Metaphors in Nanomedicine: The Case of Targeted Drug Delivery

Abstract

International audienceThe promises of nanotechnology have been framed by a variety of metaphors, that not only channel the attention of the public, orient the questions asked by researchers, and convey epistemic choices closely linked to ethical preferences. In particular, the image of the 'therapeutic missile' commonly used to present targeted drug delivery devices emphasizes precision, control, surveillance and efficiency. Such values are highly praised in the current context of crisis of pharmaceutical innovation where military metaphors foster a general mobilization of resources from multiple fields of cutting-edge research. The missile metaphor, reminiscent of Paul Ehrlich's 'magic bullet', has framed the problem in simple terms: how to deliver the right dose in the right place at the right moment? Chemists, physicists and engineers who design multi-functional devices operating in vitro can think in such terms, as long as the devices are not actually operating through the messy environment of the body. A close look at what has been done and what remains to be done suggests that the metaphor of the "therapeutic missile" is neither sufficient, nor even necessary. Recent developments in nanomedicine suggest that therapeutic efficacy cannot be obtained without negotiating with the biological milieu and taking advantage of what it affords. An 'oïkological' approach seems more appropriate, more heuristic and more promising than the popular missile. It is based on the view of organism as an oikos that has to be carefully managed. The dispositions of nanocapsules have to be coupled with the affordances of the environment. As it requires dealing with nanoparticles as relational entities (defined by their potential for interactions) rather than as stable substances (defined by intrinsic properties) this metaphor eventually might well change research priorities in nanotechnology in general

Nanomedicine and personalised medicine: understanding the personalisation of health care in the molecular era

“…) overcoming biological defense mechanisms (Jeelani et al . ), or ‘therapeutic missiles’, ‘nano‐weapons’ or ‘smart bombs’ that minimise ‘collateral damages’, conveying a capacity for control, surveillance, and efficiency (Bensaude‐Vincent and Loeve ). Though our respondents do at times make use of such language, as when Margaret D. above, talks about adjusting the treatment to the ‘target’, more germane to our discussion of personalisation is the manner in which access to the patient's body via remote control projects an increasing remoteness in the relationship between patient and clinician, as extrapolated towards the future:

The act of touching to diagnose the patient is disappearing.

…”

“…In our methodology section we argue that technical potential alone does not determine the trajectory of emerging technologies. That said, technical potential nonetheless does provide ‘affordances’ – a potential rendered possible by an encounter (Bensaude‐Vincent and Loeve : 12) – for its articulation with social processes. Consequently we begin with a brief overview of nanotechnology and nanomedicine.…”

“Invasive” and “Non-invasive” Technologies in Neuroscience Communication

“…On certain occasions, scientists can use metaphors to explain scientific results or describe scientific activity, and indeed, "invasiveness" can be seen at least as an extension of the term's meaning because the word "invasion" primarily denotes a belligerent intervention by a country transgressing another country's boundaries. Some observers have insisted on the dangerous aspects of mobilizing military language in scientific contexts, considering, for instance, the frequent appeal to military vocabulary in the biological sciences: (i) describing delivery of a nanodrug as a "destructive bomb reaching its target" would lead, in the long run, to misconceptions prejudicing the treatment [1] or (ii) stigmatizing "invasive species" would lead to biased management of ecosystems [2]. Metaphors or common language in science have a fundamental ambiguity: on one hand, historians of science have used the fertility of metaphors and displacements of language to produce knowledge [3], and on the other hand, some of their potentially misleading aspects have been noted.…”

Deliberating responsibility: a collective contribution by the C’Nano IdF Nanoscience & Society Office

“…either; It rather asks ''what can it afford?'' It is a mode of research primarily interested in exploring and exploiting the 'affordances' of the nanoscale-the possibilities of action offered by nanoscale environments, objects and processes (Gibson 1979;Harré and Llored 2011;Bensaude-Vincent and Loeve 2013): How an object, process or phenomenon can be made, controllable, manipulable, tunable, trackable, addressable, transferable, triggerable, etc. While nanoresearch does not always directly seek to produce useful applications, it is nevertheless always concerned with acquiring new capabilities of technological design and phenomenon control.…”