Of Nanochips and Persons: Toward an Ethics of Diagnostic Technology in Personalized Medicine

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - Tập 6 - Trang 155-165 - 2012
Sophie Pellé1, Vanessa Nurock2
1Philosophies Contemporaines, Université Paris1-Panthéon Sorbonne, Paris, France
2Laboratoire Théories du politique (LAbTop), Université Paris 8 Vincennes Saint-Denis, Saint Denis, France

Tóm tắt

This paper proposes an ethical reflection on personalized medicine and more precisely on the diagnostic technology underlying it, including nanochips. Our approach is inspired by a combination of two philosophical frames of reference: first, John Dewey’s distinction between intuitive valuation and reflexive evaluation, second, John Rawls’ reflective equilibrium. We aim at what we call a ‘reflexive equilibrium’, a mutual adjustment between on the one hand, the intuitive beliefs scientists have about the ethics of the technologies they work on (‘valuations’ in Dewey’s vocabulary) and, on the other hand, the reflexive ethical assessment of these technologies (‘evaluations’). Our goal, in this paper, is to provide the first step of this process through a philosophical analysis of some valuations on individualized medicine. In order to apprehend the ethical values shaping the development of biochips, we present and analyze qualitative interviews with scientists involved in the conception and the development of biochips involving nanotechnologies. We then propose a critical assessment of the role of ethics in these scientific practices. Last, we suggest two distinct and complementary ways to solve some of the issues brought to light by the interviews, without aiming at any dogmatic or “ready-made” answer. The first of these perspectives gives a central role to the capability individuals could achieve through personalized medicine; the second approach analyses the ethical disruptions entailed by personalized medicine with a special focus on care.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Caruthers SD, Wickline SA, Lanza GM (2007) Nanotechnological applications in medicine. Curr Opin Biotechnol 18(1):26–30 Raffa V, Vittorio O, Riggio C, Cuschieri A (2010) Progress in nanotechnology for healthcare. Minim Invasive Ther 19(3):127–135 Jain KK (2007) Applications of nanobiotechnology in clinical diagnostics. Clin Chem 53(11):2002–2009 Chan P, Yuen T, Ruf F, Gonzalez-Moeso J & Sealfon SC (2005) Method for multiplexcellular detection of mRNAs using quantum dot fluorescent in situ hybridization. Nucleic Acids Res 33 (18) Villiers MB, Cortès S, Brakha C, Marche P, Roget A, Livache T (2009) Polypyrrole-peptide microarray for biomolecular interaction analysis by SPR imaging. Methods Mol Biol 570:317–328 Hill HD, Mirkin CA (2005) The bio-barcode assay for the detection of protein and nucleic acid targets using DTT-induced ligand exchange. Nat Protoc 1:324–336 Nam JM, Wise AR, Groves JT (2005) Colorimetric bio-barcode amplification assay for cytokines. Anal Chem 77:6985–6988 Nazem A, Mansoori GA (2008) Nanotechnology solutions for Alzheimer’s disease: advances in research tools, diagnostic methods and therapeutic agents. J Alzheimer’s Dis 13(2):199–233 Goluch ED, Nam JM, Georganopoulou GD et al (2006) A bio-barcode assay for on-chip attomolar-sensitivity protein detection. Lab Chip 6:1293–1299 Bayertz K (1998) What’s special about molecular genetic diagnostics. J Med Philos 23(3):247–254 Konrad M (2003) Predictive genetic testing and the making of the pre-symptomatic person: prognostic moralities amongst Huntington’s-affected families. Anthropol Med 10(1):24–47 Jain KK (2002) Personalized medicine. Curr Opin Mol Ther 4(6):548–558 Netzer C, Biller-Androno N (2004) Pharmacogenetic testing, informed consent and the problem of secondary information. Bioethics 18(4):344–360 Schubert L (2004) Ethical implications of pharmacogenetics - Do slippery slope arguments matter? Bioethics 18(4):361–378 Smart A, Martin P, Parker M (2004) Tailored medicine: whom will it fit? The ethics of patient and disease stratification. Bioethics 18(4):322–343 Paul NW, Fangerau H (2006) Why should we bother? Ethical and social issues in individualized medicine. Curr Drug Targets 7(12):1721–1727 Marchant GE (2009) Small is beautiful: what Can nanotechnology do for personalized medicine? Curr Pharm Personalized Med 7(4):231–237 Bensaude-Vincent B, Larrère R, Nurock V (2008) “Pour une philosophie de terrain”. In: Bensaude-Vincent B, Larrère R, Nurock V (eds) Bionano-ethique, perspectives critiques sur les bionanotechnologies. Vuibert, Paris, pp xi–xxx Bensaude-Vincent B & Nurock V (2010) « Nanoéthique», In: E. Hirsch, Traité de Bioéthique, Eres, 2010, T1 p. 355–369 Dewey J (1939) Theory of valuation. (In O. Neurath, R. Carnap & C.W. Morris (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, 2(4), (pp 1–66). Chicago: University of Chicago Press) Rawls J (1971) Theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Boston Kubik T, Bogunia-Kubik K, Sugisaka M (2005) Nanotechnology on duty in medical applications. Curr Pharm Biotechnol 6:17–33 Weber M (2004) The Vocation Lectures: Science As a Vocation, Politics As a Vocation. Hackett Publishing Co Canguilhem G (1966 (1991)) The Normal and the Pathological. New York: Zone (tr: Fawcett CR: Le normal et le pathologique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France) Berquin A (2009) Les soins de santé, entre standardisation et personnalisation. Editions Seli Arslan, Paris Sen AK (1985) Well-being, agency and freedom: the Dewey lectures 1984. J Philos 82(4):169–221 Sen AK (2004) Incompleteness and reasoned choice. Synthese 140(1–2):43–49 Sen AK (2009) The idea of justice. Pinguin Books, London Issa AM (2002) Ethical perspectives on pharmacogenomics profiling in the drug development process. Nat Rev Drug Discov 1(4):300–308 Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (1989) Principles of biomedical ethics. University Press, Oxford Mol A (2008) The logic of care: health and the problem of patient choice. Routledge, New York