28.?46.47.29.30.48.31.49.32.50.?33.34.?51.35.52.Curr Osteoporos Rep (2015) 13:140?45 prostate cancer patients with bone metastases. J Manag Care Pharm. 2011;17:621?3. 53. Gartrell BA, Coleman RE, Fizazi K, et al. Toxicities following remedy with bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappaB ligand inhibitors in individuals with sophisticated prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014;65:278?six. 54. Allen MR, Burr DB. The pathogenesis of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis in the jaw: a great number of hypotheses, so handful of information. 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 evaluation and international consensus. J Bone Miner Res. 2014. Crucial systematic critique discussing osteonecrosis of the jaw following remedy 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 sufferers with lymphoma: 1-year follow-up of a SC144 supplier prospective 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. Impact of leuprolide acetate on ovarian function right after cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin-based chemotherapy in premenopausal sufferers with breast cancer: benefits from a phase II randomized trial. Med Oncol. 2013;30:667.Safety 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 can be impossible to identify all potential challenges within the design and style stage, and that it may hence be necessary to subject society to a deployment experiment with uncertain outcomes. Hence 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 style plus accidental events in the atmosphere, including organic disasters and human jir.2012.0142 blunders. What the paradigm has not covered so far are so-called adversarial dangers. They are risks which might be not brought on by probabilistic natural events or accidents, even human failures, but rather by the determined, strategic behaviour of an adversarial agent. That is generally labelled security as opposed to security. One of the most obvious example inside the NTaSE literature of a technologies using a security element is nuclear technology: adversaries who get hold of nuclear material may possibly use it for weapons. Not too long ago, Lehtveer and Hedenus (2015) discussed this extensively when it comes to nuclear proliferation. Exactly where the NTaSE-literature has discussed nuclear technologies, it has focused on accidents (security), and has not addressed this adversarial perspective (safety). One example is, Krohn and Weingart (1987) explicitly concentrate on the “accident as implicit experiment”, analysing the Chernobyl Meltdown, and in the same vein, Van de Poel (2011) analyses the Fukushima accident. Lastly, Taebi et al. (2012) address 4 traits of nuclear power that complicate standard danger assessment (low probabilities with substantial consequences, uncertainty and i.