Nanomedicine is yielding new and improved treatments and diagnostics for a range of diseases and disorders. Nanomedicine applications incorporate materials and components with nanoscale dimensions (often defined as 1-100 nm, but sometimes defined to include dimensions up to 1000 nm, as discussed further below) where novel physiochemical properties emerge as a result of size-dependent phenomena and high surface-to-mass ratio. Nanotherapeutics and in vivo nanodiagnostics are a subset of nanomedicine products that enter the human body. These include drugs, biological products (biologics), implantable medical devices, and combination products that are designed to function in the body in ways unachievable at larger scales. Nanotherapeutics and in vivo nanodiagnostics incorporate materials that are engineered at the nanoscale to express novel properties that are medicinally useful. These nanomedicine applications can also contain nanomaterials that are biologically active, producing interactions that depend on biological triggers. Examples include nanoscale formulations of insoluble drugs to improve bioavailability and pharmacokinetics, drugs encapsulated in hollow nanoparticles with the ability to target and cross cellular and tissue membranes (including the bloodbrain barrier) and to release their payload at a specific time or location, imaging agents that demonstrate novel optical properties to aid in locating micrometastases, and antimicrobial and drug-eluting components or coatings of implantable medical devices such as stents.

Researchers, institutional review boards (IRBs), participants in human subjects research, and their families face an important but largely neglected problem — how should incidental findings (IFs) be managed in human subjects research. If researchers unexpectedly stumble upon information of potential health or reproductive significance, should they seek expert evaluation, contact the participant’s physician, tell the research participant, or respond with some combination? What should consent forms and the entire consent process say about how IFs will be handled in research? What should IRBs require?

Genetic testing poses fundamental questions for insurance. Testing can predict a low probability of future illness and disability, which can help promote the insurability of individuals with a family history of genetic risk, but it can also invite insurers to reject applicants, increase premiums, exclude people with certain illnesses and disabilities, and otherwise adjust the underwriting processes for individuals with certain genotypes. In the workplace, these issues may cause employers who offer or pay for insurance to alter their hiring behavior, either by selecting those with desirable genetic makeup or rejecting, dismissing, or reassigning those who carry an unwanted risk, ultimately threatening employability and the safety net that insurance is intended to provide.

Successful preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to avoid creating a child affected by a genetically-based disorder was reported in 1989. Since then PGD has been used to biopsy and analyze embryos created through in viuo fertilization (IVF) to avoid transferring to the mother’s uterus an embryo affected by a mutation or chromosomal abnormality associated with serious illness. PGD to avoid serious and early-onset illness in the child-to-be is widely accepted. PGD prevents gestation of an affected embryo and reduces the chance that the parents will be faced with a difficult decision of whether to terminate the pregnancy. More controversial have been PGD to select the sex of the child-to-be for “family balancing” (rather than to avoid a sex-linked disorder), PGD for mere susceptibility to disease and for late-onset disorders such as Alzheimer diseas, and most controversially, PGD to create a donor child who is Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA-matched with a preexisting sibling in need of stem cell transplant.