{"title":"3D打印在临床护理中的定位创新和治理:一个澳大利亚案例","authors":"Luke Heemsbergen, R. Fordyce","doi":"10.2217/3dp-2019-0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: To position medical 3D printing practices, risk and governance as more complex than mere manufacturing so to consider the contextual network-enabled dilemmas from remediating and remanufacturing the body in professional clinical and pedagogical practice; to suggest the current regulatory logics of risk and innovation do not sufficiently acknowledge shifts to network-enabled practitioner collaborations, exemplified here via ‘chilling effects’ of closed intellectual property regimes. Methods & framework: Anonymous practitioner workshop (n:12), socio-legal critique. Results: Communicated need to acknowledge practices of medical 3D printing under socio-legal constraints. Conclusion: Consider 3D printing as communication models to sustain medical research-practice in a digital–physical age, including consideration of novel governance mechanisms such as practitioner licensing and building a medical commons with network-friendly intellectual property regime.","PeriodicalId":73578,"journal":{"name":"Journal of 3D printing in medicine","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Positioning innovation and governance for 3D printing in clinical care: an Australian case\",\"authors\":\"Luke Heemsbergen, R. Fordyce\",\"doi\":\"10.2217/3dp-2019-0008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim: To position medical 3D printing practices, risk and governance as more complex than mere manufacturing so to consider the contextual network-enabled dilemmas from remediating and remanufacturing the body in professional clinical and pedagogical practice; to suggest the current regulatory logics of risk and innovation do not sufficiently acknowledge shifts to network-enabled practitioner collaborations, exemplified here via ‘chilling effects’ of closed intellectual property regimes. Methods & framework: Anonymous practitioner workshop (n:12), socio-legal critique. Results: Communicated need to acknowledge practices of medical 3D printing under socio-legal constraints. Conclusion: Consider 3D printing as communication models to sustain medical research-practice in a digital–physical age, including consideration of novel governance mechanisms such as practitioner licensing and building a medical commons with network-friendly intellectual property regime.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73578,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of 3D printing in medicine\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of 3D printing in medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2217/3dp-2019-0008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of 3D printing in medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2217/3dp-2019-0008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Positioning innovation and governance for 3D printing in clinical care: an Australian case
Aim: To position medical 3D printing practices, risk and governance as more complex than mere manufacturing so to consider the contextual network-enabled dilemmas from remediating and remanufacturing the body in professional clinical and pedagogical practice; to suggest the current regulatory logics of risk and innovation do not sufficiently acknowledge shifts to network-enabled practitioner collaborations, exemplified here via ‘chilling effects’ of closed intellectual property regimes. Methods & framework: Anonymous practitioner workshop (n:12), socio-legal critique. Results: Communicated need to acknowledge practices of medical 3D printing under socio-legal constraints. Conclusion: Consider 3D printing as communication models to sustain medical research-practice in a digital–physical age, including consideration of novel governance mechanisms such as practitioner licensing and building a medical commons with network-friendly intellectual property regime.