You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Ethical issues in nanomedicine: Tempest in a teapot?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11019-016-9720-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Irit Allon, Ahmi Ben-Yehudah, Raz Dekel, Jan-Helge Solbakk, Klaus-Michael Weltring, Gil Siegal |
| Abstract |
Nanomedicine offers remarkable options for new therapeutic avenues. As methods in nanomedicine advance, ethical questions conjunctly arise. Nanomedicine is an exceptional niche in several aspects as it reflects risks and uncertainties not encountered in other areas of medical research or practice. Nanomedicine partially overlaps, partially interlocks and partially exceeds other medical disciplines. Some interpreters agree that advances in nanotechnology may pose varied ethical challenges, whilst others argue that these challenges are not new and that nanotechnology basically echoes recurrent bioethical dilemmas. The purpose of this article is to discuss some of the ethical issues related to nanomedicine and to reflect on the question whether nanomedicine generates ethical challenges of new and unique nature. Such a determination should have implications on regulatory processes and professional conducts and protocols in the future. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 50 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 16% |
| Researcher | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 10% |
| Professor | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 14 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 10% |
| Chemistry | 5 | 10% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 28% |
| Unknown | 14 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 September 2017.
All research outputs
#20,447,499
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#537
of 595 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#311,273
of 355,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#15
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 595 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 355,550 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.