[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Print Me an Organ? Ethical and Regulatory Issues Emerging from 3D Bioprinting in Medicine

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent developments of three-dimensional printing of biomaterials (3D bioprinting) in medicine have been portrayed as demonstrating the potential to transform some medical treatments, including providing new responses to organ damage or organ failure. However, beyond the hype and before 3D bioprinted organs are ready to be transplanted into humans, several important ethical concerns and regulatory questions need to be addressed. This article starts by raising general ethical concerns associated with the use of bioprinting in medicine, then it focuses on more particular ethical issues related to experimental testing on humans, and the lack of current international regulatory directives to guide these experiments. Accordingly, this article (1) considers whether there is a limit as to what should be bioprinted in medicine; (2) examines key risks of significant harm associated with testing 3D bioprinting for humans; (3) investigates the clinical trial paradigm used to test 3D bioprinting; (4) analyses ethical questions of irreversibility, loss of treatment opportunity and replicability; (5) explores the current lack of a specific framework for the regulation and testing of 3D bioprinting treatments.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. It is possible to consider various theories of justice for understanding a fair usage of 3D bioprinting (e.g. egalitarian approach, sufficiency principle, prioritarianism, etc).

  2. Not establishing an acceptable risk level may lead to a public rejection or distrust of these technologies. These public concerns may impact the development of the technology, regardless of whether the fears which propel public rejection or distrust have any likelihood of being realized.

  3. Practically, most cancer phase 1 study evaluates efficacy endpoints like tumor response or even progression free survival.

  4. Similar to some concerns associated with nanotechnologies, one could ask whether there is a positive moral obligation to develop bioprinting technologies (Gilbert and Dodds 2014).

References

  • Atala, A., Bauer, S. B., Soker, S., Yoo, J. J., & Retik, A. B. (2006). Tissue-engineered autologous bladders for patients needing cystoplasty. Lancet, 367(9518), 1241–1246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bretzner, F., Gilbert, F., Baylis, F., & Brownstone, R. M. (2011). Target populations for first-in-human embryonic stem cell research in spinal cord injury. Cell Stem Cell, 8(5), 468–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clinicaltrials.gov. (2015). NCT02559050 Nasal reconstruction using a customized 3D-printed nasal stent for congenital arhinia. Clinicaltrials.gov A service of the U.S. National Institutes of Health. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02559050. Accessed August 12 2016.

  • Cohen, I. G. (2013). Transplant tourism: The ethics and regulation of international markets for organs. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 41(1), 269–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornwall, J. (2016). The ethics of 3D printing copies of bodies donated for medical education and research. Australasian Medical Journal, 9(1), 8–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, C. T., Baird, L. M., Jacobson, M. D., Tabibkhoei, F., Beck, J. M., Daubert, G. L., et al. (2015). 3D printing of medical devices: When a novel technology meets traditional legal principles. White paper. Life Sciences Industry Group. http://www.reedsmith.com/files/Publication/130448b9-7565-4295-a697-5c5d7c6eb516/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/9ba9b53c-2009-488d-ba91-5cc5a19a38f7/3d-printing-white-paper_79444049.pdf. Accessed August 1 2016.

  • de Vries, R. B. M., Oerlemans, A., Trommelmans, L., Dierickx, K., & Gordijn, B. (2008). Ethical aspects of tissue engineering: A review. Tissue Engineering Part B: Reviews, 14(4), 367–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Wert, G., & Mummery, C. (2003). Human embryonic stem cells: Research, ethics and policy. Human Reproduction, 18(4), 672–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodds, S. (2015). 3D printing raises ethical issues in medicine. ABC Science. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2015/02/11/4161675.htm. Accessed March 1 2016.

  • Dukehealth.org. (2015). 3D printed bone implant saves woman’s leg. DukeHealth. http://www.dukehealth.org/blog/3-d-printed-bone-implant-saves-womans-leg. Accessed March 1 2016.

  • Enoch, S., Shaaban, H., & Dunn, K. W. (2005). Informed consent should be obtained from patients to use products (skin substitutes) and dressings containing biological material. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31(1), 2–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FDA.gov. (2014a). Food and Drug Administration (FDA) public additive manufacturing of medical devices: An interactive discussion on medical considerations of 3D printing. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/ucm397324.htm. Accessed March 1 2016.

  • FDA.gov. (2014b). Food and Drug Administration (FDA) public workshop additive manufacturing of medical devices: An interactive discussion on medical considerations of 3D printing. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/UCM425399.pdf. Accessed March 1 2016.

  • FDA.gov. (2016). Technical considerations for additive manufactured devices. Draft guidance for industry and Food and Drug Administration staff. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. http://www.fda.gov/ucm/groups/fdagov-public/@fdagov-meddev-gen/documents/document/ucm499809.pdf. Accessed August 1 2016.

  • Fedorovich, N. E., Oudshoorn, M. H., van Geemen, D., Hennink, W. E., Alblas, J., & Dhert, W. J. (2009). The effect of photopolymerization on stem cells embedded in hydrogels. Biomaterials, 30(3), 344–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gartner.com. (2014). Gartner says uses of 3D printing will ignite major debate on ethics and regulation. Gartner. http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2658315. Accessed March 1 2016.

  • Gilbert, F. (2012). The burden of normality: From ‘chronically ill’ to ‘symptom free’. New ethical challenges for deep brain stimulation postoperative treatment. Journal of Medical Ethics, 38(7), 408–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, F. (2013a). Deep brain stimulation for treatment resistant depression: Postoperative feelings of self-estrangement. Suicide Attempt and Impulsive-Aggressive Behaviours, Neuroethics, 6(3), 473–481. doi:10.1007/s12152-013-9178-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, F. (2013b). Deep brain stimulation and postoperative suicidability among treatment resistant depression patients: Should eligibility protocols exclude patients with history of suicide attempts and anger/impulsivity? American Journal of Bioethics: Neuroscience, 4(1), 28–35. doi:10.1080/21507740.2012.740143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, F. (2014). Self-estrangement & deep brain stimulation: Ethical issues related to forced explantation. Neuroethics, 8(2), 107–114. doi:10.1007/s12152-014-9224-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, F. (2015). A threat to autonomy? The intrusion of predictive brain devices. American Journal of Bioethics: Neuroscience, 6(4), 4–11. doi:10.1080/21507740.2015.1076087.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, F., & Dodds, S. (2014). Is there a moral obligation to develop brain implants involving nanobionics technologies? Ethical issues for clinical trials. Nanoethics, 8, 49–56. doi:10.1007/s11569-013-0177-3.

  • Gilbert, F., & Cook, M. (2015). Are predictive brain implants an indispensable feature of autonomy? Bioethica Forum, 8(4), 121–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, F., Harris, A., Dodds, S., & Kapsa, R. (2015). Is a ‘last chance’ treatment possible after an irreversible brain intervention? AJOB Neuroscience, 6(2), W1–W2. doi:10.1080/21507740.2015.1037469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, F., Harris, A., & Kapsa, R. (2012). Efficacy testing as a primary purpose of Phase 1 clinical trials: Is it applicable to first-in-human bionics and optogenetics trials? American Journal of Bioethics: Neuroscience, 3(2), 20–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, F., Harris, A., & Kapsa, R. (2014). Controlling brain cells with light: Ethical considerations for optogenetics trials. American Journal of Bioethics: Neuroscience, 5(3), 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • GPO.gov. (2014). Additive manufacturing of medical devices: An interactive discussion on the technical considerations of 3-D printing. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-05-19/html/2014-11513.htm. Accessed March 1 2016.

  • Gutierrez-Aranda, I. (2010). Human induced pluripotent stem cells develop teratoma more efficiently and faster than human embryonic stem cells regardless the site of injection. Stem Cells, 28(9), 1568–1570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, W. H. (2009). The first 50 years of total hip arthroplasty: Lessons learned. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 467(1), 28–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, P. (2012). Intracranial stem cell-based transplantation: Reconsidering the ethics of phase 1 clinical trials in light of irreversible interventions in the brain. American Journal of Bioethics: Neuroscience, 3(2), 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilleman, M. R. (1998). Discovery of simian virus 40 (SV40) and its relationship to poliomyelitis virus vaccines. Developments in Biological Standardization, 94, 183–190.

  • Hollister, S. J., Flanagan, C. L., Zopf, D. A., Morrison, R. J., Nasser, H., Patel, J. J., et al. (2015). Design control for clinical translation of 3D printed modular scaffolds. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 43(3), 774–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyun, I. (2010). The bioethics of stem cell research and therapy. The Journal of Clinical Investigations, 120, 71–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ipscell.com. (2015). Landmark IPSC clinical study on hold due to genomic issue. The Niche Knoepfler lab stem cell blog. http://www.ipscell.com/2015/07/firstipscstop/. Accessed March 1 2016.

  • Jabr, F. (2012). In the flesh: The embedded dangers of untested stem cell cosmetics. Scientific American. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stem-cell-cosmetics/. Accessed March 21 2016.

  • Kang, H. W., Lee, S. J., Ko, I. K., Kengla, C., Yoo, J. J., & Atala, A. (2016). A 3D bioprinting system to produce human-scale tissue constructs with structural integrity. Nature Biotechnology, 34(3), 312–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimbrel, E. A., & Lanza, R. (2015). Current status of pluripotent stem cells: Moving the first therapies to the clinic. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 14(10), 681–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimmelman, J. (2012). A theoretical framework for early human studies: Uncertainty, intervention ensembles, and boundaries. Trials, 13, 173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, E. (2013). Science and society: Experts warn against 3D printing. Science, 342(6157), 439.

  • Lindvall, O., Kokaia, Z., & Martinez-Serrano, A. (2004). Stem cell therapy for human neurodegenerative disorders—How to make it work. Nature Medicine, 10(Suppl), S42–S50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, A. M., Simonelli, F., Pierce, E. A., Pugh, E. N., Jr., Mingozzi, F., Bennicelli, J., et al. (2008). Safety and efficacy of gene transfer for Leber’s congenital amaurosis. New England Journal of Medicine, 358(21), 2240–2248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchioli, G., van Gurp, L., van Krieken, P. P., Stamatialis, D., Engelse, M., & van Blitterswijk, C. A. (2015). Fabrication of three-dimensional bioplotted hydrogel scaffolds for islets of Langerhans transplantation. Biofabrication, 7(2), 025009. doi:10.1088/1758-5090/7/2/025009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martina, M., & Hutmacher, D. W. (2007). Biodegradable polymers applied in tissue engineering research: A review. Polymer International, 56(2), 145–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattox, J. M. (2013). Additive manufacturing and its implications for military ethics. Journal of Military Ethics, 12, 225–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MFDS. (2015). Guidance for approval and review of custom devices manufactured using 3D printers. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. http://www.mfds.go.kr/eng/eng/download.do;jsessionid=aku16DUHEgsPrxyxLwUzqcjMDFm5HA1dAaajbIwUqZWcTsiTQh1mX7XSSqgC2F07?boardCode=17841&boardSeq=70109&fileSeq=1. Accessed August 21 2016.

  • Mill, J. S. (1998). In R. Crisp (Ed.), Utilitarianism. London: Oxford University Press.

  • Morrison, R. J., Hollister, S. J., Niedner, M. F., Mahani, M. G., Park, A. H., Mehta, D. K., et al. (2015a). Mitigation of tracheobronchomalacia with 3D-printed personalized medical devices in pediatric patients. Science Translational Medicine, 7, 285ra64, doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3010825.

  • Morrison, R. J., Kashlan, K. N., Flanangan, C. L., Wright, J. K., Green, G. E., Hollister, S. J., et al. (2015b). Regulatory considerations in the design and manufacturing of implantable 3D-printed medical devices. Clinical and Translational Science, 8(5), 594–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munsie, M., & Hyun, I. (2014). A question of ethics: Selling autologous stem cell therapies flaunts professional standards. Stem Cell Research, 13(3), 647–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, S. V., & Atala, A. (2014). 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. Nature Biotechnology, 32(8), 773–785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nair, K., Gandhi, M., Khalil, S., Yan, K. C., Marcolongo, M., Barbee, K., et al. (2009). Characterization of cell viability during bioprinting processes. Biotechnology Journal, 4(8), 1168–1177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakano-Okuno, M., Rashmi Borah, B., & Nakano, I. (2014). Ethics of iPSC-based clinical research for age-related macular degeneration: Patient-centered risk-benefit analysis. Stem Cell Reviews, 10(6), 743–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neely, E. L. (2015). The risks of revolution: Ethical dilemmas in 3D printing from a US perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9707-4.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell, C. D., Di Bella, C., Thompson, F., Augustine, C., Beirne, S., Cornock, R., et al. (2016). Development of the Biopen: A handheld device for surgical printing of adipose stem cells at a chondral wound site. Biofabrication, 8(1), 015019. doi:10.1088/1758-5090/8/1/015019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, A., & Seear, K. (2011). Technologies of hope: Techniques of the online advertising of stem cell treatments. New Genetics and Society, 30(4), 329–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pule, M., Finney, H., & Lawson, A. (2003). Artificial T-cell receptors. Cytotherapy, 5(3), 211–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratner, B. D., & Bryant, S. J. (2004). Biomaterials: Where we have been and where we are going. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, 6, 41–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schothorst, M. V., Weeda, J., Schiffers, K., Oortwijn, W., Hoekman, J., Coppens, D., et al. (2016). Study on the regulation of advanced therapies in selected jurisdictions. European Commission.http://ec.europa.eu/health/human-use/docs/20147306_rfs_chafea_2014_health_24_060516.pdf. Accessed August 1 2016.

  • Segers, V. F. M., & Lee, R. T. (2008). Stem-cell therapy for cardiac disease. Nature, 451, 937–942.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skerritt, J. (2015). Impact of innovative therapies on the regulation of therapeutic goods—Presentation at the ARCS AGM Melbourne, 26 November, 2015. Slideshow presentation. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing Therapeutic Goods Administration. http://www.tga.gov.au/presentation-impact-innovative-therapies-regulation-therapeutic-goods. Accessed August 12 2016.

  • Tasoglu, S., & Demirci, U. (2013). Bioprinting for stem cell research. Trends in Biotechnology, 31(1), 10–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TGA. (2011). Australian regulatory guidelines for medical devices (ARGMD). Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing Therapeutic Goods Administration. http://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/devices-argmd-01.pdf. Accessed August 1 2016.

  • TGA. (2013). Excluded Goods Order No. 1 of 2011: Guideline for Items 4(o), 4(p), 4(q) and 4(r). Australian Government Department of Health Therapeutic Goods Administration. http://www.tga.gov.au/excluded-goods-order-no-1-2011-guideline-items-4o-4p-4q-and-4r. Accessed August 12 2016.

  • TGA. (2014). Australian regulatory guidelines for biologicals (ARGB). Australian Government Department of Health Therapeutic Goods Administration. http://www.tga.gov.au/publication/australian-regulatory-guidelines-biologicals-argb. Accessed August 12 2016.

  • Thirabanjasak, D., Tantiwongse, K., & Thorner, P. S. (2010). Angiomyeloproliferative lesions following autologous stem cell therapy. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 21(7), 1218–1222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tran, J. L. (2015). To bioprint or not to bioprint. North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology, 17(1), 123–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trommelmans, L., Selling, J., & Dierickx, K. (2007). Ethical issues in tissue engineering. Leuven: European Ethical-Legal Papers No. 7.

  • Vacanti, J. P., & Langer, R. (1999). Tissue engineering: The design and fabrication of living replacement devices for surgical reconstruction and transplantation. Lancet, 354(Suppl 1), S32–S34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varkey, M., & Atala, A. (2015). Organ bioprinting: A closer look at ethics and policies. Wake Forest Journal of Law & Policy, 5(2), 275–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wadman, M. (2013). High court ensures continued US funding of human embryonic-stem-cell research. Nature. http://www.nature.com/news/high-court-ensures-continued-us-funding-of-human-embryonic-stem-cell-research-1.12171. Accessed October 16 2015.

  • Wallace, G., Cornock, R., O’Connell, C., Beirne, S., Gilbert, F., & Dodds, S. (2014). 3D bioprinting: Printing parts for bodies. Australia: ARC Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, M. J., & Fresco, N. (2016), My liver is broken, can you print me a new one? In V. C. Müller (Ed.), Computing and philosophy: Selected papers from IACAP 2014, Synthese Library, 375 (pp. 259–269). Berlin: Springer.

  • Xu, F., Sridharan, B., Wang, S., Gurkan, U. A., Syverud, B., & Demirci, U. (2011). Embryonic stem cell bioprinting for uniform and controlled size embryoid body formation. Biomicrofluidics, 5(2), 22207. doi:10.1063/1.3580752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zopf, D. A., Hollister, S. J., Nelson, M. E., Ohye, R. G., & Green, G. E. (2013). Bioresorbable airway splint created with a three-dimensional printer. New England Journal of Medicine, 368, 2043–2045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Science & Engineering Ethics anonymous reviewers and editors for their insightful comments. As well the Brocher Foundation. Dr. Frederic Gilbert is the recipient of an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (project number DE150101390). Funding from the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence Scheme (Project Number CE 140100012) is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia

    Frederic Gilbert & Susan Dodds

  2. ARC Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science (ACES), Wollongong, Australia

    Frederic Gilbert, Cathal D. O’Connell, Tajanka Mladenovska & Susan Dodds

  3. University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia

    Cathal D. O’Connell

  4. Department of Surgery, St. Vincent’s Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

    Tajanka Mladenovska

  5. University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

    Susan Dodds

Authors
  1. Frederic Gilbert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cathal D. O’Connell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tajanka Mladenovska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Susan Dodds
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frederic Gilbert.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gilbert, F., O’Connell, C.D., Mladenovska, T. et al. Print Me an Organ? Ethical and Regulatory Issues Emerging from 3D Bioprinting in Medicine. Sci Eng Ethics 24, 73–91 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9874-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9874-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation