Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Public Value Mapping of Equity in Emerging Nanomedicine

  • Published:
Minerva Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Public values failure occurs when the market and the public sector fail to provide goods and services required to achieve the core values of society such as equity (Bozeman 2007). That public policy for emerging health technologies should address intrinsic societal values such as equity is not a novel concept. However, the ways that the public values discourse of stakeholders is structured is less clear and rarely studied through the lens of public interests. This is especially true in the health sciences discourse. Using the public value mapping (PVM) model I present a case study of the intrinsic value of equity in nanomedicine for cancer and the imperatives for translational research, an instrumental value to achieve equity. After reviewing and coding nearly 700 value statements from several hundred public documents, I find that that the discourse on values varies between documents that address basic research and documents that address the application of the knowledge produced in basic research, with some especially notable disconnections. This paper demonstrates the importance of further refinement of methods for testing the PVM framework if the societal goal is to improve consistency of the public value discussion by those involved in developing and applying new technologies. The paper also demonstrates the value of a PVM approach for complex science policy analysis, especially for emerging technologies like nanomedicine.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This pernicious problem of values aggregation is aptly described in the recent HHS Office of Minority Health (OMH) Strategic Framework for Improving Racial/Ethnic Minority Health and Eliminating Racial/Ethnic Health Disparities. See http://www.omhrc.gov/npa/images/78/PrintFramework.html.

  2. Romig et al. (2007) have suggested that one of the core problems that policy-makers face is the ambiguity and loose usage of the term “nano.” I did not attempt to ascertain if the use of nano in any of the public values statements was used with technical accuracy, but rather I assumed that any use of the term (i.e. nanomedicine, nanopolicy, nanoformulation) were all related to the same basic science.

  3. http://www.aacr.org/home/public--media/patients--family/fact-sheets/cancer-concepts/nanotechnology.aspx.

  4. http://www.epa.gov/ncer/publications/handouts/ncer_flyer_2008.pdf.

  5. http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/funding/CD08-001.htm.

  6. The full data set can be found at http://www.cspo.org/pvm-nanomedicine/.

References

  • Agrawal, Sangeeta, Anand Bupinderinderjit, Manjoop Bhutani et al. 2005. Colorectal cancer in African Americans. The American Journal of Gastroenterology 100: 515–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Best, Robert, and George Khushf. 2006. The social conditions for nanomedicine: Disruption, systems, and lock-in. Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics 34(4): 733–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betancourt, Joseph, Alexander Green, J. Emilio Carrillo et al. 2005. Cultural competence and health care disparities: Key perspectives and trends. Health Affairs 24(2): 499–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bland, Kirby I. 2007. Concerning trends and outcomes for National Institutes of Health funding of cancer research. Journal of Surgical Oncology 95(2): 161–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, Barry. 2002. Public value failure: When efficient markets may not do. Public Administration Review 62(2): 145–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, Barry. 2007. Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic individualism. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, Barry, and Juan Rogers. 2002. A churn model of scientific knowledge value: Internet researchers as a knowledge value collective. Research Policy 31(5): 769–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, Barry, and Daniel Sarewitz. 2005. Public values and public failure in US science policy. Science & Public Policy 32(2): 119–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, Deborah, Michele Jones, David Buchanan, and Jose Russo. 2006. Reducing cancer disparities for minorities: A multidisciplinary research agenda to improve patient access to health systems, clinical trials, and effective cancer therapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology 24(14): 2209–2215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colon-Otero, Gerado, Robert Smallridge, Lawrence Solberg et al. 2008. Disparities in participation in cancer clinical trials in the United States. Cancer 112(3): 447–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 1985. Report of the secretary’s task force on black and minority health. October 16, 1985. Washington, D.C.: Health Information Clearing House.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Melo-Martin, Immaculada. 2009. Creating reflective spaces: Interactions between philosophers and biomedical scientists. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 52(1): 39–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eng, Thomas. 2005. Emerging technologies for cancer prevention and other population health challenges. Journal of Medical Internet Research. doi:10.2196/jmir.7.3.e30.

  • Feeney, Mary Katherine, and Barry Bozeman. 2007. Public values and public failure. Public Integrity 9(2): 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, Jean, Mollie Howerton, Gabriel Lai et al. 2008. Barriers to recruiting underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials: A systematic review. Cancer 112(2): 228–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garber, Alan, and Robert Arnold. 2006. Promoting the participation of minorities in research. American Journal of Bioethics 6(3): W14–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulbrandsen, Magnus, and Liv Langfeldt. 2004. In search of ‘Mode 2’: The nature of knowledge production in Norway. Minerva 42(3): 237–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, David H., and Kenneth Keniston. 1994. The fragile contract: University science and the federal government. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healthy People 2010 and United States Department of Health and Human Services. 2010. Healthy people 2010: Understanding and improving health. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Health and Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, James, and Mark Davis. 2008. Nanotechnology and cancer. Annual Review of Medicine 59: 251–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hede, Shantesh, and Nagraj Huilgol. 2006. Nano: The new nemesis of cancer. Journal of Cancer Research & Therapeutics 2(4): 186–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helmuth, Laura. 2000. Biomedical policy: NIH, under pressure, boosts minority health research. Science 288(5466): 596–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen, Torben, and Barry Bozeman. 2007. Public values: An inventory. Administration and Society 39: 354–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, Katherine. 2008. Moving research from bench to bedside to community: There is still more to do. Journal of Clinical Oncology 26(4): 523–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, Judith A., Virginia W. Chang, Said A. Ibrahim, and David A. Asch. 2004. Update on the health disparities literature. Annals of Internal Medicine 141: 805–812.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murthy, Vivek, Harlan Krumholz, and Cary P. Gross. 2004. Participation in cancer clinical trials: Race sex and age-based disparities. Journal of the American Medical Association 291(22): 2720–2726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Cancer Institute (NCI). 2006. The NCI Strategic Plan for leading the nation to eliminate the suffering and death due to cancer (No. NIH Publication No. 06-5773): Department of Health and Human Services.

  • Pielke, Roger, Jr., and Radford Byerly. 1998. Beyond basic and applied. Physics Today 51(2): 42–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinto, Harlan, Worta McCaskill-Stevens, Pam Wolfe, and Alfred C. Marcus. 2000. Physician perspectives on increasing minorities in cancer clinical trials: An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) initiative. Annals of Epidemiology 10(8 Suppl): S78–S84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, David B., and Sally S. Tinkle. 2007. Ethical issues in clinical trials involving nanomedicine. Contemporary Clinical Trials 28: 433–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romig, Alton D., Arnold Baker, Justine Thomas et al. 2007. An introduction to nanotechnology policy: Opportunities and constraints for emerging and established economies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74(9): 1634–1642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, Ronald, and Christopher J. Bosso. 2007. Tiny technology, enormous implications. Issues in Science & Technology 23: 28–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, Ronald, and William D. Kay. 2006. The national nanotechnology initiative and the social good. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 34: 675–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slade, Catherine P. 2009. Equity Issues Facing Nanotechnology in Cancer Treatment: A Public Value Mapping Case Study. Unpublished: A Case Study for NSF Grant Award 0738203. Consortium for Science Policy & Outcomes, Arizona State University.

  • Smedley, Brian D., Adrienne Y. Stith, Alan R. Nelson, and The Institute of Medicine Committee on Understanding, Eliminating Racial, Ethnic Disparities in Health Care (eds.). 2003. Unequal treatment: Confronting racial and ethnic disparities in health care. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, C. Marie, and Amy J. Ward. 1995. Recruiting minorities into clinical trials toward a participant-friendly system. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 87: 1747–1759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, Donald E. 1997. Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sung, Nancy, William F. Crowley, Myron Genel et al. 2003. Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise. Journal of the American Medical Association 289(10): 1278–1287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, Peter. 1997. From “Finalization” to “Mode 2”: Old wine in new bottles? Social Science Information 36(4): 591–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodhouse, Edward, and Daniel Sarewitz. 2007. Science Policies for Reducing Societal Inequities. Science and Public Policy 34(2): 139–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yancy, Clyde W. 2008. Race-based therapeutics. Current Hypertension Reports 10(4): 276–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zerhouni, Elias A. 2005. US Biomedical Research: Basic, Translational, and Clinical Sciences. JAMA 294(11): 1352–1358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hull College of Business, Augusta State University, 2500 Walton Way, 30904, Augusta, Georgia

    Catherine P. Slade

Authors
  1. Catherine P. Slade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine P. Slade.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Slade, C.P. Public Value Mapping of Equity in Emerging Nanomedicine. Minerva 49, 71–86 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-011-9163-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-011-9163-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation