Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 67
8
Concluding Remarks
After a day and a half of lively presentations and discussions, it was
apparent that nanotechnology was a promising set of technologies that
had already penetrated the cancer arena, and was likely to make a much
bigger impact in the field in the future. There was an acknowledgement
by many that much more needs to be understood about nanotechnolo-
gies to commercialize them and ensure their safety and effectiveness.
Additional challenges may impede progress in bringing nanotechnologies
into the clinic, including public wariness of such innovative materials, a
lack of nanotechnology manufacturing and testing standards, and gaps
in regulation.
But because of the unique properties of nanomaterials that make
them more likely to concentrate in tumors, penetrate various biologi-
cal barriers that conventional small molecules cannot cross, and safely
encapsulate toxic medicines and carry large payloads, the most common
opinion seemed to be that nanotechnology would improve oncology. Jim
Heath echoed this sentiment when he said, “I think it is worth noting
that every application that I know of in nanotherapeutics that has gone
into people, the net result has been to decrease toxicity. We talk about all
these [challenges], but the headline should be that we have been able to
engineer away toxicity to a great extent. That is something that should be
celebrated in this field.”
67
OCR for page 68
