Green Chemistry is Changing Healthcare for the Better.

When it comes to medicine, the impact it makes on human health isn’t just measured in how it treats disease. Hear our experts discuss how Green Chemistry is improving outcomes by improving our impact on the environment.

For more information on how we are implementing Green Chemistry across product design, production, and beyond, please visit our website.  

Transcript

0:07

Hello everyone, and welcome to That's Understandable. I'm your host, Brendan McEvoy, US head of External Communications at AstraZeneca. If this podcast has been enjoyable and informative for you, take a moment to like and follow on your favorite streaming service. And if you know anyone else interested in today's topic, be sure to share, because our goal is to help everyone to better understand what science can do when we all work together. You get a call from your family practitioner's office. A few days ago, you had your annual checkup and labs. Everything came back fine. But like 47 million other Americans, your cholesterol is a little high. So the doctor prescribed you a medicine to lower your bad cholesterol and tells you to watch your diet. No big deal, you think? Well, until 2012, many of the medicines used to treat bad cholesterol were developed using a process that was actually quite bad for the environment. Not only was the process incredibly inefficient, but it also produced a large amount of toxic byproducts. Fortunately, Doctor Ying Tang used a principle called green chemistry to develop a more efficient and environmentally friendly method of manufacturing these drugs. This was a turning point as up until this time, hundreds if not thousands of lifesaving medicines were manufactured using techniques that produced highly toxic byproducts and had serious impacts on both the environment and human health. But Doctor Tang's work demonstrated that effective medicines could be manufactured using a cleaner, more efficient and safer process. Today, many pharmaceutical companies and yes, AstraZeneca as one of them, are embracing green chemistry principles to reduce the impact of medicine development and manufacturing on the environment. And it isn't just the pharmaceutical industry. Health care providers and patients are calling for better approaches to how medicines are made. As the environmental effects on human health become increasingly clear. Joining me today are three guests who can help us add a little color to our conversation on green chemistry. And taking another step, the green patient. First up is Doctor Cheryl Holder, retired associate dean of diversity, equity, inclusivity and community initiatives at Florida International University's Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine. She has dedicated her career to improving the health of underserved populations and setting the links among climate change, poverty, and health. Welcome, Doctor Holder. Thank you. My other two guests are AstraZeneca colleagues. Doctor Steve Swallow has spent more than 19 years at AstraZeneca as a chemist, including the last two years as our principal scientist for sustainability. He has helped contribute to the development of several clinical candidates over his long career. And joining Doctor Swallow is Doctor Magnus Johannson, senior principal scientist at AstraZeneca in research and development and an associate professor at Stockholm University. Welcome, doctor Swallow and Johannson. Thank you. Brendan. Thank you. Nice to see you. Why don't we jump things right off in establishing a little bit of baseline when we say green chemistry. So, Doctor Swallow and Johannson, can the two of you give us a quick overview of what exactly green chemistry entails? Yeah, sure. Shall I kick off? Yeah. This idea, the concept of great chemistry, was probably first properly described in a book published by, John Warner and Paul Anastas back in the late 1990s, where they introduced, the idea of 12 descriptors or principles. green chemistry. And we'll go to those, now, but maybe we can dig into those, some of those a bit later, but they essentially cover, a few key concepts that really drive, I guess, a mindset or philosophy. so for me, in the context of a pharmaceutical, manufacture, that can kind of be summarized, it's been about the design and development of pharmaceutical products and processes, that minimize both the use and generation of hazardous materials and substances while also reducing waste in general. but also thinking about improving the efficiency, of energy use, etc., during manufacturing processes. so it's about the processes we design, but it's also about the materials we select and efficient use of those, the resources, when we use those processes and try to make sure that materials, are kept in use for as long as possible and where, where possible, waste disposal is used as a, as a last resort. So I think, yeah, the example that you cited is a great one. in that it was an example that addresses a number of those areas. at the same time, through the targeted use of, by catalytic approaches. Doctor Johannson, anything to build on? Yeah, I think I mean, considering the fact that Sid and me, we have the similar background being organic thinking, but maybe I can add to what we said and to say that so in drug discovery, I mean, it's a long process. We've been, in around ten years to to take a drug from design to production, to patient and then and bring chemistry the something that we, we try to implement already in early day or we try to define the molecule feature that that brings, you know, add to to to degree left and in sort of reducing the carbon footprint that we have over what we in, in, in, in making a drug. but the interesting also related to the 12 principles, the green chemistry or the U.S., that they, they enable gold and I guess, Doctor Holder will sort of relate to the sustainability goals because that sort of building also on green chemistry, but also, to, to the green patient later on. But what I, what I want to add is, is the, the importance of, you know, health education and also add the, the use of water use decent sanitation, for example, in, in the U.N. sustainable goals. I think Magnus raised an interesting point there as well that, yeah, the the current climate challenge is something that's, that's kind of, come very much into focus, for more in more recent years. So, a new dimension to the kind of challenge around a grant green chemistry that, that most pharma companies are also looking at. And I think that actually, you know, it's helpful to have that explanation. And it's a great segue into a question for Doctor Holder, which is is really around a little bit of, you know, about that, the connection between, you know, environment and human health. So I guess my first question would be, Doctor Holder, what is the impact of green chemistry on patients? And and in your opinion, what defines a green patient? thank you. great question. Because, you know, medicine, especially for patients, they love the concept that we are moving towards this green chemistry, which means that you're considering the environment, you're considering biodegradability, you're considering sustainability, and you're considering a way that if we're supposed to get a medication that makes you, well, why have all these other toxicities? It defeats the purpose of becoming better. So the concept in labeling green chemistry, we hope will be chemistry between we do things day to day because our goal in medicine is always to do no harm. And when we prescribe, we are hoping that we're getting improvement in the disease without the risk of other complications. So this is the perfect movement, and climate change does add the urgency to it, not just that we're going to eventually get there, but there's an urgency looking at what the temperature rise that we will get there faster. Now, the green patient concept is very new, and the population I work with honestly, another label to what they believe in is probably not desirable. because in many ways, patients and humans have been somewhat understanding sustainability. So the concept of somebody definite by behaving a certain way, green and other people who may not demonstrate those behaviors are not labeled green. We really want to avoid. So when I tell my patients about this movement and what we are doing, I bring them back to think about it. Baby boomers like my age remember when our parents used to say, turn off the lights, you're not in the room. Don't waste food. What we look at now is there's sustainability that's respecting the planet, using the amount of resources that you need when you need it and not go forward. So I bring that concept into my exam room with patients like, you know, we're all green. We're just exhibiting different behaviors based on our abilities. But we have to make that effort to be faster and better at it. The young folks get this. And so your classic what you might think of your green patient who will be out there advocating will be sending letters to the pharmaceutical all telling you you're killing the ocean. You're doing this. They're going to be. So I see my Gen Z ers, some of my millennials are really pushing the needle and pushing the effort to move this faster. And they will be what might be considered the green patient. But I want the industry to understand that when they're competing, interest in a person's life doesn't mean that they're not as concerned as the other person who's out there on the picket line. When you're lower wealth, you often have too many competing interests to demonstrate in the traditional sense of what people will now classify as a green patient, and that often gives the liberty of big powers to take advantage of that inability to voice your complaint. But they are as complaint, and they are they lower wealth, are making as much effort to be green as other people, and they are as concerned. So I think this is great and we'll just see where it goes. Yeah. No, I appreciate that that clarification Doctor Holder, because said you're right. I think the last thing we want to do is, is label anyone. we're all doing the best that we can with sort of the situation that, that we're in. So I appreciate that. you're highlighting it. I did want to build on this a bit more. So, Doctor Holder, you've spent a lot of time studying the intersection between climate poverty and human health. How does green chemistry intersect there in terms of improving human health? I think it's a perfect way to improve health. When we look at the harm, in medicine, again, it's harm benefits risk. It's you got to look that up. And what are the alternatives? The risk benefits, alternatives. That's the informed consent. That's what we're doing. So when we see an industry look and take on providing care and you're providing life saving medicine medicines, you want that same understanding to be a foundation. So what we're seeing now is the way it should be. you know, science helps keep up. So the minute we have the science from 2012, when we found a better way, this is what we want to be moving forward rapidly. So for lower wealth that intersection, they often again don't have the power to make that change. But if we understand what we are responsible for as the providers of medicines, you could not make a medicine where the alternative and the benefits, the risk are worse than the benefits. So I think the the structural way of improving the system benefits all of us. And it will also benefit lower wealth communities. It benefits the world. So we really push infrastructure through changes is often the fastest, best way to address the disparities that we see. Doctor. Johannson or swallow anything to add on or build on Doctor Holder’s comments? Yeah, maybe I can start. I think it was interesting about what the Doctor Holder, talked about. And so my reflection, you know, coming from the science side and early drug discovery side, if, the educational component, and that we need to reach also the younger generation in, in so many different ways and, and one way that I, that I see in my day, the job that we try to do outreach, scientist and go to please go school. And in 1980, just before they make their career choice front and and and actually talk about science and, you know, just to, you know, try to engage them in a way so that they also, you know, see the opportunities in, in going for careers in science that were or medicines for that matter, and then related also to, to what chair relief talking about. I think green chemistry is important. I mean, not only for the pharma business. I mean, this is a general problem, isn't it? We have pharma, we have chemicals in production and building cars, you know, pain and everything that we we do shampoo, you know, etc.. So in our daily life, though, chemicals everywhere and a green chemistry is if helping to reduce the footprint all over, all over this area. and I think in, in the United Nations, the climate conference 28 the heat related deaths will increase with triple in the coming 20 years. It said so. And that's an effect of, you know, climate change. So the we need to work on on reducing carbon footprint, I guess, you know, from a from a technical perspective, it's kind of, you know, thinking about the, the, this thing about thinking about the materials that we use and having that mindset. and I t yeah, I guess the education piece around, getting people to think about the chemicals that they use and, and where they end up, I suppose. So, you know, from a very practical level with, with, with pharmaceuticals, you know, the we got a joint responsibility, I suppose, to try and educate people in the, for example, on the safe disposal of medicines that they're not using. You know, it's a great, great kind of practical aspect from, from our kind of perspective is, you know, made sure that those things get taken back to the pharmacy web. What use you schemes to, to, to, to, take advantage of schemes that are available to ensure return of return of medicines so they don't end up in harm for for example. Yeah. I agree 100% that the pharmaceutical industry should expand the concept of green chemistry for the entire process, not just the manufacturing, because when you look at where it gets disposed and you track it all the way through many times final disposal in poorer communities in the US, and we've tracked it to poor communities without the power to be able to say, no, not in my backyard. And that often ends up in the low wealth communities, which, based on historical records and how this the structures of countries are in the US, it's black and brown communities. So I think if this the pharmaceutical industry expands and reimagines green chemistry, not just in this production, but towards the whole process that will be really instrumental in improving health outcomes for the entire continuum, not just the richer, not just for folks, but everybody, right down to the folks who have to get the stuff disposed in their backyard. And I think that would be an incredible improvement. It would also improve our planet, but will improve the health of everyone in that whole cycle. So I wish that would definitely move forward, not just in the manufacturing. Same thing with the beauty industry, because being a black woman, when we look at the chemicals that were used in the beauty industry for black hair, the rate of cancers and the data shows that these chemicals have created some harm, yet within the industry overall have been able to grandfathered in many of these chemicals so it leaves the vulnerable population, continue to fight against these chemicals. When if we look at the whole process of greening the industry, why would the people who are being harmed have to fight back? Why can't we look at this as a group and say, why are we making this stuff? Why can't we get those brilliant scientists that we know in the industry to reformulate these products? Because we've demonstrated the harm, the increase in uterine cancer. So this is where we want to expand the whole idea of what is green chemistry. So these health impacts are incorporated in the decision making and pushing the brilliant scientists to go one step further, rather than having a poor community to fight, fight, fight. When we got the brains and the money on one side, I can do this. It's making. I think it's, you know what I'm what I'm grasping is this sort of concept of responsibility, right? And whether it's the pharmaceutical industry, the beauty industry or really any industry that, you know, has the ability to make improvements in their, I'll say, end to end process, to be more sustainable. It you know, I want to get into the principles of green chemistry. But I guess one question I have for anyone is, is the concept of green chemistry. Is that being adopted outside of the pharmaceutical and health care industry, or is that still is it because I would imagine in the beauty industry there's, you know, chemists and scientists as well. Is there any perspective from anyone on whether it's it's being a concept that's expanded beyond pharmaceuticals and health care? From my experience so far, because I've been working with the National Medical Association on some of these pharmaceuticals, on the beauty industry in chemistry, we don't see that it's still much more in the pharmaceutical world because it's so immediate, because often you think of beauty products and you don't think of the other effects. And so I think we're getting that awareness much more now. But definitely in the pharmaceutical industry, it's there, and I hope we can extend it to what drugs mean and what medications, what chemicals are taking that whole concept that these are chemicals. Yeah. I, I tend to agree with, with, Doctor Holder on that answer that maybe I want to expand on this because what I've seen lately, I mean, I do think and I do agree with, Doctor Holder, that the pharma industry, I've been sort of been thrown from Earth in, in looking at, you know, and, and awareness of toxicology, you know, from cradle to grave, actually from, from finding chemicals to find an API that, that more likely, absolute than they can and other pharma companies, but also other chemicals industry. So chemicals, the insurance industry, we tend to work in within a pretty competitive space nowadays and and share experiences, share knowledge and that's that. That's really nice to see. So for instance I work in, in in a consortium in Europe called Safe Chem where we work with companies like H&M, Volvo, the FDA and other big, big industry. And we share experience in exactly this space to, you know, to push boundaries because everyone has the same ambition. We want to reduce carbon footprint and and we want to, you know, be more sustainable in a very short time time frame. So I'm not to be competitive. I mean, not to be pretty competitive. That's not an option for us. I just echo what what Magnus has said, I think from, from some of the things that that we see. And it's nice to think that we're perhaps leading, but but others are also, in, in this kind of area and I guess just in the kind of, the nature and breadth of scientific publications that we, we see myself and my Magnus follow over the last ten years or so is the increasing number of, publications and research in this area. Is, is, is significant, which is really very encouraging and lots of new, interesting discoveries. But also, yeah, I guess we have an interest in, in kind of looking at that, the materials that we use and, and we see an increasing interest in, in the kind of fine chemicals area in looking for more renewable starting materials and, and that that kind of area is seems to be grown quite rapidly as well. So that's kind of looking at more fundamental, chemical building blocks. So I get the sense that it's and always are used in it all industry like guess. So my sense is that's a kind of growing area to, as well as the kind of, reclamation technologies, I suppose the ease of use of waste materials. I wanted to dive into the impact of green chemistry, especially as it pertains to efficacy and safety. Are patients really getting the same benefit from medicines produced by green chemistry as by traditional processes? Doctor Johannson, you said, you know, you're seeing sort of this best practice sharing, right. It's you know, if we are doing something or we're finding a way to do things better, more sustainably, let's not keep that to ourself for other companies as well. Right? Let's share those best practices, help others, sort of get on board with, doing things in a, you know, a greener, healthier way. If I, if I go back to the the 12 principles of green chemistry, that you mentioned in your your definition upfront, one of the principles is design safer chemicals and products. And we hit on this. I think, you know, Doctor Holder, I think you hit on this a bit, but I'm curious. Doctor Swallow and Johannson, in doing that, is there the possibility of an effect on the efficacy of medications, or is this is it really referring to the end product with which most patients would be familiar. Yeah. So so maybe maybe I can start on on this one. Magnus joint. Yeah. Chip. And if if you think I missed something or, it's further operation, but I guess. Yeah, it's several of the 12 principles, mentioned safety. and I while some of those are about the reagents and chemicals that are used, I guess one of the concepts is very much about avoiding unintended toxicology in, in the active pharmaceutical ingredients. So that's the the molecule or component of the medicine that elicits the biological effect. And so yes, reducing the unintended toxicology of those, APIs, those molecules should improve the efficacy. So so I elaborate a little bit on this, if we think about the, the properties, or features of a molecule that lead to the unintended toxicology, those are built in quite early. So in the, in what we call the drug discovery phase. And so those negative effects, and features in the molecules that drive them kind of unfortunately kind of be discovered much later, in the development process, perhaps when it's too late to change the structure or the feature that's driving those toxic toxicities. So when, when that kind of situation is observed, those, those toxicologist would typically limit the dose that can be used. so that you can reduce the potential for toxicity, but that would also lead to a reduction in the positive, effects or the efficacy of the medicine. Yeah. So, so and then in reality is I guess both. Yeah, Magnus and myself will have experienced and observed in the programs that we work on. This will often lead to the development of a medicine, big terminated, stop, a whole new research program, being developed. so, so identifying and removing those toxicities as early as possible, can improve the efficacy of a medicine and therefore be highly beneficial, to patients. So, so this is an area that's had a lot of active, investment in in recent years. And in fact, I worked in this area myself for, a few years, a decade or so ago. And as this was an, a particular focus for, for AstraZeneca, as this kind of problem, this kind of failure due to toxicity had become a significant bottleneck in the industry. back in the back in the 1990s, I guess it was, so, so, yeah, lots of lots of approaches developed to, to kind of, reduce those side effects to hopefully lead to increased efficacy. I guess you can also say, yeah, I guess thinking from a Greek perspective as well, you know, in addition to kind of improving efficacy for patients, that attrition that that failure of medicines to progress is also really very wasteful and resources. So, you know, there's another green element to this is that, you know, you're by improving the efficiency of your, I guess, development, process that, you reduce that kind of waste as well. I don't know if that makes sense, Magnus. Maybe if you want to chip it and, Yeah, I think, you know, I think it was a good answer to that. Maybe. Maybe I just can comment and say. I mean, of course, we tried to reduce the treats in the in the drug discovery process because it's such a lengthy and expensive process, though. And of course, also, efficacy and, and the fact that they're, developing we, I mean, the ultimate goal is to, define safe drug and nothing else. but the green the principle is something that we usually adopt later in the process when it comes to, the actual process of making the API. But I think we are constantly evolving in this area. And now we're also looking at, you know, what is the fate of the drug after usage? you know, when it goes out, the patient into the sewage system and into nature and those are some, of course, the new and sustainable gold. But we look, you know, what's the what's life below water, what's life on land, you know, how do we affect these things? and, so it's not getting less complex. the complexity is increasing, but we also have new techniques that we can, use. I mean, we used a lot of invalid models, of course, look for toxicity, and actually try to predict as much as possible early on nowadays to be able to have machine learning and AI technology and the large number of data that the André throughout the pharmaceutical industry. And and that helps us a lot in, in also reducing talk. I think, you know, with patients, we definitely they want they want drugs that are efficient, that work. Now what we're seeing. But some of the push to being integrative medicine and, and natural medicines and rejection of some of the traditional pharmaceutical agents, I think this is important that that the patients understand that this is happening and that the reduction in toxicities are occurring. Because my big problem as a doctor, when I write that prescription will that patients fill the prescription. And if they fill it, will they take it. And you see the drop off in the data. So what makes them be afraid often is that the negative press that's out there and all the and now we have all this internet and it happens rapidly. So I think it's important that this information about what's going on with manufacturing, the toxicity so that my patients will have faith when I write that prescription, that it's not going to kill them in the future. Now, they're certain diseases that are so acute and dangerous that they will take it. And you see what happens in chemotherapy. Those agents are very toxic. But people will say yes. Yet when I have a blood pressure or diabetes or some other things, if the alternative is some sort of natural regimen that is sold online, they will often reject what we know really works for something that's out there. So I think it's really important that the pharmaceutical industry understand that the biggest challenge for doctors is to take what I prescribe, and for us to have them believe in the medicines, they have to understand that it's not filled with chemicals that 20 years down the line will kill them. And that's so important because chemotherapy, they're up against a cancer that will kill them before the drug will. But if it's a chronic disease, they may not up for that because the the press out there, the media is very much against what we're manufacturing. So I think it's so important that the companies understand this. It's a it's a great point, Doctor Holder, that this this information, this effort needs to be much better. It needs to be broad, right. Amplified broadly the education piece. so that it is something in a sense that, you know, minimizes any objection that a patient might have to to taking the most appropriate medicine that, that their doctor's prescribing, thinking about, you know, obviously, we're talking about the, the environmental benefits of, of green chemistry. But I'm curious if there are a, you know, other benefits as well, from either an economic standpoint or really, you know, benefits or even are there any on the opposite side, negative impacts? in terms of, you know, delays or anything like that by by approaching chemistry from that from a green perspective versus that are not, you know, not green perspectives. Doctor. Dr. Hanson, can I start with you on this one? Yeah, sure. so I do think there are of course, you know, economic factors that play in all the ongoing chemistry. you know, I mean, we're now facing new legislation when it comes to, you know, green and, and, and carbon footprint and, and the quality of the pharmaceutical against them. And there is certainly, cost associated with, with May being sometimes increased development time that that I guess we ought to comment on what happens in sort of the, in the production phase of a period where we've been in sort of applying the concept of green chemistry for a long time in, in, in, in pharmaceutical production. But, but, but certainly the move from, fossil fossil materials to bio renewable with that. That would be a challenge for, for any, any chemical industry. But I do think, you know, for scientific fields, there's an opportunity and something new to explore, you know, so and and and AstraZeneca as a company, I'm super proud to work for that sound like because we invest a lot of effort in this area. So, you know, moving to maybe reducing CO2 to biomethane that we then can use as intermediate in, in, in future production of API. So we can also turn, you know, the green technology into, into reduction of cost. But maybe you can comment on that a little bit more. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Happy to yeah I guess I guess, yeah I think the point really that I think it's certainly in the manufacturing environment or the development environment, we, we often see that, that yeah, many of the, the green benefits will also bring economic benefits. So, so maybe just to kind of illustrate a little, you know, if you, if you take the example of reducing waste. Yeah. If we minimize the waste by definition we're reducing the amount of material we have to import. So to, to collect clever design, if we, you know, if, if there's a 150kg of waste for a kilogram of product, I say that means we've put 151kg of material into the process. If we can reduce that import, through that kind of clever design. And, and by reducing the waste, we reduce the input materials and, and in many cases the cost. So there's this kind of great benefit, I think, from, but great potential for, for kind of economic benefit from, from that kind of efficiency in, in the processes of use and as, as Magnus says, you know, some materials may end up costing us more. So, so particularly if we. Yeah, if we think about those, catalysts that might help us to shorten, a route of synthesis or, a renewable material that that enables us to move away from a fossil fuel material. Those may cost more. but if we can also think about a more circular approach where we keep those materials in play or recover them and reuse them, then the, the economic benefits, or the costs may be offset. So, so this, this real kind of, some, some real potential, I think an excitement around those kind of opportunities. so, yeah. So there's a lot to do in that, in that kind of from that kind of angle. I guess you talked a bit, a little bit about the trade offs too. So, so this idea that, you know, we have to spend a lot of time developing, these green processes, you know, does that lead to a, to a trade off, I suppose, in terms of delaying access? Because I guess access is important, isn't there? So if you if you delay a launch of medicine, then this potential, affects access for patients. so I think it's fair to say, yeah, we could do a lot of good work in the time available to to kind of not have an impact on access. but we can also do, changes post-launch so we can launch the medicine and then do improvements and, and modifications subsequently, thus more burdensome and more challenging. But, it's it's certainly something that we do. Yeah. You know, this concept of it's sort of siloed when you look at cost and benefit and economics, because if we move it out the silos and you look at all the health benefits, now, there structures I know they're talking in, in this green chemistry of rewarding companies that do this because so that they don't take the economic loss when they're basically expand in the concept of where the money is made and where the savings are made. So as you improve human health, the savings may be made in the insurance industry and not at the pharmacy articles, but because we're so siloed, then how do we find some way to connect some of the savings and the profit gains back into the pharmaceuticals? I think this is a systems issue that is solvable if we work together. But rather than just keeping it in silos, that for this quarter, I'm going to make more money if I make a more toxic drug. But overall, if I look 20 years, we've improved health outcomes and we've saved our planet. So I think this is the climate world and climate change is pushing industries to work differently, that they can still get the profits because we're not seeing with climate change, you're going to lose and you have to go into this thing. It's just reworking how you work and where the profits are gained and how to get the dollars back to the industry. That made some of these push. And I know there are some efforts in green chemistry to make sure that they're rewarded, whether it's in the developmental stage or in the production stage, that the dollars stay in that group that's doing the right work, and that will push it overall to keep this movement because it's best for everyone, not just for people, not but everybody to move it this way. So I think we can change it if we move our structures of payment and profit, rewards and profit sharing out of silos. As the guests talked about the benefits to patients, I was struck by something Doctor Holder had said. You couldn't look at the benefits for patients without considering the environmental and economic impacts. This made me wonder how will green chemistry continue to evolve, enhancing its impact. I'm going to shift in a moment here to the to the future of green chemistry. But, Doctor Holder, I was just I was thinking, I'm curious from your your perspective, if, you know, a lot of times right now when we think about making decisions around, you know, products that we buy or companies that we purchase from, you're seeing more companies be very, you know, vocal around their sustainability efforts. And I think, you know, building on something you said earlier, I think the younger generation in particular is is very tuned in to that. And so there I would say there is probably a larger population of younger folks who are considering maybe buying a pair of jeans from one company or the other because they're doing something more sustainable than the other. From a physician's perspective, from your perspective, do you foresee at a, you know, a time where a physician might make a decision, a prescribing decision based on the fact that, you know, and I'll say, efficacy being equal or, you know, comparable across medicines? Do you ever do you foresee physician ever making a decision to prescribe a medicine based on sort of the, you know, that it was manufactured in a green process versus a, you know, a not green process? definitely. Because it's risk, benefits, alternatives. And you're telling me that the non green product is more toxic in the long run to treat the same disease? Again, acute versus chronic. We look at if the efficacy and you're facing a cancer that may only have a three year survival, then they're going to go we're going to choose the most efficacious that may save that person's life. And because the risk benefit equation skews that way. But for some other things, if the risk is higher and the benefits, it's you're going to go with the one that has the less risk for long term toxicity. Because again, the patient's going to go online, go to Doctor Google and come right back and tell me, Doctor Holder, then I'm going to end up writing the same thing. Now unfortunately from medicine we're now the corporate interests. Who owns us. And the formulary often makes that decision. And that then leads a huge process of getting approval to switch out something. So for my low wealth communities, I'm going to end up being forced to use the list for richer folks. They will then override or buy the drug they want, but everybody wants a drug that's less toxic and takes care. That is the problem. So absolutely, that will be the choice. And I I'm hearing, you know, I sort of an echo of the the need for a system change, right. To eliminate the that the less toxic, more green medicine being only accessible or available to the, you know, to the wealthier populations. So I think that's a great point that it's not we, I think it was said several times on here, it's not just an industry. It's not a, you know, health care. It is sort of a let's look at all of the players involved, work together so that, you know, there's equal access to, to, you know, green chemistry, less toxic medicines and obviously those that are not only benefiting the patient but also the environment. Thank you. Exactly. So if I shift to the future of green chemistry, I guess, you know, we're doctor, doctors Johannson. And so where do you see the movement towards green chemistry going? Yeah, maybe I can start to pick up on this. I mean, if we. Look, if you look back now, 20 years in time, look at Nobel Prize. This awarded in in green chemistry, there aren't any directly focused on green chemistry, but that if we look at sort of the wider picture and the principles, I mean, catalysis has been awarded eight or 8 or 9 times during the last 20 years, and bio catalysis was awarded to practice on on the three years back in time. And so I do think that, I mean, and we also see legislation moving, I mean, in European, in US, UK and globally, towards the change toward, towards reduction of the carbon footprint. So I do foresee that the, chemistry and in chemistry, I think it's we are sort of taking on the challenge of doing chemistry. I want to drive this, you know, for, for more sustainable future, including via renewables, the new technologies replacing chemicals for like electricity in in largely in processes so we can become much more green. and of course also left toxic. I mean, I mean, the challenge is really about the word chemistry and chemicals. I mean, it has a bad sort of vibe to it, doesn't it? And that it's not the bad thing. I mean, sugar is can make it's a chemical. And, this this is, you know, beer, wine, everything. You know, everything. You know, we had Doctor Holder talked about shampoo. You know, and additives in, in, in, in cosmetics. And so we, we have chemicals everywhere. And we need to embrace that and make sure that we, we actually produce the less toxic chemicals. So, I think it's, it's, it's a scientific challenge, but it's also community challenge that we need to, you know, embrace. And I, I picking up on something you said there. While there are companies that are already adopting green chemistry, sort of as early adopters are on their own. It's it's a it's an interesting point around, you know, the regulations that may force companies to change their practices over time. which, you know, obviously it'd be greater or better, I should say, if if companies sort of adopted prior to being forced into it. But, I guess the end result, if more, you know, having more, more industries that are in the, you know, the chemistry space, adopting green principles, obviously will will hopefully help to curb that, you know, long term environmental impact. I think just just kind of coming back to to one of Doctor Holder’s points. So I suppose around, pressures and, and other other influences on, on the industry that and I kind of like to see your point there around legislation perhaps, but I guess, you know, pharmaceutical. payers for medicines and, and, health health care systems, you know, they can have their own targets, their own, their own kind of expectations around things like carbon reduction, which, yeah, will affect affect the way that they think about, sourcing and purchasing, medicines from, from the manufacturers. So, so those kind of drivers around footprint etc., will, will, will naturally influence. I think, you know, what, what companies like ourselves, do. So, so even without that kind of legislation, I say it's, a natural driver. Yeah. I agree that what Doctor Johannson talked about getting in the community, it sounds, like maybe it's just sort of charity work, but really it isn't. If we can have the community understand science because I'm out there and I tell everybody we're all scientists and understand the concept of chemicals, because I see as an acceptance of what's called natural medicine. And I'm like, it's the same chemical structure. Yet that's a bias, but it comes from that lack of understanding. So I think there has to be a way of this industry is to really go future and make all these changes, and I can't get my patient to take it. I've lost it. So this is why it's important that we look at the entire the whole circle and starting from getting in the communities and understanding these chemicals and, and then supporting the groups that are making that shift towards less toxic chemicals. So then you can come out and give me a drug that my patient will take. And I think that's and will save the environment. And then it's all win win because the young generation will push that. The baby boomers, not so much. They'll take what I give them, but the younger folks and listen, you're talking about the future. So you're going to have a majority of the younger people thinking taking over the world and my generation that older will be less. So I think this is the way to go and getting in our community. So folks understand that chemicals are chemicals. And just because GNC says they're natural doesn't mean it's any different or safer than what I prescribe. So we're we're nearing nearing the end of our time here. you know, I did before before we close, I did want to give each of you the opportunity. You know, if there's anything still on your mind that you want to make sure our listeners, hear from you about about today's topic. you know, I want to make sure that that you have that opportunity. So I'll, I'll go to each of you sort of your, you know, parting thoughts, if you will. on the topic. so, Doctor Holder, is it okay if I start with you? Yeah. Well, I love the topic. I love everything when we talk about sustainability and we look at all the equitable ways of doing this, because when we approach it in this manner, we're benefiting everybody. It's not charity, it's not special interest. It's not about black, brown or whatever. It's about creating a system that produces healthier, better drugs short term and long term, where the risk benefit analysis comes out positive for the planet and human health. And that is the only way to go. So then we will eventually I'm a die person. I don't care what they say about the it makes sense because it's really about thinking how we can live a better world. So I won't have to say green chemistry and green patient because it is the right way to be. When we decrease toxicity and improve structurally how everybody lives on this planet. So that's, where we have to go and we have to support it. Yeah, very well said. Doctor Swallow. How about you? Yeah, I guess for me, I just I think it's a really exciting time to be, a scientist or a chemist. I think this. Yeah, this huge opportunity we've done, we've done some great things. We're building on great kind of, stepping stones that have been built in. Yeah, in our industry, in the broader chemistry community. And I just think the, the momentum is really start to build and, I just think it's a really exciting time. And I think we've got a great opportunity to have a big impact, across that holistic perspective. I think it's it's really quite exciting. And, it's great to be part of that movement. Awesome. How about you, Doctor Johannson? Yeah. Okay. So, yeah, we could come back to the occasional component and maybe also re-emphasize, what Doctor Holder said. First of all, we go to schools. We we we get to educate our kids. You know, early on we collaborate with universities and academia. This is what we do. in our day, the job the Midwest and we collaborated, and bright this mind, you know, to to solve the production problems and bold ways of making API. And then we also reach out to other industries. So I think this is really important. You know the pre competitive space. Let's share. You know the our experiences with other industry so that we can the drive the change path and progressed much faster than you know being a siloed industry like Doctor Holder talked about. And finally, you know I think one data scientist, we should embrace these problems, just, you know, solve them, you know, work on this problem, embrace it and say, like, you know, okay, so we're chemists. We're we're dealing with these bad things called chemicals. That is not a bad thing because they can do great things. They can save your grandmother's life or, you know, so they are life changing in many ways. And be proud of that and turn, you know, chemistry into something beautiful. Yeah. So be proud of in chemistry. Yeah, I yeah, this is a really, really fascinating conversation today. So I really appreciate all of the thoughtful answers. you know, the, the connective tissue between not just our environment and our health, but also the way we develop and manufacture the medicines that keep us healthy is is a complex web. And I think each of you, you know, shared that sort of through your perspectives in different lenses, all of those, those parts, you know, all of the players, the need for the collaboration, the need for education. So, you know, I really appreciate that perspective. So with that, I want to thank you again for, for speaking. So, with me today. So doctor Swallow, Doctor Johannson, Doctor Holder, thank you so much. I'll give you each the opportunity to say a final thought here, and then we'll close. I'll start. Thank you for having me. Thank you for this incredible conversation. I get a chance to share, patient perspective, with scientists who are developing this, and I reward. I thank you for doing this work because we so depend on these medications to make the lives better. I mean, that's why we're in medicine, and it's the aspect of medicine that I often don't get to interact with, even though it's so important that I every day I write hundreds of prescriptions, and I never get to meet the chemists and the scientists behind this. So I thank you for your work, and we will work together to make this world better. Thank you. Yeah. So maybe I can continue this. So, thanks Brendan, for the invitation to to come and speak about this and know super gentle pick. The green chemistry is close to my heart and I just love to discuss the think them and to be able to discuss this also together with Doctor Holder, which is sort of the other end of the well drug discovery where where we see patients and the ultimate use of it is just fantastic. And I love that about the interface. And yeah, I can only say that, you know, the collaboration and the work to work together towards this cause. This is what we need to do for the future. And I can really just echo those comments. I think it's been fabulous to to be invited and to, to get involved in this discussion has been really enjoyable. Yeah. Great to meet you, Doctor Holder. Again. You know, you say you don't get to meet me. Our end of the organization, we rarely get to have conversations with, with doctors too. So other than perhaps when we’re ill, but lovely to to get that discussion and perspective and, very much looking forward to working in this space going forth. Well, to our listeners, thanks for joining us on That's Understandable. For more information about today's episode and guests, be sure to check the show notes. Until next time, be well, be healthy, and be understanding.