Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine
Volume 4, Issue 2 , Pages 167-171 , June 2008

Nanotoxicology and nanomedicine: making hard decisions

  • Igor Linkov, PhD

      Affiliations

    • US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Brookline, Massachusetts, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 83 Winchester Street, Suite 1, Brookline, Massachusetts 02446, USA.
    • ,
  • F. Kyle Satterstrom, MA

      Affiliations

    • Harvard University School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
    • ,
  • Lisa M. Corey, MS

      Affiliations

    • Intertox Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA

Received 15 April 2007 ,Accepted 28 January 2008.

References 

  1. Kagan VE, Bayir H, Shvedova AA. Nanomedicine and nanotoxicology: two sides of the same coin. Nanomedicine. 2005;1:313–316
  2. Moghimi SM, Hunter AC, Murray JC. Nanomedicine: current status and future prospects. FASEB J. 2005;19:311–330
  3. Seaton A, Donaldson K. Nanoscience, nanotoxicology, and the need to think small. Lancet. 2005;365:923–924
  4. Shvedova AA, Kisin ER, Mercer R, Murray AR, Johnson VJ, Potapovich AI, et al. Unusual inflammatory and fibrogenic pulmonary responses to single-walled carbon nanotubes in mice. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2005;289:L698–L708
  5. Peters K, Unger RE, Kirkpatrick CJ, Gatti AM, Monari E. Effects of nano-scaled particles on endothelial cell function in vitro: studies on viability, proliferation and inflammation. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2004;15:321–325
  6. Donaldson K, Aitken R, Tran L, Stone V, Duffin R, Forrest G, et al. Carbon nanotubes: a review of their properties in relation to pulmonary toxicology and workplace safety. Toxicol Sci. 2006;92:5–22
  7. Lacerda L, Bianco A, Prato M, Kostarelos K. Carbon nanotubes as nanomedicines: from toxicology to pharmacology. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2006;58:1460–1470
  8. US Environmental Protection Agency . Ecological risk assessment guidance for Superfund: process for designing and conducting ecological risk assessments—interim final. Washington, DC: US EPA; 1997;
  9. US Environmental Protection Agency . Nanotechnology white paper, external review draft. Washington, DC: US EPA; 2005;
  10. Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Steevens J, Pleus R. Multi-criteria decision analysis and nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res. 2007;9:543–554
  11. Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Zemba S, Steevens J. Use of multi-criteria decision analysis tools to facilitate weight-of-evidence evaluation in nanotechnology risk assessment. In: NSTI Nanotechnology Conference and Trade Show, Boston, Massachusetts. 2006;
  12. Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Kiker G, Batchelor C, Bridges T, Ferguson E. From comparative risk assessment to multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive management: recent developments and applications. Environ Int. 2006;32:1072–1093
  13. Roco MC. Possibilities for global governance of converging technologies. J Nanopart Res. 2008;10:11–29
  14. Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Kiker GA, Bridges TS, Benjamin SL, Belluck DA. From optimization to adaptation: shifting paradigms in environmental management and their application to remedial decisions. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2006;2:92–98

 This study was supported in parts by the US Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

PII: S1549-9634(08)00002-6

doi: 10.1016/j.nano.2008.01.001

Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine
Volume 4, Issue 2 , Pages 167-171 , June 2008

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution