Exploring emerging technologies using metaphors--a study of orphan drugs and pharmacogenomics.

Due to uncertainties of several aspects of emerging health technologies, there is a need to anticipate these developments early. A first step would be to gather information and develop future visions about the technology. This paper introduces metaphor analysis as a novel way to do this. Specifically, we study the future of pharmacogenomics by comparing this technology with orphan drugs, which are more established and often act as a model with comparable (economic, research organisation, etc.) characteristics. The analysis consists of describing the dominant metaphors used and structurally exploring (dis)similarities between pharmacogenomics and orphan drugs developments. This comparison leads to lessons that can be learnt for the emerging pharmacogenomics future. We carried out a comprehensive literature review, extracting metaphors in a structured way from different areas of the drug research and development pipeline. The paper argues that (1) there are many similarities between orphan drugs and pharmacogenomics, especially in terms of registration, and social and economic impacts; (2) pharmacogenomics developments are regarded both as a future 'poison' and a 'chance', whereas orphan drugs are seen as a 'gift', and at the same time as a large 'problem'; and (3) metaphor analysis proves to be a tool for creating prospective images of pharmacogenomics and other emerging technologies.

[1]  L. Crivelli,et al.  Equity, Access and Economic Evaluation in Rare Diseases , 2003 .

[2]  T. Bártfai.  Pharmacogenomics in drug development: societal and technical aspects , 2004, The Pharmacogenomics Journal.

[3]  M. Larkin.  “Personalised” drug therapy could be near , 1998, The Lancet.

[4]  I. Hellsten.  The Politics of Metaphor: Biotechnology and Biodiversity in the Media , 2002 .

[5]  Michael Decker,et al.  The Lessons we Learnt: First Outline of Strategy and a Methodical Repertoire for Vision Assessment , 2000 .

[6]  A. Roses.  Pharmacogenetics and the practice of medicine , 2000, Nature.

[7]  J. V. van Delden,et al.  Tailor-made pharmacotherapy: future developments and ethical challenges in the field of pharmacogenomics. , 2004, Bioethics.

[8]  M. Relling,et al.  Moving towards individualized medicine with pharmacogenomics , 2004, Nature.

[9]  Paul Martin,et al.  The Drugs Don't Work , 2003, Social studies of science.

[10]  Stacie A. Toal,et al.  Dissemination , 2021, Manual for the Production of Statistics on the Digital Economy – 2020 Revised Edition.

[11]  Jürgen Brockmöller,et al.  Pharmacogenetics-based therapeutic recommendations — ready for clinical practice? , 2005, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[12]  Oliver Gassmann,et al.  Leading Pharmaceutical Innovation: Trends and Drivers for Growth in the Pharmaceutical Industry , 2004 .

[13]  R. Weinshilboum,et al.  Pharmacogenomics: bench to bedside , 2004, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[14]  T. Reiss.  Drug discovery of the future: the implications of the human genome project. , 2001, Trends in biotechnology.

[15]  Mitchell R Lunn,et al.  Chemical genetics and orphan genetic diseases. , 2005, Chemistry & biology.

[16]  Jai Shah.  Economic and regulatory considerations in pharmacogenomics for drug licensing and healthcare , 2003, Nature Biotechnology.

[17]  K. Lindpaintner.  Pharmacogenetics and the future of medical practice: conceptual considerations , 2001, The Pharmacogenomics Journal.

[18]  J. Aronson,et al.  Rare diseases and orphan drugs. , 2006, British journal of clinical pharmacology.

[19]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Metaphors We Live by , 1981 .

[20]  C. Beach,et al.  Health Services Restructuring in Canada: New Evidence and New Directions , 2007 .

[21]  M. Moses,et al.  Two decades of orphan product development , 2002, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[22]  A. Hedgecoe,et al.  Terminology and the Construction of Scientific Disciplines: The Case of Pharmacogenomics , 2003 .

[23]  David Loughnot.  Potential Interactions of the Orphan Drug Act and Pharmacogenomics: A Flood of Orphan Drugs and Abuses? , 2005, American Journal of Law & Medicine.

[24]  P. Copland.  The book of life , 2005, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[25]  M. Visser.  Neuromuscular disorders: orphan diseases deserve attention , 2006, The Lancet Neurology.

[26]  B. Shastry,et al.  Genetic diversity and new therapeutic concepts , 2005, Journal of Human Genetics.

[27]  Peter Mambrey,et al.  Technology Assessment as Metaphor Assessment. Visions Guiding the Development of Information and Communications Technologies , 2000 .

[28]  Frans Berkhout,et al.  Normative expectations in systems innovation , 2006, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[29]  T. Maeder.  The orphan drug backlash. , 2003, Scientific American.

[30]  Carol Rados,et al.  Orphan products: hope for people with rare diseases. , 2003, FDA consumer.

[31]  Sally Wyatt,et al.  Danger! Metaphors at Work in Economics, Geophysiology, and the Internet , 2004 .

[32]  K. Lindpaintner.  The impact of pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics on drug discovery , 2002, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[33]  M. Relling,et al.  Pharmacogenomics: translating functional genomics into rational therapeutics. , 1999, Science.

[34]  G J Boulnois,et al.  Drug discovery in the new millennium: the pivotal role of biotechnology. , 2000, Trends in biotechnology.

[35]  Personalised medicines : hopes and realities , 2005 .

[36]  P M Dean,et al.  Industrial-scale, genomics-based drug design and discovery. , 2001, Trends in biotechnology.

[37]  Graham Lewis,et al.  Integrating pharmacogenetics into society: in search of a model , 2004, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[38]  Armin Grunwald,et al.  Vision Assessment: Shaping Technology in 21st Century Society , 2000 .

[39]  A. Hedgecoe.  The Politics of Personalised Medicine: The personalised is political , 2004 .

[40]  S. Wyatt,et al.  Talking about the future: Metaphors of the Internet , 2000 .

[41]  Monya Baker,et al.  In biomarkers we trust? , 2005, Nature Biotechnology.

[42]  W. Fierz.  Challenge of personalized health care: to what extent is medicine already individualized and what are the future trends? , 2004, Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research.

[43]  J. Clarke.  Is the current approach to reviewing new drugs condemning the victims of rare diseases to death? A call for a national orphan drug review policy , 2006, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[44]  E. Keller,et al.  Refiguring Life: Metaphors of Twentieth-Century Biology , 1995 .

[45]  A. Rinaldi.  Adopting an orphan , 2005, EMBO reports.

[46]  D. Collingridge.  The social control of technology , 1980 .

[47]  Denis Noble,et al.  Will genomics revolutionise pharmaceutical R&D? , 2003, Trends in Biotechnology.

[48]  N. Brown,et al.  Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective Techno-Science , 2000 .

[49]  Roberta Joppi,et al.  Orphan drug development is progressing too slowly. , 2006, British journal of clinical pharmacology.

[50]  M. Zitter.  Managing drugs for rare genetic diseases: trends and insights. , 2005, Managed care.

[51]  W. Rubinstein,et al.  Practicing medicine at the front lines of the genomic revolution. , 2005, Archives of internal medicine.

[52]  A. Hollis.  Drugs for Rare Diseases : Paying for Innovation , 2006 .

[53]  S. Cunningham,et al.  Technology futures analysis: Toward integration of the field and new methods , 2004 .

[54]  F. Miller,et al.  Understanding the new human genetics: a review of scientific editorials. , 2006, Social science & medicine.

[55]  C. Milne.  Orphan products—pain relief for clinical development headaches , 2002, Nature Biotechnology.

[56]  G. Ginsburg,et al.  Personalized medicine: revolutionizing drug discovery and patient care. , 2001, Trends in biotechnology.

[57]  Oliver Gassmann,et al.  Leading Pharmaceutical Innovation: How to Win the Life Science Race , 2018 .