As one who has intermittently
toiled in the field of nanoparticle mediated drug delivery, I am bemused by the
uncritical, almost reverent acceptance by the news media of each new
publication on nanomedicine that appears in a decent scientific journal. A couple of recent examples might include a
post on the Economist Babbage site enthusing about peptide-coated nanoworms
that are designed to detect elevations of protease activities in certain
disease states by releasing the peptides for detection in the urine. Another on
the CEN website lauds work using drug bearing polymers to suppress inflammation
in CNS microglial cells. This is not to criticize the scientists who did the
work or the studies themselves; they are certainly interesting science.
However, as is often the case in the nanomedicine area, these very early stage
investigations are hailed as breakthroughs that will inevitably result in
important advances in clinical medicine. Not likely!
Over the years I have seen
hundreds of novel and interesting strategies involving use of nanotechnology
for diagnosis or therapy come crashing to a halt as they encounter the
complexities of real-world medicine. Yet the breathless, awestruck acceptance
of new developments in this field continues. Apparently there is a robust mythology
about nanomedicine that is widely accepted. However, a bit more skepticism
would probably be good for the field in the long run.
No comments:
Post a Comment