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 individuals with bone metastases. J Manag Care Pharm. 2011;17:621?three. 53. Gartrell BA, Coleman RE, Fizazi K, et al. Toxicities following therapy with bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappaB ligand inhibitors in sufferers with sophisticated prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014;65:278?6. 54. Allen MR, Burr DB. The pathogenesis of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis on the jaw: lots of hypotheses, so couple of information. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67:61?0. 55. Khan A, Morrison A, Hanley D, et al. Diagnosis and management of osteonecrosis from the jaw: a systematic review and international consensus. J Bone Miner Res. 2014. Critical systematic critique discussing osteonecrosis from the jaw right after treatment with antiresorptive agents. 56.145 Demeestere I, Brice P, Peccatori FA, et al. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist for j.addbeh.2012.10.012 the prevention of chemotherapy-induced ovarian failure in patients with lymphoma: 1-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:903?. 57. Yang B, Shi W, Yang J, et al. Concurrent remedy with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists for chemotherapyinduced ovarian harm in PF-04418948 structure premenopausal ladies 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 immediately after cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin-based chemotherapy in premenopausal sufferers with breast cancer: results 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 may have undesirable side-effects. The idea is the fact that it is impossible to identify all possible issues inside the design stage, and that it might hence be necessary to subject society to a deployment experiment with uncertain outcomes. As a result far, the uncertain outcomes addressed within the NTaSE-paradigm have already been largely safety-related (nuclear waste and accidents, overall health effects of nanoparticles, genetically modified crops and so forth.). Security implies that possible harm is brought on by the design plus accidental events within the environment, for instance organic disasters and human jir.2012.0142 blunders. What the paradigm has not covered so far are so-called adversarial dangers. These are risks which are not triggered by probabilistic all-natural events or accidents, even human failures, but rather by the determined, strategic behaviour of an adversarial agent. This can be often labelled safety as opposed to security. By far the most obvious instance inside the NTaSE literature of a technologies with a safety component is nuclear technology: adversaries who get hold of nuclear material may well use it for weapons. Lately, Lehtveer and Hedenus (2015) discussed this extensively with regards to nuclear proliferation. Exactly where the NTaSE-literature has discussed nuclear technologies, it has focused on accidents (safety), and has not addressed this adversarial viewpoint (safety). By way of example, Krohn and Weingart (1987) explicitly focus on the “accident as implicit experiment”, analysing the Chernobyl Meltdown, and inside the identical vein, Van de Poel (2011) analyses the Fukushima accident.