approaches. The DNA microarray technology was developed by adaptation of ink-
jet printer technology to “print” oligonucleotides on glass plates, which then under-
wrote the whole field of genomics (Fodor et al 1991 ; Schena et al. 1995 ). Similarly,
transdermal microneedle technology that allows topical drugs to bypass the nor-
mally restrictive stratum corneum barrier was enabled by independent develop-
ments in material science and microfabrication engineering. Again, transforming
technological innovations such as these occurring in fields far removed from
medicine and even biology are almost impossible to predict.
Various combination products, including drug and delivery devices, implanted
physiological feed-back systems and nanoparticle drug carriers, require decisions
on whether the parts of a system or the whole system should be evaluated at the
regulatory level. Several fundamental questions may be raised. How is the human
food safety profile of residues from an implanted drug carrier or delivery techno-
logy determined? How stable and robust are mathematical algorithms embedded in
drug delivery devices? Can misuse by an owner of a new product be dangerous
either to the pet being treated or to the owners? Should novel manufacturing
methods be evaluated for drug safety under existing guidelines or are new guide-
lines required? The 2009–2011 Research Plan for the Center of Veterinary Medi-
cine of the US Food and Drug Administration (Food and Drug Administration
2009 ) indicates that research to anticipate both novel drugs and development
strategies is beginning to be explored. Studies linking in vitro data to in vivo drug
metabolism, the development of ultra-sensitive multiclass drug residue analytical
screens, genomic screens for identifying foreign animal proteins in feed, computa-
tional databases of microbial drug resistance patterns and research in the fields
of immunopharmacology and pharmacokinetics, all suggest that this regulatory
agency is both starting to anticipate novel products and, equally important, applying
new technologies, usually developed for other uses, to veterinary therapeutics.
This translation and application of technology is likely to accelerate future
developments.
Technological issues arose with the advent of genetically modified foods and
with biotechnology products produced using transgenic animals (Rudenko et al.
2006 ). Both biochemically and analytically many of these biotechnology products
do not differ either from their natural counterparts or those produced using classical
chemistry approaches. However, large sections of society seem to view them as
being fundamentally different, as a consequence of the methods used in their
production. This is evidenced by European non-acceptance of genetically modified
foods and limitations to the effectiveness of the broader global impact of the Green
movement. What similar impact would these attitudes have on therapeutic items
targeted at companion animals? The answer to this question is not yet forthcoming,
but could have a major impact on the future development of veterinary therapeutics.
Nanotechnology potentially faces a similar bias.
A major limitation to the transformation of pharmacology based on the applica-
tion of new technologies is the lack of movement of young scientists trained in these
disciplines to industry and regulatory agencies, and the need to cross-train scientists
in traditional fields of medicine, pharmacology and toxicology to interpret and
196 J.E. Riviere