Wednesday, 13 June 2012 21:47

In Flux: Technology, Humanity, And Viscosity

Written by 

People seem to like old war stories, as long as, being fascinating in their own right, they are relevant to today. I believe this one qualifies for telling, or retelling, for its ongoing relevance. First, my memory was sparked by an isolated comment by a speaker in one of the sessions at the AAPS National Biotech Conference: “We still can’t measure viscosity directly.”

Well, more than 25 years ago, visiting Roche headquarters in Basel, Switzerland for a related article, I was given a tour of the company’s “Black Box” vitamin-C plant some miles out of town. Looking every inch like a Borg cube out of Star Trek sitting in a field, the facility operated from one end to the other without any workers present, other than a few engineers in a central control room near the huge cooking vats at the terminus.

Here, at the last step of the process before filling and storage, I could see only the tops of the three-story tall kettles, but I noticed a small window in each one, through which the swirling mass of liquid C was visible. I asked about the portholes, and the answer was this: “After the mixture cooks for a set time, it needs to reach the right viscosity before it is ready. But we can’t really measure viscosity. So the chief engineer goes out and inspects the batch through the windows. He can tell by how the liquid flows when it has reached the right point, like a master chef knowing when the sauce is done.” This remained, and as far as I know, still remains the approximate standard for judging viscosity directly, though as the AAPS NBC speaker mentioned, other indirect methods may often suffice. I have heard similar tales from engineers in other industries where “cooking” the product, such as plywood glue, requires the human touch to know when the batch has reached the point of being perfectly viscous.

The relevance? Today’s technology still mainly aims for perfection only indirectly. The AAPS show was full of examples in which measurements of key conditions rely on “markers,” i.e., parameters that vary as a function of the measurement target — often a qualitative state such as purity or stability. The situation is analogous to drug development, with its contemporary use of biomarkers, genetic tags, and the like. (It is also a microcosm of the life science sector as a whole; a maze of differential approximations guiding but not determining human decision-making.) Characterizing a drug as a substance thus bears a close relationship to characterizing it as a therapy — sometimes a crazy-looking dance around many obstacles and diversions toward the ultimate goal. Until computers and production robots become indistinguishable from us in perception and judgment, and can therefore “look” at the swirling mass and know when to declare the cooking “done,” the viscosity dance will always require a combination of imperfect technological solutions and good ol’ human skill, interaction, and intuition.

(Please look for my full report on the AAPS National Biotechnology Conference in an upcoming issue of Life Science Leader.)

-WK, 6/11/12
 

Leave a comment

Make sure you enter the (*) required information where indicated. HTML code is not allowed.

By A Web Design