|
Green
Chemistry and Sustainable Development
Joseph M.D. Fortunak
Associate
Professor
Howard
University, Departments of Chemistry and
Pharmaceutical Sciences, Washington, DC
20059 USA
Tel: +1
202 806 6880 E-mail:
jfortunak@howard.edu
Tropical
Journal of Pharmaceutical Research, March
2008; 7(1):
865-866
Editorial
In January,
2007 a Workshop on Green Chemistry was held
in Johannesburg. John Warner and Amy Cannon
(University of Massachusetts, Lowell) were
the “guiding spirits” for this effort, while
funding came from the South African Paper
and Pulp Industry (SAPPI). At this meeting
Professor Paul Ndalut from Daniel Arap Moi
University wisely observed (I paraphrase):
”Green Chemistry is a good idea. But Africa
has many burdens, including poverty, war and
the epidemics of HIV, malaria and
tuberculosis. Green Chemistry is a priority
only if it helps address these issues.” I
propose that the strongest justification for
Green Chemistry in Africa is precisely the
opportunity to address the differences
between rich and poor in access to
technology and creating sustainable economic
development. Green Chemistry is closely
linked to the United Nations’ Millenium
Development Goals 6 – 8 http://unstats.un.org/unsd/default.htm,
which are:
-
Combat
HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
-
Ensure
Environmental Sustainability
-
Develop a
global partnership for development
Today’s
civilization is not sustainable for future
generations. Broad, global access to the
fruits of technology and acceptable
standards of development is also
inequitable. The WHO’s 2005 Millenium
progress report, for example, estimates that
the richest 15% of the world’s population
consumes 91% of medicines (cf. above URL).
China and India have made enormous strides
in transitioning towards “first-world”
economies. This has been accomplished,
however, at huge costs to respective
national health and safety and with global
environmental impacts. A good deal of the
production capacity that drives economic
development in India and China results from
the moving the manufacturing of goods to
lower cost centers of production. Thus,
production for export drives a substantial
amount of economic development. This
practice must be coupled with the best
exercise of green technologies, however, to
prevent emerging economies from becoming the
dumping ground for global waste.
The
requirements that we make of Green Chemistry
are to enable substantial progress towards
equitable standards of living in a manner
that is sustainable for future generations.
Playing such a game of “catch up” is arduous
and (evidenced by China/India) risky. Some
exciting examples of green, sustainable
activity are being generated within Africa.
I largely restrict my remaining comments on
Green Chemical production to the area of
making medicines. One example which fits
the label of “green” is the medication
NICOSAN™. This treatment is a herbal therapy
for sickle cell anemia that is an excellent
example of the use of knowledge indigenous
to Africa. “Discovered” by the National
Institute of Pharmaceutical R&D in Abuja,
Nigeria (NIPRD) and marketed by Xechem
International, this mixture of 7 major
active ingredients, isolated by
aqueous-based extraction from 4 plant
sources, is controlled within acceptable
limits for each major constituent and total
active content by HPLC. While not a cure,
clinical trials indicate that the large
majority of patients (73 – 90%) taking
NICOSAN no longer experience sickle cell
“crises” while on treatment. This is an
absolutely first-rate example of partnership
for development because the initiation and
ownership of nearly all important activities
and outcomes of this project is within
Africa. Only a few of the many other
efforts going on in Africa are represented
by LaGray Chemicals in Ghana, Sigma Tau of
Ethiopia, Advanced BioExtracts in Kenya,
Arvir of South Africa and Cipla’s emerging
drug production in Uganda. Each of these
efforts represents a step in making the
production of medicines sustainable within
Africa.
One sticking
point for development is money. Much of the
capital investment needed for wholesale
advancement in standards of living is under
the control of high-income countries.
Although a number of very large donor
efforts provide essential medicines for
Africa, nearly all of this money is spent
outside of the continent.
Although these efforts improve access to
essential medicines, the catalysis of
sustainable development in Africa is not a
direct goal of such efforts. An opportunity
for obtaining investment for sustainability,
however, lies within the objectives of huge
foundations such as the Gates Fund and the
Skoll Foundation. One way of engaging the
interests of these groups is through the
exercise of advanced technologies.
Within “Big
Pharma” it is estimated that 36% of all
industry expense is devoted to manufacturing
(from the April 30, 2003 API Workshop on “Influencing
Change in the Regulatory Environment,”
Dorado, Puerto Rico). As a figure for
comparison, the contribution of R&D to
overall industry expense is a much lower
figure, at roughly 16%. The investments
required by Innovator companies to implement
new technologies (several hundred million
USD) for manufacturing are truly
staggering. The prudent, intelligent
exercise of advanced manufacturing
technologies within Africa represents an
opportunity for emerging nations to initiate
sustainable, regional production and
potentially create markets for export.
Africa has an advantage over global
industries in this regard by virtue of the
ability to implement truly novel
technologies without abandoning existing
investments in outmoded or less than optimal
manufacturing facilities, and by lower fixed
costs in human capital and construction. The
elements of achieving sustainable regional
production include:
-
Coupling
indigenous knowledge with good clinical
and manufacturing practices
-
Identifying technologies that are
elegant by virtue of their simplicity
-
Designing
a “Green footprint” for advanced
technology manufacturing
-
Utilizing
process analytical technologies (cf.
NICOSAN) in a manner that guarantees
Quality in addition to rugged, robust
manufacturing.
Let us
suppose that these broad objectives are
demonstrated for the production of essential
medicines, and with the prudent use of
financial resources. Under these
circumstances one would expect that the
interest of the International donor agencies
and investment communities would take a
great interest in funding the full-scale
commercial startup of such enterprise. A
fuller discussion of such ideas is truly
beyond the space available for my comments.
I welcome your thoughts, and I thank you for
the opportunity to express my opinions. |