Mumbai: A California-based researcher has said that pharmaceutical companies in the US alone are inadvertently creating tens of thousands of poisonous new compounds each year that terrorists or rogue nations could develop into chemical weapons.

"Currently, a single [facility] can screen several hundred thousand new compounds per day against several dozen different proteins," writes Mark Wheelis, director of the Programme in Nature and Culture at the University of California. Of 3 million new compounds created each year, around 50,000 are highly toxic. He made these remarks in an article published in The New Scientist magazine as part of a series on illegal use of drugs. "Any one of these is a potential lethal chemical weapon agent," he went on to add.

In their efforts to synthesise new chemical entities, global pharmaceutical majors screen tens of thousands of compounds using high-throughput technology. Out of this voluminous chunk, normally, very few - say one or two - molecules qualify to be developed in to be efficient drugs.

But what happens to those discarded due to some reasons like increased toxicity to humans and other living beings? Or how effectively do drug firms protect this cast-offs' data that may involve dangerously toxic chemical compounds as well?

"Normally, all the pharmaceutical companies world over protect the data related to all the research and development in their firms. It is a rare possibility that drugs could leak out of the lab and fall into unwanted hands," Dr Shreeram Areadhye, head, global medical affairs, Novartis Pharma AG, tells domain-b.

The risk factor
Worldwide the issue is of serious concern. The New York Times, for instance, last week quoted Henry C. Kelly, the president of the Federation of American Scientists, as saying: "In truth, it is possible to imagine a malicious use for virtually any biological research or production site. The difference between a lab for producing lifesaving vaccines and one capable of making deadly toxins is largely one of intent."

As molecular biology continues to advance, this problem will become only more acute, he said. Within a few years it may be possible for an inexperienced graduate student with a few thousand dollars worth of equipment to download the gene structure of smallpox, insert sequences known to increase infectiousness or lethality, and produce enough material to threaten millions of people. Yet, perversely, all of the information and equipment needed to create such a 'super virus' would have been developed in the struggle to cure disease.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is also concerned about these issues and many other products of the biotechnology revolution that have dual helpful and harmful uses, notes Tamas Bartfai, professor of neuropharmacology at the Scripps Research Institute.

"In September 2002, ICRC issued an appeal to the governments and pharmaceutical companies that they should start to think about guarding what they do," he says. Experts, nevertheless, disagree about how easy it would be to steal databases of unintended toxic drugs. "As trade secrets, it would be tough for bad guys to get access to it."

Bartfai strongly disagrees: "Of the toxic ones today, nobody keeps track - just nobody." The best example, he says, is angel dust, the illegal drug PCP. It was inadvertently made during a drug company's research into glutamate receptor ligands. Discarded because of its psychomotor side effects, it was left unguarded, and it's being sold on the street ever since.

Street smart
PCP is the common name for the chemical phencyclidine. Its pharmacological nature is commonly referred to as disassociative anesthetic. But it can possess the properties of a CNS depressant, CNS stimulant, a hallucinogenic, and an analgesic. Street names include peace pill, angel dust, crystal, hog, horse tranquilliser, flakes, embalming fluid, and rocket fuel. It is sometimes mixed with marijuana and referred to as love boat or killer weed. It can also be mixed with crack, which is known as space basing.

Critics may be correct when they point out that considerable research would still be required to turn inadvertently manufactured poisonous chemicals into effective, deliverable weapons. "Unintended poisons pose no threat whatsoever. Publicly available chemical databases already describe thousands of easier-to-develop toxins, so why should wrongdoers look any further."

In India, there are just two to three companies engaged in further development of basic molecules. The rest just follow the process-patent route. Hence Indian scientists feel that the chances of terrorists or antisocial elements getting access to poisonous drugs are quite slim. At least let's hope so.