↓ Skip to main content

Mapping Uncertainties in the Upstream: The Case of PLGA Nanoparticles in Salmon Vaccines

Overview of attention for article published in NanoEthics, March 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Mapping Uncertainties in the Upstream: The Case of PLGA Nanoparticles in Salmon Vaccines
Published in
NanoEthics, March 2011
DOI 10.1007/s11569-011-0111-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kåre Nolde Nielsen, Børge Nilsen Fredriksen, Anne Ingeborg Myhr

Abstract

The diversity of nanotechnologies and of the governance challenges that their applications raise calls for exploration and learning across different cases. We present an Upstream Oversight Assessment (UOA) of expected benefits and potential harms of nanoparticles made of a synthetic polymer (PLGA) to improve vaccines for farmed salmon. Suggested by Jennifer Kuzma and colleagues, an UOA may help identify and prioritise research needs, and it may support evaluations of the adequacy of relevant existing regulatory frameworks. In this work, the UOA approach is modified and supported with elements from the uncertainty analysis framework developed by Warren Walker and colleagues. Empirically, we draw on relevant available published literature and insights generated in an ongoing nanoparticle salmon vaccine project, in which one of the authors participates. Nanotechnologies have not previously been encountered in the regulatory context of fish vaccines, which in part raises unique challenges due to prospective large scale vaccine use in semi-open aquatic systems. Strengthened through cooperation between ELSA and technology researchers we found the UOA useful for an early mapping of benefits and concerns, and for identifying areas in need of further research prior to a nanoparticle based salmon vaccine is developed and taken into use. We consider our approach to represent one among several complementing initiatives that seek to contribute to early stage evaluations of possible negative side effects, broadly conceived, in order to facilitate a more robust nanotechnology development.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
India 1 4%
Unknown 26 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 21%
Researcher 6 21%
Other 4 14%
Student > Master 3 11%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 36%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 14%
Social Sciences 3 11%
Philosophy 2 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 1 4%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 December 2015.
All research outputs
#13,358,186
of 22,659,164 outputs
Outputs from NanoEthics
#122
of 230 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,081
of 108,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age from NanoEthics
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,659,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 230 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 108,745 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.