Search for: All records

To harness radiometals in clinical settings, a chelator forming a stable complex with the metal of interest and targets the desired pathological site is needed. Toward this goal, we previously reported a unique set of chelators that can stably bind to both large and small metal ions, via a conformational switch. Within this chelator class, py‐macrodipa is particularly promising based on its ability to stably bind several medicinally valuable radiometals including large^132/135La³⁺,²¹³Bi³⁺, and small⁴⁴Sc³⁺. Here, we report a 10‐step organic synthesis of its bifunctional analogue py‐macrodipa‐NCS, which contains an amine‐reactive −NCS group that is amenable for bioconjugation reactions to targeting vectors. The hydrolytic stability of py‐macordipa‐NCS was assessed, revealing a half‐life of 6.0 d in pH 9.0 aqueous buffer. This bifunctional chelator was then conjugated to a prostate‐specific membrane antigen (PSMA)‐binding moiety, yielding the bioconjugate py‐macrodipa‐PSMA, which was subsequently radiolabeled with large^132/135La³⁺and small⁴⁷Sc³⁺, revealing efficient and quantitative complex formation. The resulting radiocomplexes were injected into mice bearing both PSMA‐expressing and PSMA‐non‐expressing tumor xenografts to determine their biodistribution patterns, revealing delivery of both^132/135La³⁺and⁴⁷Sc³⁺to PSMA+ tumor sites. However, partial radiometal dissociation was observed, suggesting that py‐macrodipa‐PSMA needs further structural optimization.

 

While the ethics of technology is analyzed across disciplines from science and technology studies (STS), engineering, computer science, critical management studies, and law, less attention is paid to the role that frms and managers play in the design, development, and dissemination of technology across communities and within their frm. Although frms play an important role in the development of technology, and make associated value judgments around its use, it remains open how we should understand the contours of what frms owe society as the rate of technological development accelerates. We focus here on digital technologies: devices that rely on rapidly accelerating digital sensing, storage, and transmission capabilities to intervene in human processes. This symposium focuses on how frms should engage ethical choices in developing and deploying these technologies. In this introduction, we, frst, identify themes the symposium articles share and discuss how the set of articles illuminate diverse facets of the intersection of technology and business ethics. Second, we use these themes to explore what business ethics ofers to the study of technology and, third, what technology studies ofers to the feld of business ethics. Each feld brings expertise that, together, improves our understanding of the ethical implications of technology. Finally we introduce each of the fve papers, suggest future research directions, and interpret their implications for business ethics. 

Algorithms silently structure our lives. Algorithms can determine whether someone is hired, promoted, offered a loan, or provided housing as well as determine which political ads and news articles consumers see. Yet, the responsibility for algorithms in these important decisions is not clear. This article identifies whether developers have a responsibility for their algorithms later in use, what those firms are responsible for, and the normative grounding for that responsibility. I conceptualize algorithms as value-laden, rather than neutral, in that algorithms create moral consequences, reinforce or undercut ethical principles, and enable or diminish stakeholder rights and dignity. In addition, algorithms are an important actor in ethical decisions and influence the delegation of roles and responsibilities within these decisions. As such, firms should be responsible not only for the value-laden-ness of an algorithm but also for designing who-does-what within the algorithmic decision. As such, firms developing algorithms are accountable for designing how large a role individual will be permitted to take in the subsequent algorithmic decision. Counter to current arguments, I find that if an algorithm is designed to preclude individuals from taking responsibility within a decision, then the designer of the algorithm should be held accountable for the ethical implications of the algorithm in use.