist. www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble.
  Google Scholar
• 45 Latour B. An Inquiry into Modes of Existence. An Anthropology of the Moderns. Harvard University Press, MA, USA (2013).
  Google Scholar
• 46 PourGashtasbi G. Nanotoxicology and challenges of translation. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(20), 3121–3129 (2015).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 47 Seok J, Warren HS, Cuenca AG et al. Genomic responses in mouse models poorly mimic human inflammatory diseases. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110(9), 3507–3512 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 48 Perrin S. Preclinical research: make mouse studies work. Nature 507, 423–425 (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 49 Michael M, Wainwright S, Williams C. Temporality and prudence: on stem cells as “phronesic things”. Configurations 13, 373–394 (2005).
  Google Scholar
• 50 European Commission. Of mice and men – are mice relevant models for human disease? http://ec.europa.eu/research/health/pdf/summary-report-2508 2010_en.pdf.
  Google Scholar
• 51 Birke L. Animal bodies in the production of scientific knowledge: modelling medicine. Body Soc. 18, 156–178 (2012).
  Google Scholar
• 52 Meiners S, Bölükbas DA. Lung cancer nanomedicine: potentials and pitfalls. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(21), doi: 10.2217/NNM.15.155 (2015) (In press).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 53 Davies G. What is a humanized mouse? Remaking the species and spaces of translational medicine. Body Soc. 18, 126 (2012).
  Google Scholar
• 54 Leonard F, Collnot E, Lehr CM. A three-dimensional coculture of entercytes, monocytes and dendritic cells to model inflamed intestinal mucosa in vitro. Mol. Pharm. 7(6), 2103–2119 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 55 Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, IL, USA (1970).
  Google Scholar
• 56 Latour B. The Pasteurization of France. Harvard University Press, MA, USA (1988).
  Google Scholar
• 57 Schillmeier M. Science, cosmopolitics and the question of agency. Kant's Critique and Stenger's Event. In: Agency Without Actors? Rethinking Collective Action. Passoth JH, Peuker B, Schillmeier M (Eds). Routledge, NY, USA, 31–53 (2012).
  Google Scholar
• 58 Stengers I. Power and Invention. Situating Science. University of Minnesota Press, MN, USA, 85 (1997).
  Google Scholar
• 59 Stengers I. Power and Invention. Situating Science. University of Minnesota Press, MN, USA, 165 (1997).
  Google Scholar
• 60 Serres M. Hermes I. Kommunikation. Merve, Berlin, Germany (1991).
  Google Scholar
• 61 Stengers I. Power and Invention. Situating Science. University of Minnesota Press, MN, USA, 17 (1997).
  Google Scholar
• 62 Drexler KE. Machine-phase nanotechnology. Sci. Am. 285(3), 74–75 (2001).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 63 Smalley RE. Of chemistry, love, and nanorobots. Sci. Am. 285(3), 76–77 (2001).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 64 Drexler KE, Forrest D, Freitas RA et al. On physics, fundamentals, and nanorobots: a rebuttal to Smalley's assertion that self-replicating mechanical nanorobots are simply not possible. Institute for Molecular Manufacturing (2001). www.imm.org/publications/sciamdebate2/smalley/.
  Google Scholar
• 65 Baum R, Drexler E, Smalley R. Nanotechnology: Drexler and Smalley make the case for and against ‘molecular assemblers’. C&EN 81(48), 37–42 (2003).
  Google Scholar
• 66 Drexler KE. Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology. Anchor Books, NY, USA, 63 (1986).
  Google Scholar
• 67 Drexler KE. Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology. Anchor Books, NY, USA, 106 (1986).
  Google Scholar
• 68 Smalley RE. Of chemistry, love, and nanorobots. Sci. Am. 285(3), 76 (2001).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 69 Rheinberger HJ. Towards a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube. Stanford University Press, Singapore (1997).
  Google Scholar
• 70 Dewey J. The Public and Its Problems. An Essay in Political Inquiry. Penn State University Press, PA, USA (2012).
  Google Scholar
• 71 Whitehead AN. Modes of Thought. The Free Press, NY, USA (1968).
  Google Scholar
• 72 White Paper to the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation – recommendations from the nanomedicine community, ETP nanomedicine (2013). www.etp-nanomedicine.eu/public/press-documents/publications/etpn-publications/etpn-white-paper-H2020.
  Google Scholar
• 73 Callon M, Lascoumes P, Barthe Y. Acting in an Uncertain World. An Essay on Technical Democracy. MIT Press, MA, USA (2001).
  Google Scholar
• 74 Stengers I. Another science is possible. A plea for slow science. Inaugural Lecture Chair Willy Calewaert. Brussels, Belgium, 13 December 2011.
  Google Scholar
• 75 Marres N. Issues spark a public into being. A key but often forgotten point of the Lippmann–Dewey debate. In: Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy. Latour B, Weibel P (Eds). MIT Press, MA, USA (2005).
  Google Scholar
• 76 Marres N, Rogers R. Recipe for tracing the fate of issues and their publics on the web. In: Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy. Latour B, Weibel P (Eds). MIT Press, MA, USA (2005).
  Google Scholar
• 77 Latour B, Weibel P. Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy. MIT Press, MA, USA (2005).
  Google Scholar
• 78 Schillmeier M, Luxenhofer R, Barz R. Quo vadis nanomedicine? Nanomedicine 9(14), 2083–2086 (2014).
  Google Scholar