- Email: [email protected]
The continuing evolution of biomaterials
Biomaterials 32 (2011) 1–2
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Biomaterials journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biomaterials
Editorial
The continuing evolution of biomaterials
The title of this Editorial is deliberately ambiguous; I am referring both to the subject of biomaterials science and to the journal Biomaterials. As regular readers of this journal will know, primarily from a Leading Opinion Paper I published in 2009 [1], I believe that the subject of biomaterials science is changing rapidly. As the leading journal that deals specifically with biomaterials science, confirmed in 2010 through the release of the latest Impact Factors and Eigen Factors, it is important that this journal reflects these changes as they take place. Even more importantly, it should take the lead in promoting and enhancing the publication of the best research and the most critical opinions in this exciting new world of biomaterials applications. For a number of years, we have published each issue of the journal with different sections, which have emphasized the areas of science and clinical applications that are covered by the scope of the journal. These sections have increased in number as the subject has broadened, and now encompass areas of nanotechnology and biotechnology as well as the more traditional topics. After some deep reflection, and consultation with opinion-leaders in the field, we have decided that the time is right for a radical change to the format of these sections. It has always been the case that some sections overlap considerably, and certain papers could easily fit into three or more sections. In addition, some sectors of biomaterials science are mature and no longer demand a separate section. The topic of biocompatibility is an important example. Again as I discussed in a Leading Opinion Paper in 2008 [2], our historical understanding of biocompatibility was based on traditional uses in medical devices. However, we need different paradigms for biocompatibility when discussing material performance in, say, tissue engineering scaffolds, non-viral gene vectors and MRI contrast agents. In my opinion, it is better that we discuss these different biocompatibility paradigms within their own technology sectors. The same applies to biomimetic materials, which may not be best discussed in isolation but within the clinical sectors where they are to be applied. In addition, there are some areas of biomaterials science that are only now emerging as topical and critical sectors, where they are best dealt with in sections that reflect a continuum of concept and practice. The first example, which in fact served to initiate this review of sections after a comment from an Editorial Board member, is that of the relationship between biomaterials and cancer. We have for many years included chemotherapeutic agents within the Biomaterials and Drug Delivery section, and gene transfer targeted at tumors within Biomaterials and Gene Transfer. Increasingly we have been finding superb science and technology within multimodal imaging systems for cancer detection, delivery systems for tumor immunotherapy,
0142-9612/$ – see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.09.048
and the so-called theranostic agents that may concurrently serve diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. In addition, an extension of tissue engineering processes has been leading to systems that allow for the modeling of tumors and the evaluation of anti-cancer drugs. We believe that all of these related areas are now best served by a separate section of Biomaterials and Cancer. Furthermore, although in recent years this journal has emphasized the role of biomaterials in tissue engineering, this section has become a little diffuse. One of the most important scientific areas here is that of stem cells and their role in tissue engineering. Critical to this role is the manner in which stem cells interact with biomaterials, or to put it a different way, the manner with which biomaterials and their surfaces control stem cell behavior. In order to reflect this, and in keeping with current terminology, we are introducing the section Biomaterials and the Stem Cell Niche. In keeping with this, the title of Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering is being changed to Biomaterials and Regenerative Medicine. The two areas of nanotechnology and biotechnology remain as important as ever, but both of these terms have very broad meaning and it is now better to be more focused. Clearly there will be both nanotechnology and biotechnology implications in the sections mentioned above. Where both areas come together is in the role of nanoscale materials in the detection of biological features and processes. These activities subsume agents that facilitate imaging and sensing. A new section, Biomaterials at the Nanoscale for Diagnostic Systems, will cover these topics. For the remaining topics within biomaterials science, we are combining various delivery systems into Biomaterials for the Delivery of Drugs, Genes, Vaccines and Active Molecules. Medical devices are still immensely important and we link these to biomaterials through the influence of the design of the latter on the performance of the former; hence Biomaterials Design and Medical Device Performance. This journal will, therefore, be presented, in each issue, with the sections
Biomaterials Design and Medical Device Performance Biomaterials and the Stem Cell Niche Biomaterials and Regenerative Medicine Biomaterials and Cancer Biomaterials at the Nanoscale for Diagnostic Systems Biomaterials for the Delivery of Drugs, Genes, Vaccines and Active Molecules
There are a few general points we would like to emphasize. First, the type of data that qualifies a paper for consideration for
2
Editorial / Biomaterials 32 (2011) 1–2
publication in the journal Biomaterials depends on the maturity of the subject matter. In the section dealing with biomaterials for medical devices, it is no longer relevant to carry out in vitro studies on well established materials that are already used in clinical situations, and indeed even the use of in vivo studies in such applications need to be assessed carefully in relation to the contribution that they can offer. In a previous editorial I have noted that we will readily consider clinical papers where they provide powerful evidence of how the properties of a biomaterial influence the clinical performance of medical devices. Within regenerative medicine, the in vitro characterization of scaffolds may not be sufficiently informative to justify publication unless it provides significant evidence of mechanisms and paradigms of material–cell interactions. In the search for new non-viral gene vectors, there is a limit to the number of papers we can publish which show incremental improvements to transfection efficiency or decreases in cytotoxicity. The second general point is that we have rarely published papers that emphasize experimental techniques or fabrication routes. These are important topics but this journal is not an appropriate publishing venue for them; Biomaterials focuses on scientific mechanisms and the furtherance of the clinical applications of biomaterials. This will be more important with the emphasis provided in these new sections. A number of manuscripts are received that dwell on reducing costs of processes, making techniques easier or with an emphasis on the ‘greenness’ of the process. Again these are not important issues for this journal. We also note that we have published the occasional modeling papers; although we will no longer have a special modeling section, we will continue to publish such papers since they can form the basis of the understanding of these scientific mechanisms. The removal of the biomimetic and natural tissues section also deserves comment. Such materials are now more important than ever, especially with the role of self assembled and nanostructured materials in many situations and they will be given prominence in the relevant sections. We have published papers that deal with the properties of natural
materials, such as tooth enamel and nacre; in the future we will only do so when these properties are directly relevant to a clinical application. Finally, we would like to announce a feature that will sometimes be seen in this journal. There are occasions where a subject matter is either too complex, or too controversial, that it is difficult to get a manuscript past referees and editor. It is the normal practice of an Editor-in-Chief of a journal such as this to insist on at least some measure of peer approval with respect to content before the paper can be published. Just because it is difficult to get that approval in complex/controversial areas does not necessarily mean that the ideas should not be publishable. Disagreements on important issues, especially non-scientific issues, are often dealt with by debates. We will therefore be introducing the occasional debate section in the journal in 2011. These will involve a number of Leading Opinion Papers written by scientists who hold strong but different views on a specific issue, together with a summarizing viewpoint by the Editor-in-Chief. The organization of these sections is not trivial, hence their experimental appearances will only be occasional. We trust that these changes to the journal will contribute to its further development and to the increasingly important role that it plays in the advancement of biomaterials science.
References [1] Williams DF. On the nature of biomaterials. Biomaterials 2009;30(30): 5897–909. [2] Williams DF. On the mechanisms of biocompatibility. Biomaterials 2008;29 (20):2941–53.
David Williams, Editor-in-Chief Biomaterials, Winston-Salem, NC USA E-mail address: [email protected] Available online 8 October 2010
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Biomaterials journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biomaterials
Editorial
The continuing evolution of biomaterials
The title of this Editorial is deliberately ambiguous; I am referring both to the subject of biomaterials science and to the journal Biomaterials. As regular readers of this journal will know, primarily from a Leading Opinion Paper I published in 2009 [1], I believe that the subject of biomaterials science is changing rapidly. As the leading journal that deals specifically with biomaterials science, confirmed in 2010 through the release of the latest Impact Factors and Eigen Factors, it is important that this journal reflects these changes as they take place. Even more importantly, it should take the lead in promoting and enhancing the publication of the best research and the most critical opinions in this exciting new world of biomaterials applications. For a number of years, we have published each issue of the journal with different sections, which have emphasized the areas of science and clinical applications that are covered by the scope of the journal. These sections have increased in number as the subject has broadened, and now encompass areas of nanotechnology and biotechnology as well as the more traditional topics. After some deep reflection, and consultation with opinion-leaders in the field, we have decided that the time is right for a radical change to the format of these sections. It has always been the case that some sections overlap considerably, and certain papers could easily fit into three or more sections. In addition, some sectors of biomaterials science are mature and no longer demand a separate section. The topic of biocompatibility is an important example. Again as I discussed in a Leading Opinion Paper in 2008 [2], our historical understanding of biocompatibility was based on traditional uses in medical devices. However, we need different paradigms for biocompatibility when discussing material performance in, say, tissue engineering scaffolds, non-viral gene vectors and MRI contrast agents. In my opinion, it is better that we discuss these different biocompatibility paradigms within their own technology sectors. The same applies to biomimetic materials, which may not be best discussed in isolation but within the clinical sectors where they are to be applied. In addition, there are some areas of biomaterials science that are only now emerging as topical and critical sectors, where they are best dealt with in sections that reflect a continuum of concept and practice. The first example, which in fact served to initiate this review of sections after a comment from an Editorial Board member, is that of the relationship between biomaterials and cancer. We have for many years included chemotherapeutic agents within the Biomaterials and Drug Delivery section, and gene transfer targeted at tumors within Biomaterials and Gene Transfer. Increasingly we have been finding superb science and technology within multimodal imaging systems for cancer detection, delivery systems for tumor immunotherapy,
0142-9612/$ – see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.09.048
and the so-called theranostic agents that may concurrently serve diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. In addition, an extension of tissue engineering processes has been leading to systems that allow for the modeling of tumors and the evaluation of anti-cancer drugs. We believe that all of these related areas are now best served by a separate section of Biomaterials and Cancer. Furthermore, although in recent years this journal has emphasized the role of biomaterials in tissue engineering, this section has become a little diffuse. One of the most important scientific areas here is that of stem cells and their role in tissue engineering. Critical to this role is the manner in which stem cells interact with biomaterials, or to put it a different way, the manner with which biomaterials and their surfaces control stem cell behavior. In order to reflect this, and in keeping with current terminology, we are introducing the section Biomaterials and the Stem Cell Niche. In keeping with this, the title of Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering is being changed to Biomaterials and Regenerative Medicine. The two areas of nanotechnology and biotechnology remain as important as ever, but both of these terms have very broad meaning and it is now better to be more focused. Clearly there will be both nanotechnology and biotechnology implications in the sections mentioned above. Where both areas come together is in the role of nanoscale materials in the detection of biological features and processes. These activities subsume agents that facilitate imaging and sensing. A new section, Biomaterials at the Nanoscale for Diagnostic Systems, will cover these topics. For the remaining topics within biomaterials science, we are combining various delivery systems into Biomaterials for the Delivery of Drugs, Genes, Vaccines and Active Molecules. Medical devices are still immensely important and we link these to biomaterials through the influence of the design of the latter on the performance of the former; hence Biomaterials Design and Medical Device Performance. This journal will, therefore, be presented, in each issue, with the sections
Biomaterials Design and Medical Device Performance Biomaterials and the Stem Cell Niche Biomaterials and Regenerative Medicine Biomaterials and Cancer Biomaterials at the Nanoscale for Diagnostic Systems Biomaterials for the Delivery of Drugs, Genes, Vaccines and Active Molecules
There are a few general points we would like to emphasize. First, the type of data that qualifies a paper for consideration for
2
Editorial / Biomaterials 32 (2011) 1–2
publication in the journal Biomaterials depends on the maturity of the subject matter. In the section dealing with biomaterials for medical devices, it is no longer relevant to carry out in vitro studies on well established materials that are already used in clinical situations, and indeed even the use of in vivo studies in such applications need to be assessed carefully in relation to the contribution that they can offer. In a previous editorial I have noted that we will readily consider clinical papers where they provide powerful evidence of how the properties of a biomaterial influence the clinical performance of medical devices. Within regenerative medicine, the in vitro characterization of scaffolds may not be sufficiently informative to justify publication unless it provides significant evidence of mechanisms and paradigms of material–cell interactions. In the search for new non-viral gene vectors, there is a limit to the number of papers we can publish which show incremental improvements to transfection efficiency or decreases in cytotoxicity. The second general point is that we have rarely published papers that emphasize experimental techniques or fabrication routes. These are important topics but this journal is not an appropriate publishing venue for them; Biomaterials focuses on scientific mechanisms and the furtherance of the clinical applications of biomaterials. This will be more important with the emphasis provided in these new sections. A number of manuscripts are received that dwell on reducing costs of processes, making techniques easier or with an emphasis on the ‘greenness’ of the process. Again these are not important issues for this journal. We also note that we have published the occasional modeling papers; although we will no longer have a special modeling section, we will continue to publish such papers since they can form the basis of the understanding of these scientific mechanisms. The removal of the biomimetic and natural tissues section also deserves comment. Such materials are now more important than ever, especially with the role of self assembled and nanostructured materials in many situations and they will be given prominence in the relevant sections. We have published papers that deal with the properties of natural
materials, such as tooth enamel and nacre; in the future we will only do so when these properties are directly relevant to a clinical application. Finally, we would like to announce a feature that will sometimes be seen in this journal. There are occasions where a subject matter is either too complex, or too controversial, that it is difficult to get a manuscript past referees and editor. It is the normal practice of an Editor-in-Chief of a journal such as this to insist on at least some measure of peer approval with respect to content before the paper can be published. Just because it is difficult to get that approval in complex/controversial areas does not necessarily mean that the ideas should not be publishable. Disagreements on important issues, especially non-scientific issues, are often dealt with by debates. We will therefore be introducing the occasional debate section in the journal in 2011. These will involve a number of Leading Opinion Papers written by scientists who hold strong but different views on a specific issue, together with a summarizing viewpoint by the Editor-in-Chief. The organization of these sections is not trivial, hence their experimental appearances will only be occasional. We trust that these changes to the journal will contribute to its further development and to the increasingly important role that it plays in the advancement of biomaterials science.
References [1] Williams DF. On the nature of biomaterials. Biomaterials 2009;30(30): 5897–909. [2] Williams DF. On the mechanisms of biocompatibility. Biomaterials 2008;29 (20):2941–53.
David Williams, Editor-in-Chief Biomaterials, Winston-Salem, NC USA E-mail address: [email protected] Available online 8 October 2010