Effects of disciplinary cultures of researchers and research trainees on the acceptability of nanocarriers for drug delivery in different contexts of use: a mixed-methods study

Abstract

The acceptability of nanomedical applications, which have the potential to generate ethical and societal impacts, is a significant factor in the deployment of nanomedicine. A lack of fit between nanomedical applications and society’s values may result from a partial consideration of such impacts. New approaches for technological evaluation focused on impact perception, acceptance, and acceptability are needed to go beyond traditional technology assessment approaches used with nanotechnology, which focus mainly on toxicological and safety criteria. Using a new evaluative approach based on perceived impacts of nanotechnology, the objective of this study was to assess perceptions among researchers and research trainees familiar with emergent technologies and from different disciplinary background the scope of acceptability judgments made towards the use of nanocarriers. This mixed-methods study was based on scenarios presenting two types of drug-delivery nanocarriers (carbon, synthetic DNA) in two contexts of use (lung cancer treatment, seasonal flu treatment). Researchers and research trainees in the natural sciences and engineering, and the social sciences and the humanities were invited by email to take part in this project. An online questionnaire followed by semi-directed interviews allowed characterization of disciplinary divergences regarding to impact perception, acceptance, and acceptability of the scenarios. The results suggest that impact perception is influenced by disciplinary culture. Also, trends can be seen between respondents’ profiles and variables of acceptance and acceptability, and certain components of the acceptability judgement are specific to each disciplinary culture. The acknowledgment and consideration of these disciplinary divergences could allow, among others, for opening up interdisciplinary dialogue on matters related to the acceptability of nanomedical applications and their developments.

Analyses of Acceptability Judgments Made Toward the Use of Nanocarrier-Based Targeted Drug Delivery: Interviews with Researchers and Research Trainees in the Field of New Technologies

“…The Canadian researchers for their part emphasized issues of social cohabitation in a different manner, stressing the importance of being able to choose whether or not to be treated this way—thus endorsing the importance of a choice being possible for all members of society even if they themselves did not agree with personal use of the treatment—and of the productivity of the individuals treated. Results related to disciplinary distinctions were reported in another publication dedicated to that objective (see [ 21 ]). Respondents’ age at time of treatment also seemed to influence the weight they assigned to certain impacts as related to time of life.…”

“…The literature on impact perception and acceptance supports findings on the influence of psychosocial features. Perceived usefulness [ 35 , 36 ] and potential users’ sociodemographic characteristics [ 9 , 19 , 34 ], in particular, social culture as manifested in values and reference points [ 38 – 41 ] and disciplinary culture [ 21 ], are contextual factors that emerged during the interviews and that align with current practices in technology assessment studies. Given the range of the possible E 3 LS issues regarding NT applications and regarding cultural sensitivities throughout France and Canada for instance, new approaches will have to bridge the gap between researchers’ discourse in an interdisciplinary and an international manner.…”

“…It has been found that the judgment process among experts who assess risk as the expected value of the negative outcomes of a decision may vary between individuals, across contexts, and over time, which suggests the existence of modulating factors that influence an assessor’s value judgments [ 19 ]. Context of use and disciplinary culture have also been shown to be factors likely to influence acceptability judgments about the use of nanocarriers for TDD [ 20 , 21 ]. Still, other research results support the view that public perceptions of NT shift according to the application being assessed and the assessor [ 9 ].…”

“…Using an E 3 LS theoretical framework for the analysis of the impacts and acceptability of technological applications [ 7 ], the first component of the study presented impact perceptions, acceptance, and acceptability judgments of researchers in relation to the two kinds of nanocarriers presented in the two contexts of use [ 20 ]. The second component examined the impact of disciplinary culture on the impact perceptions, acceptance, and acceptability judgments of researchers in relation to the same applications presented under the same context of use [ 21 ]. The main objective of this third component was to document in a more detailed fashion the impacts and impact facets perceived and weighed by researchers in the field of new technologies when arriving at an acceptability judgment about envisioned applications of TDD.…”

Expert stakeholders’ perception of nanotechnology: risk, benefit, knowledge, and regulation

“…As with research into public opinion, prominent themes are experts' weighing of nanotechnology risk versus benefit, and experts' views of nanotechnology regulation. Studies of experts include studies both of natural scientists specifically working on nanotechnology (Bertoldo et al 2016;Besley et al 2008;Chenel et al 2015;Corley et al 2009Corley et al , 2013Johansson and Boholm 2017;Kim et al 2012;Powell 2007) and of stakeholders involved in nanotechnology legislation, commercialization, and production (Engeman et al 2012;Gupta et al 2012Gupta et al , 2013Hansen 2010;Tachikawa 2012;van Dijk et al 2017).…”