Positioning innovation and governance for 3D printing in clinical care: an Australian case

Luke Heemsbergen, Robbie Fordyce

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

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.
Original languageEnglish
Number of pages9
Journal3D Printing in Medicine
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 9 Aug 2019

Keywords

  • 3d printing
  • economies
  • digital design
  • digital disruption
  • digital medicine
  • networked medicine

Cite this

@article{1768b50171be4e6c840de13f098aed4c,
title = "Positioning innovation and governance for 3D printing in clinical care: an Australian case",
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.",
keywords = "3d printing, economies, digital design, digital disruption, digital medicine, networked medicine",
author = "Luke Heemsbergen and Robbie Fordyce",
year = "2019",
month = "8",
day = "9",
language = "English",
journal = "3D Printing in Medicine",
issn = "2365-6271",
publisher = "Springer",

}

Positioning innovation and governance for 3D printing in clinical care: an Australian case. / Heemsbergen, Luke; Fordyce, Robbie.

In: 3D Printing in Medicine, 09.08.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Positioning innovation and governance for 3D printing in clinical care: an Australian case

AU - Heemsbergen, Luke

AU - Fordyce, Robbie

PY - 2019/8/9

Y1 - 2019/8/9

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - 3d printing

KW - economies

KW - digital design

KW - digital disruption

KW - digital medicine

KW - networked medicine

M3 - Article

JO - 3D Printing in Medicine

JF - 3D Printing in Medicine

SN - 2365-6271

ER -