0.?40.21.41.22.42.23.43.24. 25. 26.44.45.27. 28.?46.47.29.30.48.31.49.32.50.?33.34.?51.35.52.Curr Osteoporos Rep (2015) 13:140?45 prostate cancer sufferers with bone metastases. J Manag Care Pharm. 2011;17:621?3. 53. Gartrell BA, Coleman RE, Fizazi K, et al. Toxicities following treatment with bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappaB ligand inhibitors in individuals with advanced prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014;65:278?six. 54. Allen MR, Burr DB. The pathogenesis of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: so many hypotheses, so handful of data. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67:61?0. 55. Khan A, Morrison A, Hanley D, et al. Diagnosis and management of osteonecrosis on the jaw: a systematic overview and international consensus. J Bone Miner Res. 2014. Significant systematic evaluation discussing osteonecrosis on the jaw soon after remedy with antiresorptive agents. 56.145 Demeestere I, Brice P, Peccatori FA, et al. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist for j.addbeh.2012.ten.012 the prevention of chemotherapy-induced ovarian failure in patients with lymphoma: 1-year follow-up of a MG-132 site potential randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:903?. 57. Yang B, Shi W, Yang J, et al. Concurrent therapy with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists for chemotherapyinduced ovarian harm in premenopausal females with breast cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Breast. 2013;22:150?. 58. Song G, Gao H, Yuan Z. Effect of leuprolide acetate on ovarian function just after cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin-based chemotherapy in premenopausal sufferers with breast cancer: outcomes from a phase II randomized trial. Med Oncol. 2013;30:667.Security and Safety The paradigm of new technologies as social experiments (henceforth NTaSE) deals with responsible deployment of technologies that might have undesirable side-effects. The idea is the fact that it truly is impossible to identify all possible problems within the design stage, and that it may thus be necessary to topic society to a deployment experiment with uncertain outcomes. Thus far, the uncertain outcomes addressed inside the NTaSE-paradigm have been largely safety-related (nuclear waste and accidents, well being effects of nanoparticles, genetically modified crops etc.). Safety implies that possible harm is caused by the style plus accidental events inside the environment, like natural disasters and human jir.2012.0142 errors. What the paradigm has not covered so far are so-called adversarial dangers. They are risks which can be not caused by probabilistic natural events or accidents, even human failures, but rather by the determined, strategic behaviour of an adversarial agent. This can be generally labelled safety as opposed to safety. The most obvious example in the NTaSE literature of a technologies using a security component is nuclear technologies: adversaries who get hold of nuclear material may perhaps use it for weapons. Recently, Lehtveer and Hedenus (2015) discussed this extensively in terms of nuclear proliferation. Where the NTaSE-literature has discussed nuclear technologies, it has focused on accidents (safety), and has not addressed this adversarial point of view (safety). As an example, Krohn and Weingart (1987) explicitly focus on the “accident as implicit experiment”, analysing the Chernobyl Meltdown, and inside the exact same vein, Van de Poel (2011) analyses the Fukushima accident.