Sustainable Chemistry - reflecting on ambitions for #healthandclimate

Of course, it was on twitter that I first heard that the Sustainable Chemistry building was burning down. Late Friday night (12th Sept 2014), I watched the live webcam set on the building next door, where we've often had meetings, and was filled with surreal shock to see the whole building site engulfed in flames. I had watched construction progress everyday, cycling to work at Institute of Mental Health on Jubilee campus, University of Nottingham.

As this disaster has made national news, I thought it might be an opportunity to reflect on what I felt the building project was trying to achieve (from a partially independent viewpoint!).  In doing so, I will try to link the corporate idea of sustainability and health with the community approaches which I've been involved with in the Transition Towns movement and others.

I have to admit, when I first saw the hoardings go up, proclaiming a carbon neutral medicinal chemistry research building, I was skeptical. I have conflicted views on this - my PhD was studying biochemistry, sponsored by biotech company, yet more recently I've become committed to the idea that communities can do much to improve their health. Furthermore that a community-based approach can bring added social benefits and avoid the environmental detrimental impact that seems inherent with the pharmaceutical industry.

However despite my assumptions I was sold on the idea of sustainable chemisty, following a talk by the man who has been the driving force behind the development of the GSK sponsored wooden building.
http://sresearchnet.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/presentations-discussions-reflections-lunch-how-we-celebrated-230514/
Prof Pete Licence told us about the work that they had been doing in improving efficiency of catalysis in the reactions involved in creating pharmaceutical compounds. Through carefully adjusting conditions such as high pressure and uv light, the energy required for reactions within chemical processes can be significantly reduced (I don't remember the details - please don't quote me on this!). This is good news in terms of the 'carbon-footprint' of drugs in the future, potentially reducing the carbon-footprint of our healthcare.

Secondly Pete presented research on using non-conventional feedstocks for creating pharmaceutical compounds. Traditionally the large majority of 'ingredients' in chemical production are based on oil and gas, meaning that our pharma is inextricably linked to the 'fossil fuel' industry, with inherent implications for climate change and peak oil. Within transition towns movement we have discussed the potential of using plant-based compounds for the starting materials for drug production, but I had not realised that 'serious' academics and pharma companies were working on this - so this was great news.

Thirdly the point of Pete's talk was that all this work was going to continue in a carbon-neutral building. This was being built out of sustainable forestry (European I think), and would include the latest technology in insulation, laboratory design, even including solar panels and green roofing. The aim was for carbon-neutrality in 5years, followed by carbon embedding - it was hugely ambitious and expensive. Pete commented that the cost was way above 'normal' and was only possible with the generous and deep commitment of Sir Andrew Witty, the chancellor of the university and also (non-coincidentally!) chief exec of GlaxoSmithKline pharmaceutical giant. http://exchange.nottingham.ac.uk/chancellors-breathtaking-day/
So great ambition for sustainability and health - all good?

While I do support the above ambitions I do have critiques or concerns on each point. My over-arching concern is the creeping medicalisation and industrialisation/corporatisation of health and healthcare. The concern is that the marketing-corporate side of pharma means that people are viewed as customers to whom healthcare is sold, therefore care becomes treatment-focused rather than centred on a person's individual needs (patient-centred). My preferred approach is for community-based prevention and health improvement, i.e. let's invest in how communities can support people to be fit and healthy, rather than prioritising investment in drugs and treatments (of course we need both). Thus the criticism of the first point, is that investment in efficiency of processes may lead to increased production (more people consuming more pharma products) and increased profits, with little reduction in environmental impacts.

The second point that I mentioned from Prof Pete's talk was the most significant - the use of plant-based feedstocks. The main concern with this approach is that, similar to biofuel, in time it could pose similar threats to global food production as biofuel. That is, farmers may convert from food production to 'drugs' production due to it's higher returns. The potential impact on prices and availability of food would exacerbate inequality and malnutrition, having knock-on effects on global health. Thus, if organisations and institutions with interests in global health focused on nutrition and 'low tech' approaches to health, healthcare and prevention, this could be  many times more 'sustainable' (equitable) than advances in 'green-pharma'. At the heart of concerns is the question of whether we can 'trust' pharma corporates to place people and planet first, and profits second. Or whenever we buy into the corporate agenda, we inevitably exacerbate global inequality. This goes back to discussions within Transition Towns and also relates to the new Naomi Klein book (recent review in Guardian)
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/sep/14/naomi-klein-interview-capitalism-vs-the-climate
 - can we achieve the necessary reduction in carbon footprint, and essential improvements in global health and inequality within the current corporate framework, or do these goals inherently run against the grain, thus we should call for a 'new system'. In health terms, this isn't as radical as it sounds, just going back to WHO Alma Ata declaration of Health for All, through primary care and community health.
http://www.who.int/social_determinants/tools/multimedia/alma_ata/en/

Thirdly - can chemistry/pharma industry and research ever be 'sustainable' - is this a realistic or useful goal, considering the likely cost and risk (including the fire - which is part of the risk of building with wood). Or could this investment be better placed elsewhere? I don't think I'm giving 'chemists' an excuse to ignore carbon footprint, but would it be just as good to have solar panels on the building next door - or for example the Trent or Portland Buildings? I should note that University of Nottingham has already won awards for the energy efficiency of it's campus.
http://exchange.nottingham.ac.uk/the-greenest-campus-on-earth/

Maybe sustainable chemistry was aiming to take it a step too far - in terms of cost (including risk) v benefit (including 'leadership')?