1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
  1. Phungushead
    When Lee Cronin learned about the concept of 3D printers, he had a brilliant idea: why not turn such a device into a universal chemistry set that could make its own drugs?

    Professor Lee Cronin is a likably impatient presence, a one-man catalyst. "I just want to get stuff done fast," he says. And: "I am a control freak in rehab." Cronin, 39, is the leader of a world-class team of 45 researchers at Glasgow University, primarily making complex molecules. But that is not the extent of his ambition. A couple of years ago, at a TED conference, he described one goal as the creation of "inorganic life", and went on to detail his efforts to generate "evolutionary algorithms" in inert matter. He still hopes to "create life" in the next year or two.

    At the same time, one branch of that thinking has itself evolved into a new project: the notion of creating downloadable chemistry, with the ultimate aim of allowing people to "print" their own pharmaceuticals at home. Cronin's latest TED talk asked the question: "Could we make a really cool universal chemistry set? Can we 'app' chemistry?" "Basically," he tells me, in his office at the university, with half a grin, "what Apple did for music, I'd like to do for the discovery and distribution of prescription drugs."

    The idea is very much at the conception stage, but as he walks me around his labs Cronin begins to outline how that "paradigm-changing" project might progress. He has been in Scotland for 10 years and in that time he has worked hard, as any chemist worth his salt should, to get the right mix of people to produce the results he wants. Cronin's interest has always been in complex chemicals and the origins of life. "We are pretty good at making molecules. We do a lot of self-assembly at a molecular level," he says. "We are able to make really large molecules and I was able to get a lot of money in grants and so on for doing that." But after a while, Cronin suggests, making complex molecules for their own sake can seem a bit limiting. He wanted to find some more life-changing applications for his team's expertise.

    A couple of years ago, Cronin was invited to an architectural seminar to discuss his work on inorganic structures. He had been looking at the way crystals grew "inorganic gardens" of tube-like structures between themselves. Among the other speakers at that conference was a man explaining the possibilities of 3D printing for conventional architectural forms. Cronin wondered if you could apply this 3D principle to structures at a molecular level. "I didn't want to print an aeroplane, or a jaw bone," he says. "I wanted to do chemistry."

    Cronin prides himself on his lateral thinking; his gift for chemistry came fairly late – he stumbled through comprehensive school in Ipswich and initially university – before realising a vocation for molecular chemistry that has seen him make a series of prize-winning, and fund-generating, advances in the field. He often puts his faith in counterintuition. "Confusions of ideas produce discovery," he says. "People, researchers, always come to me and say they are pretty good at thinking outside the box and I usually think 'yes, but it is a pretty small box'." In analysing how to apply 3D printing to chemistry, Cronin wondered in the first instance if the essentially passive idea of a highly sophisticated form of copying from a software blueprint could be made more dynamic. In his lab, they put together a rudimentary prototype of a chemical 3D printer, which could be programmed to make basic chemical reactions to produce different molecules.

    He shows me the printer, a nondescript version of the £1,200 3D printer used in the Fab@Home project, which aims to bring self-fabrication to the masses. After a bit of trial and error, Cronin's team discovered that it could use a bathroom sealant as a material to print reaction chambers of precisely specified dimensions, connected with tubes of different lengths and diameters. After the bespoke miniature lab had set hard, the printer could then inject the system reactants, or "chemical inks", to create sequenced reactions.

    The "inks" would be simple reagents, from which more complex molecules are formed. "If I was being facetious I would say that to find your inks you would go to the periodic table: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and so on," Cronin says, "but obviously you can't handle all those substances very well, so it would have to be a bit more complex than that. If you were looking to make a sugar, for example, you would start with your set of base sugars and mix them together. When we make complex molecules in the traditional way with test tubes and flasks, we start with a smaller number of simpler molecules." As he points out, nearly all drugs are made of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, as well as readily available agents such as vegetable oils and paraffin. "With a printer it should be possible that with a relatively small number of inks you can make any organic molecule," he says.

    The real beauty of Cronin's prototype system, however, is that it allows the printer not only to control the sequences and exact calibration of inks, but also to shape, from a tested blueprint, the environment in which those reactions take place. The scale and architecture of the miniature printed "lab" could be pre-programmed into software and downloaded for use with a standard set of inks. In this way, not only the combinations of reactants but also the ratios and speed at which they combine could be ingrained into the system, simply by changing the size of reaction chambers and their relation with one another; Cronin calls this "reactionware" or, because it depends on a conceptualised sequence of flow and reorientation in a 3D space, "Rubik's Cube chemistry".

    "What we are trying to do is to combine the notion of a reaction with a reactor," he says. "Conventionally the reactor is just the passive space or the environment in which a reaction takes place. It could be something as simple as a test tube. The printer allows it to be a far more active context."

    So far Cronin's lab has been creating quite straightforward reaction chambers, and simple three-step sequences of reactions to "print" inorganic molecules. The next stage, also successfully demonstrated, and where things start to get interesting, is the ability to "print" catalysts into the walls of the reactionware. Much further down the line – Cronin has a gift for extrapolation – he envisages far more complex reactor environments, which would enable chemistry to be done "in the presence of a liver cell that has cancer, or a newly identified superbug", with all the implications that might have for drug research.

    In the shorter term, his team is looking at ways in which relatively simple drugs – ibuprofen is the example they are using – might be successfully produced in their 3D printer or portable "chemputer". If that principle can be established, then the possibilities suddenly seem endless. "Imagine your printer like a refrigerator that is full of all the ingredients you might require to make any dish in Jamie Oliver's new book," Cronin says. "Jamie has made all those recipes in his own kitchen and validated them. If you apply that idea to making drugs, you have all your ingredients and you follow a recipe that a drug company gives you. They will have validated that recipe in their lab. And when you have downloaded it and enabled the printer to read the software it will work. The value is in the recipe, not in the manufacture. It is an app, essentially."

    What would this mean? Well for a start it would potentially democratise complex chemistry, and allow drugs not only to be distributed anywhere in the world but created at the point of need. It could reverse the trend, Cronin suggests, for ineffective counterfeit drugs (often anti-malarials or anti-retrovirals) that have flooded some markets in the developing world, by offering a cheap medicine-making platform that could validate a drug made according to the pharmaceutical company's "software". Crucially, it would potentially enable a greater range of drugs to be produced. "There are loads of drugs out there that aren't available," Cronin says, "because the population that needs them is not big enough, or not rich enough. This model changes that economy of scale; it could makes any drug cost effective."

    Not surprisingly Cronin is excited by these prospects, though he continually adds the caveat that they are still essentially at the "science fiction" stage of this process. Aside from the "personal chemputer" aspect of the idea, he is perhaps most enthused about the way the reactionware model could transform the process of drug discovery and testing. "Over time it may redefine how we make molecules," he believes. "In particular we can think about doing complex reactions in the presence of complex chemical baggage like a cell, and at a fraction of the current cost." Printed reactionware could vastly speed up the discovery of new proteins and even antibiotics. In contrast to existing technologies the chemical "search engine" could be combined with biological structures such as blood vessels, or pathogens, offering a way to quickly screen the effects of new molecular combinations.

    After publishing some of this thinking and research in recent papers, Cronin has of course been talking to various interested parties – from pharmaceutical companies intrigued by its implications for their business models, to Nato generals responding to the idea of the ultimate portable medicine cabinet on the battlefield.

    He hopes that large-scale humanitarian organisations – the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the rest – might take a hard look at the public health and cost benefits of introducing such a possibly revolutionary technology to the developing world. As a scientist, Cronin tends to play down the potential legal and practical obstacles that will no doubt challenge the idea – "I don't imagine gangsters printing their own drugs, no" he says to one question – and sees only benefits.

    "As yet," he says, "we don't even know what the device would look like." But he believes that now the idea is established "there is no reason at all – beyond a certain level of funding – why it all couldn't happen very soon." Cronin is impatient to get on with it as quickly as possible. "As well as transforming the industry and making money," he says, "we could be saving lives. Why wait?"

    Saturday 21 July 2012 17.00 EDT

    Tim Adams


  1. Joe Duffy
    Interesting, so basically a Star Trek replicator for the home, "Tea, Earl Grey, hot & 2 mg of alprazolam.”

    And I bet the warmongers will find another use for it.
  2. stasik
    It would be really cool if they made this possible for the average joe in the next 30, 40 years. How would the government be able to regulate the production of illegal chemicals? Would they be able to control it?

    Excited for the future!
  3. Impure157
    It is possible I've read a couple ideas how, but I'm skeptical, it seems highly improbable. One such proposal I read said that as the current top-end food printers are only sold to restaurants and can be quite large in order to make everything, that pharma printers could be similar. So when the printers begin to become that sophisticated they could force all printers to be registered or restrict the sale of them to certain people. As for the distribution of the syntheses, these more advanced printers would have been designed to only allow new synthesis data to be input by certain individuals or only from special sources online, whether the drug company or some third party.
  4. nigh
    I'm sure people would get around its regulations just like they currently get around DRM and other software restrictions.

    The main issue I see is this—I really don't understand how you could print reaction chambers durable enough to withstand the variety of reagents commonly used AND the temperatures encountered in organic synthesis. PTFE is about the only widely available printable material that meets those criteria that I can think of, but it'd be very (it's around $25 per kg in bulk form IIRC, as opposed to ABS being around $1-2 per kg in bulk form) expensive to use. Even with PTFE, its melting point of 327 Celsius and its yield strength of 23 MPa make it unsuitable for many different things in organic synthesis.

    The -only- possible way I can see to get around this in an economically feasible way (though not at the household scale) would be to have a machine print a cheap powdered metal with good mechanical properties such as steel or an aluminum alloy, laser sinter it into its desired shape, and then laser sinter an appropriate coating onto it for the desired application.

    I donno, really. I'd love for this to become reality, of course.
  5. kalishakti
    Turn Your Desk Into a Pharmaceuticals Factory

    Turn Your Desk Into a Pharmaceuticals Factory

    But both research and production look poised for a revolution, as 3D printing applies its high-tech charms to the business of creating chemical compounds, and turns the production of medicine into a DIY project. Not incidentally, the revolution also promises to kneecap whatever is left of efforts to control chemistry's results, including recreational drugs.

    J.D. Tuccille|Aug. 29, 2013 4:30 pm

    [imgl=white]http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=34776&stc=1&d=1378245364[/imgl]New regulations for "orphan drugs" went into effect on August 12—only the most recent update since such rules first passed in 1983. They're intended ease the regulatory process and lower barriers for medicines that address rare medical conditions. Otherwise, the costs of research, winning regulatory approval, and production can exceed anything a pharmaceutical company could hope to recoup in an era when developing a new drug might cost a billion—or billions—of dollars. Bringing down regulatory costs is a necessary but elusive goal that may well require intervention by the federal policy fairies. But both research and production look poised for a revolution, as 3D printing applies its high-tech charms to the business of creating chemical compounds, and turns the production of medicine into a DIY project. Not incidentally, the revolution also promises to kneecap whatever is left of efforts to control chemistry's results, including recreational drugs.

    In a TED talk in February of this year, Professor Lee Cronin of the University of Glasgow explained the idea he had for taking complex chemistry and turning it into an accessible desktop project.

    As a chemist, one of the things I wanted to ask my research group a couple of years ago is, could we make a really cool universal chemistry set? In essence, could we "app" chemistry?

    Now what would this mean, and how would we do it? Well to start to do this, we took a 3D printer and we started to print our beakers and our test tubes on one side and then print the molecule at the same time on the other side and combine them together in what we call reactionware. And so by printing the vessel and doing the chemistry at the same time, we may start to access this universal toolkit of chemistry.

    Now what could this mean? Well if we can embed biological and chemical networks like a search engine, so if you have a cell that's ill that you need to cure or bacteria that you want to kill, if you have this embedded in your device at the same time, and you do the chemistry, you may be able to make drugs in a new way.

    So how are we doing this in the lab? Well it requires software, it requires hardware and it requires chemical inks. And so the really cool bit is, the idea is that we want to have a universal set of inks that we put out with the printer, and you download the blueprint, the organic chemistry for that molecule and you make it in the device. And so you can make your molecule in the printer using this software.

    So what could this mean? Well, ultimately, it could mean that you could print your own medicine. And this is what we're doing in the lab at the moment.

    The ultimate goal of Cronin (who didn't respond to Reason.com's requests for an interview) and company, he makes clear, is to ease research and development of drugs—and to ultimately print them "at point of need." Pharmaceutical companies will essentially become research outfits that develop new molecules and then sell the software file that people will download to make their medicine at home. The whole process is intended to be relatively inexpensive, too, since his Cronin Group Website says "this approach constitutes a cheap, automated and reconfigurable chemical discovery platform that makes techniques from chemical engineering accessible to typical synthetic laboratories."

    And why stop there? A team headed by Professor Hagan Bayley at Oxford University is working on 3D-printed synthetic tissue that could supplement failing organs or manufacture and release drugs in the body.

    [imgl=white]http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=34777&stc=1&d=1378245632[/imgl]If that doesn't sound sufficiently futuristic, Cronin closes his TED talk by saying the ultimate goal is "your own personal matter fabricator. Beam me up, Scotty." And that has, honestly, been the underlying dream of the whole 3D printing revolution: boxes on your desk that can make anything you can imagine—including more boxes on your desk. It's like asking a genie for extra wishes.

    But 3D printers have already raised interesting policy implications about the ability to control the production and possession of physical objects. Specifically, the successful efforts of Cody Wilson, Defense Distributed, and independent tinkerers to make firearms on 3D printers have raised the likelihood that gun control is a dead issue. What impact will the ability to print chemical compounds on printers have on the political class of easily flustered control freaks?

    The question has already come up. The Week's Chris Gayomali frets that "[t]oday's primitive psychedelics and artificial mood-boosters may be just the beginning" once 3D printing transforms chemical engineering. The Customs Minister from the land o' hobbits, Maurice Williamson, worries on Radio New Zealand, "If people could print off ... sheets of Ecstasy tablets at the party they're at at that time, that just completely takes away our border protection role in its known sense."

    Cronin, among others, suggests that controlling the "chemical ink" is the key to preventing DIY recreational chemistry with 3D printers. But that seems like a bit of a wishful thinking from a man who wants to ease the way for what is truly a technological transformation—one that will be used in myriad ways to be determined by end users. Much current research uses bathroom sealant as the ink, and that's not the easiest material to restrict.

    Cody Wilson and a horde of lesser-known innovators arose to explore and expand 3D printing's subversive powers when it comes to guns. It's difficult to believe that a world that brings us the Silk Road online marketplace for illegal drugs won't also produce chemically oriented tinkerers in abundance to exploit the recreational (and commercial potential) of producing intoxicants via 3D chemical printing.

    Will regulators grow so frightened of a world beyond their laws (not that such a world doesn't already surround us) that they'll willingly try to toss out the technologically transformative baby with the organic chemistry-infused bathwater? Honestly, we know that politicians and appointed government officials alike are capable of burn-the-village-to-save-it behavior. But even the most reactionary and obstructionist FDA of the future won't be able to prevent rare disease sufferers from downloading files developed in Germany, Singapore, or on some seasteading platform and printing officially unapproved medicines. Recreational chemists will, no doubt, upload and download their files though mechanisms like Pirate Bay and Silk Road.

    If the research path taken by boundary-pushing scientists lives up to its initial promise, the orphan drug problem may well become a bad memory. And so, too, will enforceable restrictions on chemicals, including recreational pharmaceuticals.

    Source: Reason.com J.D. Tuccille|Aug. 29, 2013 4:30 pm
  6. D0pe
    We actually invested in to a few companies that were developing 3D printing technologies.. I would say that in the future 3D printing will be at the front of technologies , trade, and economical impacts will be major.. printing organs, chemicals, Whole cars with minimal amount of assembly.. Maybe even far out in the future creating new elements.. Who knows i know i sure do not..

    I am interested in the future big time and enjoy reading futuristic predictions.
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!