Replies

• Pu-Chun Ke

  25 January 2008 | 21:16

  Ai Lin,

  My two cents here:
  I think there is quite some truth to that criticism. You must have noticed that nanomedicinal research is largely reported in chemical or materials journals, rather than in medicinal journals where they should belong. Due to the lack of understanding of genotoxicity, cytotoxicity, and whole organism responses to nanomaterials, the enthusiasm of the nanotech community often encounters the cold shoulder of the medical community.
  Personally I believe nanomedicine will eventually prove itself a useful and sometimes even superior addition to the repertoire of modern medicine. But the priority of current research in this area should be on reaching a fundamental understanding of soft nanotechnology, ie, the fate (solubility, biocompatibility, bioavailability, transport, transformation, and translocation) of nanomaterials in living systems. Such an understanding, critically lacking in the literature, is however key to the development and the public perpection of nanomedicine. Obviously the editors of Nature Nano and Nano Lett hold a large share of responsibility for guiding research in this phase.

• Shuming Nie

  28 January 2008 | 19:03

  I believe that there should be a balance in innovative fundamental work and in applied medical and clinical studies. The first stage in the development of a new field is always led by fundamental discoveries and mechanistic knowledge. It is then followed by applied and development work that aims to move fundamental discoveries to practical applications. I think that the field of nanomedicine has seen incredible fundamental discoveries in the last 10 years, and will continue to see major advances in the next 10 years. This has set the stage for more medical and clinical studies, especially regarding the in-vivo behaviors of various nanoparticles such as organ distribution, pharmacokinetics, and toxicology. This kind of applied work is expensive, time consuming, but is absolutely needed for future clinical trials in nanomedicine. Thus I believe that journal editors in nanotechnology should accept both fundamental and clinical contributions for publication.

• Dan Peer

  29 January 2008 | 19:45

  The criticisms seems right to me. However, this is also well known that there is an overgrowing number of clinical trials with nanocarriers (mostly for cancer therapeutics) and some products are already in clinical use (liposomes; Albumin-Taxol particles as well as a panel of antibody-conjugates and polymer-conjugates). It is also true that to translate from the nano lab into clinical setting might take a bit more time (issues of toxicities, QA and QC of the nanocarriers and their payloads, as well as the immune response to them). However, it is fundamental to publish initial work in high quality journals such as Nature nanotech and to get the exposure needed for potential collaboration with the medical community.
  Unfortunately, not all the material sciences journals and nano-journals are indexed in places where the medical community can read them – such as Pubmed.

• Betty YS Kim

  02 February 2008 | 02:27

  As a clinician involved in bionanotechnology research, I strongly believe that to bring this field ultimately to the bedside, fundamental issues surrounding nanotechnology must be addressed. Only then, can we gain a wider-acceptance and endorsement from the medical community.

  Despite many exciting progresses made within the past few decades in nanomedicine research, nanotechnology for medical applications is almost non-existant in clinical practice. This is, in large part, attributed to the our fear of using ‘uncharacterized’ materials for human use. Therefore, in order to push nanomedicine into the mainstream for medical practices, the understanding of nanomaterials at the most fundamental level is crucial and necessary.

  The journal, Nature Nano, is one of the leading journals in this burgeoning field, and therefore, should certainly endorse and faciliate this process by encouraging more fundamental characterizations of nanomaterials for practical medical utilizations.

  Without the careful assessment of the potential negative effects of nanomaterials, even the most innovative ideas might not be realistic nor feasible for future practical applications.

  The foremost priority of all physicians and surgeons is “primum non nocere“, or “first, do no harm”. We strive toward safe-guarding the health of the patients we serve, and therefore, novel technologies tainted with adverse concerns, (regardless of its potential and great promises) will likely to met with negative reception.

• Kostas Kostarelos

  07 February 2008 | 00:42

  Dear Ai Lin

  First of all, it is great that you initiated this debate in a Nature Network forum. I believe that the issue of ‘innovation vs. transition’ is in fact more fundamental, since the definition of the term ‘nanomedicine’ is surrounded by this dilemma, skepticism, or even ambiguity as to what the term itself stands for.

  During their creation, new fields and disciplines will commonly become victims of their own appeal. If a field is considered ‘innovative’ scientifically, ‘disruptive’ technologically, or even just ‘attractive’ from a funding point of view, a lot of researchers will either shift their portfolios to fall within the remit of this field or ‘re-brand’ their portfolios to make sure they fit in. The world of ‘nano’ suffers from this. Until ‘nanomedicine’ matures into a well defined field of principles I am afraid that the issue you raise will stay with us.

  What the role of the journals – such as Nature Nanotech – should be? In my view a lot of my colleagues create a lot of unsubstantiated, over-hyped ‘buzz’ around some nanomaterials and their medical relevance in their publications. Most of the times this is a direct result of pressures to maintain ‘high clout’, that usually translates to ‘high levels of funding’. On the other hand this creates a negative backlash particularly from biological or biomedical researchers – that is expressed in those voluntary comments you received – working in mature fields with many of their principles, methodologies and boundaries completely established. The latter group is gradually becoming ‘anti-nano’, so the whole interaction with ‘nanoscientists’ will be reaching a dead-end. This is where the Editor’s role becomes important.

  Critical judgment and determination is required from the Editor’s part in order to realize that proper assays, controls and methods are used and ‘tone down’ the claims a lot of times expressed by nanoscientists, while at the same time ‘contain’ the critics to a rational level of expectations from a ‘nanomedicine’ study. This will allow publication of innovative nanomedicine research that is contributing to the creation of new knowledge rather then the creation of over-hyped expectations.

  The reviewers, critics and Editors in this new field should realize that nanomedicine research commonly lying at the interface between physics, chemistry, biology, toxicology, pharmacology and medicine is not possible to adequately satisfy all standards from each one of these very established fields. Therefore, the following de rigueur two rules become apparent: a) clearly state the ‘inadequacies’ or ‘deficiencies’ in nanomedicine studies, without meaning exclusion or rejection;
  b) express and discuss the positive elements of the reported discoveries by avoiding claims that will lead to unrealistic expectations.

  This will allow the rapid, cross-disciplinary progress required in the field of nanomedicine and allow biomedical researchers and clinicians, the end-users of these technologies, to decide which ones to move to the clinic based on facts rather than hype.