Slashdot Mirror


Microchip Could Replace Pills

webhat writes "BBC News reports in an article that a microchip implanted in your body may be the end of swallowing pills. A microchip of a centimeter long was created with a sandwich coating of a drug (heparin) and a slow biodegrading polymer. As the polymer layer degrades the drug is released into the system."

185 comments

  1. Pills by User8201 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder if the microchip catches a virus what THAT does -- could be lethal, right?

    1. Re:Pills by blogzip · · Score: 1

      What about this "sympathy chips" ? WiFi-SM
      does it make you feel better ?

    2. Re:Pills by msh104 · · Score: 1

      what about getting into combat with someone and break your chip, since it can hold for up to 140 days of drug you will very likely die no mather what drug is in it.

  2. SYSTEM_FAILURE by hendot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The only problem would be that if it stuffed up, you could get an instant overdose :(

    1. Re:SYSTEM_FAILURE by domninus.DDR · · Score: 1

      Considering how much stuff is already handled electronicly at hospitals, I trust medical engineers and that if the fda approves it then it will generally be safe.

    2. Re:SYSTEM_FAILURE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C'mon, not all electronic devices are designed by Microsoft.
      How many pacemaker carriers die because of a fault in the pacemaker itself?

      Reliable devices *can* be made; it's just a matter of who builds them and how much the ubiquitous search of costs reductions affects their quality.

    3. Re:SYSTEM_FAILURE by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "The only problem would be that if it stuffed up, you could get an instant overdose :( "

      Please spare us the obvious Microsoft joke. It won't be unexpected or funny.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    4. Re:SYSTEM_FAILURE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given how much effort goes on in hospitals to catch the mistakes those electronics make before they end up hitting the patient, I'm somewhat nervous. If it was up to the robot at my old job alone, I think we'd probaly have a drug over or underdose several times per day.

  3. Pill, Microchip, what's the diff? by Helios292 · · Score: 1

    Really, the way this is being implimented, how is it exactly different from pills anyway?

    1. Re:Pill, Microchip, what's the diff? by mxn · · Score: 0

      It's not.. I think their definition of the term 'microchip' is completely from our definition. This is a pretty weak story...

    2. Re:Pill, Microchip, what's the diff? by Peyna · · Score: 1

      Unless is cheaper and easier to use, I see so advantage.

      --
      What?
    3. Re:Pill, Microchip, what's the diff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A microchip could identify exactly which dose/drug you're on. Picture a current case where someone has say, a slow release antipsychotic implanted in the fat in their arm. Say that drug reacts badly with certain medication.

      Now, our antipsychotic friend is put in hospital after a severe car accident and needs quick treatment, but is given the drug that interacts badly with their medication. *bing* they die.

      Or, with the microchip in there, a quick scan over their body can show JUST which antipsychotic they're on, and let docs make a more informed choice on how to save the patient's life.

      Of course, if an employer scans you for undesirable medication that they don't like (antipsychotics, birth control pills, antidepressants, mood stabilisers) that opens another can of worms.

      But thats how I see them possibly being different

    4. Re:Pill, Microchip, what's the diff? by Amiga+Lover · · Score: 1

      Of course, if an employer scans you for undesirable medication that they don't like (antipsychotics, birth control pills, antidepressants, mood stabilisers) that opens another can of worms.

      I would have thought an employer would be pleased to hire a woman on birth control. Women are discriminated against by employers if they're young and potentially able to fall pregnant.

    5. Re:Pill, Microchip, what's the diff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot about the X-ian weirdos that live in the US.

    6. Re:Pill, Microchip, what's the diff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then that would be a positive discrimination towards the woman over other women, based on the pill. Perhaps not an undesirable one, but maybe an undeserved one.

      Incidentally, my sister was fired from her job at a Catholic school. She started there as Librarian aged 22 and as she hadn't had children by age 30 it was presumed she'd been using hormonal birth control. The head of school had expressed his disappointment in her "lifestyle choice" several times in the year before her firing. Of course, her termination notice didn't say that outright. Scum

    7. Re:Pill, Microchip, what's the diff? by Davak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a doc, I say this would be wonderful.

      Taking multiple pills a day can really decrease one's quality of life. Taking medicines with different schedules can be impossible for even the smartest of patients.

      Medicine has advanced that we can really improve quality of life (and usually length of life) for the majority of diseases...

      However one of the biggest problems we face is getting the patient to actually take his/her medications!

      I can see this plan taking the following course:
      1. Doc visit and prescription of an oral medication(s)
      2. Patient returns for follow-up, adjustment of dosing, and screening for side effects
      3. Repeat step 2 until patient is at steady state
      4. Schedule implant
      5. Continue to adjust doses as needed.

      Of course, the next logical steps are chips that release medicines based on the detection of biological markers. If it detects the pro-BNP level is elevated... it releases some diuretics. If it detects the serum glucose is too high, it releases some insulin.

      I know how much medicine has changed in just my years of practice... this is just one more advance that we will one day wonder how we lived without.

      Davak

    8. Re:Pill, Microchip, what's the diff? by Davak · · Score: 1

      By calling them microchips, they charge 100 times more for these "implantable devices."

      Davak

    9. Re:Pill, Microchip, what's the diff? by pvt_medic · · Score: 1

      The problem is the article doesnt even address the issue of why pills are so common and popular route of administration. Administering a pill is the most cheap and easy way a person can get a medication.

      Planting a chip into a patient has many complications associated with it. It will require some form of invasive procedure. So then what is the difference from this and lets say one of the other slow releasing medication techniques such as a patch or an injection. While the injections may be absorbed quicker, the current patch technique is pretty effective. Now it claims it will be effective for people that have trouble with keeping track of their meds. Now if a person is that much at risk of not being able to take their medication, there is a problem. And the problem is the health care system messed up (not the patient). When medications are prescribed the patient is assessed on how complient/likely they are to take the medications. If they cant take oral meds, then another route is then assessed.

      Now dont get me wrong I think this idea has some potential, especially if you make it interactive, such as being implanted into a high risk heart patient and it releases medication when the patient has a heart attack.

      --
      30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
      Score:5, Troll
    10. Re:Pill, Microchip, what's the diff? by WillWare · · Score: 1
      5. Continue to adjust doses as needed.

      If I've understood the article, once the chip is in, it's impossible to adjust the delivery schedule, which depends on the rate at which the coating dissolves.

      One thing that really worries me is that the chip can't be reloaded. The patient needs to have the chip replaced regularly. Isn't each replacement a minor surgery? I know about the difficulty of getting people to follow a regimen, but a recurring minor surgery seems a steep price to pay in exchange. If they could manage a chip that could be reloaded with an injection, that would be better.

      the next logical steps are chips that release medicines based on the detection of biological markers

      There is a technology which could make this feasible. It checks the blood for the presence of (potentially hundreds of) different DNA/RNA sequences simultaneously, which information is diagnostically rich. If deployed clinically in a small blood-testing gadget, this could dramatically reduce health care costs and catch a lot of missed diagnoses, so I'm wishing these guys good luck.

      --
      WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
    11. Re:Pill, Microchip, what's the diff? by greenhide · · Score: 1

      A microchip could identify exactly which dose/drug you're on.

      Not if you RTFA.

      It seems here they're using the term microchip as in, "A tiny thin thing", not anything electronic at all.

      I'm guessing that they're using circuit board-making technology -- etching small groves in a silicon wafer -- to make these drug containers.

      But the chips have no electronics at all, no semiconductors, no nothing. Their sole use is in containing the drug.

      I don't see microchips being able to make the kind of diagnoses you impart to it -- analyzing the drug chemicals in a system generally requires a lot of reactive tests, right? Something an isolated chip couldn't do, probably.

      Besides, I'd feel much more comfortable if qualified health personal did a toxicity test on me before inserting a multiple dose drug into my system, TYVM.

      So, no these things are more similar to slow release pills. What makes them unique is their ability to release quantitative doses over a measured space of time. Since these doses are released in more controlled quantities, you could use this to administer a medicine whose dosage should change over a period of time. For example, the initial doses could be smaller, and then slowly increase over time. My understanding is that most long term implanted drug devices (like Norplant), release a constant and identical amount of the drug over a given period.

      --
      Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
    12. Re:Pill, Microchip, what's the diff? by Mr.+Frilly · · Score: 1

      The article is mostly hype.

      If you notice, the researchers picked heparin as their trial drug. There's a good reason for this, heparin cannot be taken orally and must be injected several times a day. Compared to several injections a day, you quickly see how an implanted microchip would win out. Insulin for diabetics would be another great application.

      In the real world, few people would pick something that's implanted over an oral pill. How many women you know are on Norplant? Nope, they're all still taking the daily oral pill.

    13. Re:Pill, Microchip, what's the diff? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > I don't see microchips being able to make the kind of diagnoses you impart to it -- analyzing the drug chemicals in a system generally requires a lot of reactive tests, right? Something an isolated chip couldn't do, probably.

      Sure, one side of the chip just has drugs, but if the other side has an RFID or something with a drug ID code, the patient can be scanned, presto, they know the (prescribed) drugs they are on and can see that something they did (or were about to do) would interact & remedy the situation. I think the poster was just thinking outside (no, not the box) the immediate implications of the article and adding in other "buzzword Technology."

    14. Re:Pill, Microchip, what's the diff? by mcflaherty · · Score: 1

      In the real world, few people would pick something that's implanted over an oral pill. How many women you know are on Norplant? Nope, they're all still taking the daily oral pill.

      Whoa whoa whoa... let me get this straight. You read Slashdot and know women taking birth control?

      --
      -- I am become sig, destroyer of posts.
    15. Re:Pill, Microchip, what's the diff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However one of the biggest problems we face is getting the patient to actually take his/her medications!

      One of the biggest obstacles to this is the apparent uselessness of doctors.

      9 out of 10 doctors I go to when I'm feeling sick simply say "I don't know, it's probably a virus", and prescribe antibiotics. I'm not saying all doctors are clueless, but it seems that a large portion of them are. If I don't take the antibiotics (and I don't, unless there's something more serious than a vague 'probably a virus'), I wind up feeling fine in another day or two.

    16. Re:Pill, Microchip, what's the diff? by Davak · · Score: 1

      As a doc, I agree. Let me defend my professional a little...

      9 out of 10 patients expect a prescription when they come to the doctor. Studies have shown that patients who leave the without a prescription are less happy about their service.

      Most "urgent care" unscheduled visits are for illnesses that will resolve on their own. Medications may make the patient feel better... but really do little about making the process go away any quicker. On the other hand, many illnesses appear initally like viral syndromes... including bacterial infections.

      So where does that leave the urgent care doctor?
      a)Easy way - Many of them choose to give antibotics to "viral illnesses" to keep all of their patients happy... and thus increase antibotic resistance.
      b)Hard way - Few docs will refuse antibotics until it is clearly a bacterial infection... and therefore will miss a few bacterial infections along the way.

      So it's tough.

      Viral vs bacterial stuff is easy compared to the other unscheduled visits. Weakness, fatigue, tiredness, random pain -- a zillion illnesses can cause these things... Most of the time these things will resolve by themselves as well.

      In the average unscheduled appointment, the doctor is looking for red flags to signal something dangerous... if they are not there, we don't know what to do. Honestly.

      Thus, I'm not an urgent care/primary care doc.

      Anyway, when I go see my doctor when I am sick with a GI bug or a cold, I just ask him to make me feel better and to reassure me that nothing serious is wrong... oh, and to get my out-of-work excuse. :)

      Sorry to ramble. Doctors are well trained to treat the big stuff. These minor illnesses, although very common, we can't help all that much.

      Davak

    17. Re:Pill, Microchip, what's the diff? by Mr.+Frilly · · Score: 1

      Well, uh, know of them. Can't say I "know" them...

    18. Re:Pill, Microchip, what's the diff? by Hrrrg · · Score: 1

      One problem I see with this system (and all similar systems) is the amount of drug that it can hold. While drug dosages can vary from micrograms to grams, most drug dosages are measured in milligrams. Even for a relatively low-dose medicine of 10 mg/day, that would mean that the device would have to hold 3-4 grams for a year's supply (which is probably much more that the thing can hold at only 1 cm long). And most people would probably not want to have an implantable chip changed every year! For the vast majority of current medications this thing will be useless. It also has other problems: How do you change the dose? What if you are admitted to a hospital and you blood pressure is low so you need to stop your anti-hypertensives? Many elderly patients are also on 10-20 medications. Do anyone really think that any of them would go for 20 implants? This device will not end up being very useful.

    19. Re:Pill, Microchip, what's the diff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The nerve of these women, refusing to just sit back and kick out babies.

  4. Finally by ultrabot · · Score: 1, Funny

    BBC News reports in an article that a microchip implanted in your body may be the end of swallowing pills.

    Finally! The last obstacle to the ascendance of human race to a godlike status, namely, swallowing pills, is conquered. This is indeed a great day to be alive!

    --
    Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
  5. Woah.... by OzPhIsH · · Score: 1

    Upgrades.

    --

    "To lead the people, you must walk behind them"

    1. Re:Woah.... by ColdZero · · Score: 0

      er imagine.....its early.

  6. Microchip, but not computer controlled release... by fruey · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The chip's surface is covered in little grooves, where drugs can be loaded.

    It is then covered with different types of polymer which slowly biodegrade releasing each dose at a different time.

    The different types of polymer degrade at different rates, but what we do not have here is polymers activated by some kind of electronic pulse that is controlled by some mini operating system / timer chip. This is just clever dissolving stuff, not some mini robot or electronic activation of dose release.

    They're just using the word 'microchip' in the same way you might advertise microchips as fries that you can cook in your microwave oven. Bah!

    --
    Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
  7. Glossing Over.... by Vengie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ugh. The article is incredibly terse and glosses right over internal trauma. Sure, if all is peachy-perfect, but what happens when you're in an accident and your little chip gets smashed in the process, instantly releasing the entire contained dosages into your bloodstream. Simply fabulous. You'd think people would have learned from silicon, and even from the occasional problems with the in-your-arm-time-release-birth-control products. Is anyone really willing to make these tradeoffs? [Sure, go ahead, argue that this could be useful for non-trivial drugs for which massive dosages wouldn't matter.....if there is a drug you /should/ be taking every day, there should also be a lifestyle change that should reflect that....]

    disclaimer: both my parents are pharmacists. i read too much of their continuing ed crud.

    --
    When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
    1. Re:Glossing Over.... by Talez · · Score: 1

      You'd think people would have learned from silicon, and even from the occasional problems with the in-your-arm-time-release-birth-control products. Is anyone really willing to make these tradeoffs?

      Ask a girl who's on implanon if they're willing to go back to the regular pill. Every girl I know with it would probably say no.

    2. Re:Glossing Over.... by gordlea · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you're in an accident where the impact was hard enough to shatter a tiny microchip inside your body (say: your parachute didn't open), I'd say you've got bigger problems.

      --

      Choose yer poison: Prophets or Profits

    3. Re:Glossing Over.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes because people with chronic illness should have to suffer.

      Fuck that I was supposed to take medicine every day according to my doctors and I couldn't put Crohn's into remission otherwise.

      Well fuck you and them.

      I'm not gonna sit and change my life to a pill taking baby food eating extravaganza for anyone or anything. I was fortunate enough to do so without medicine. Poor fucks who can't. Your comment that their lives should be altered because they where hit with this or anything else they couldnt is utter bullshit. if something like this could help anyone live an ounce more of a normal life it would be good. Of course, there are health concerns with something like this that need be addressed, but still

    4. Re:Glossing Over.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you're more worried about your parents little "corner on the medicine market" being threatened by innovation.

    5. Re:Glossing Over.... by JavaLord · · Score: 1

      if there is a drug you /should/ be taking every day, there should also be a lifestyle change that should reflect that....

      Why is that? I have to take Allegra everyday for allergies. Even a mega-overdose wouldn't kill me. I read overdose information + look up online all the meds I get prescribed before I take them, and I've found quite a few are like that. Your "lifestyle change" theory is beyond me. I would also be willing to bet, more people die a year due to human error when dosing themselves, then would die from a chip breaking/going haywire inside them.

      You are just worried about your parents losing their jobs, right? ;)

    6. Re:Glossing Over.... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Sure, if all is peachy-perfect, but what happens when you're in an accident and your little chip gets smashed in the process, instantly releasing the entire contained dosages into your bloodstream.

      And, or course, a trauma that can smash the chip but would be otherwise survivable is sooooo much more likely than, say, my grandmother forgetting to take one of her dozen daily medications (of which heparin is one).

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    7. Re:Glossing Over.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know girls? This is SlashDot, please leave immediately ;-)

    8. Re:Glossing Over.... by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      I just spent last night watching the trauma/ER block of Discover's Health channel's Sunday night programming. I think you'd be surprised just how much horrific damage the human body can survive with modern surgical techniques. One person had a car accident with a chain link fence that resulted in a hollow metal pole being driven into his chest. His right lung collapsed, his collarbone snapped in two, and the artery pumping blood into his arm was completely severed for several hours before it could be reattached. Seven years later, he's perfectly fine and the doctors didn't have to amputate his now fully-functioning right arm. In my own life, my high-school's art teacher's husband survived a car wreck that resulted in his intestines and spleen being practically "liquified" due to severe blunt trauma. (Of course, he was in the hospital undergoing repeated surgery, healing, and physical therapy for well over a year.)

      Dumping several days' dose of heparin into your someone's bloodstream would cause her to die a horrible death of hemorraging. This could be more harm than good to the average person. On the other hand, I think this is a good idea for the elderly, especially those prone to bouts of forgetfulness. I'd just hate to see this enter the mainstream as a total replacement for pills without some good safeguarding. He makes a good point.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    9. Re:Glossing Over.... by trailerparkcassanova · · Score: 1

      I have two heparin-coated stents on my heart. If this could reduce instances of the stents closing I would be more than willing to use it. Trauma causing a spontaneous release of the drug wouldn't be much of a concern. In fact, should my "little chip" should become smashed I suspect that would be the least of my worries if I had any at all.

    10. Re:Glossing Over.... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > die a horrible death of hemorraging. This could be more harm than good to the average person

      Hmm, horrible hemmoraging death vs. a fully-functioning "average" person. Yeah, I'd say that's more harm than good. The problem with your statement, however, is twofold (maybe more, this is just what I'm thinking at the moment):

      1. These things are pretty small, which means there would have to be a significant amount of force in exactly the right place to cause it to break. This includes the fact that skin stretches some and most likely the "chip" would simply shift instead of break. It could cause some internal cut/damage, but that would probably happen anyway, considering the force over the small area needed to damage it.

      2. Even if it were to break, it does not necessarily mean all of the drug will be dispnsed at once. I'm sure it's not just miniature capsules all stacked. Unless the thing shattered COMPLETELY (ie, into fine dust), it would still time-release the drug, although it may be 2-3x the required dose. This would probably cause adverse reactions of course, but most likely something far from hemmoraging or death, at which time, a doctor could be notified to remedy the situation.

      More harm? Somehow the odds seem much better with something like this instead of relying on people with generally bad memeries to take a half-dozen pills every day.

    11. Re:Glossing Over.... by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      You are probably correct on both accounts. I reread the description of the chip, and it seems that the physically layout is different from what I first thought it was. I had assumed that a clean break in the chip would most likely open up several grooves simultaneously and that this would lead to an overdose. It seems that it's likely that opening several grooves along a line is actually part of the design of how it releases drugs, so this is unlikely, as you say, to release more than a 2-3x dose.

      I withdraw my statement. It's probably extremely unlikely to contribute significantly to trauma at an accident.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    12. Re:Glossing Over.... by mister_tim · · Score: 1

      The thing is, there's a risk with any medication you take, no matter what form it's delivered in. Injections can go wrong, you can accidentally forget or overdose on pills, and people can develop nasty side-affects to just about any medication at different times.

      And as someone else has pointed out, I've never heard of any woman using birth control implants-in-the-arm who wants to go back to the pill. I think that's an example, as good as any, that implants (whether chips or not) are going to be popular with patients who need to take the medication every day.

    13. Re:Glossing Over.... by Mrs.+Neutron · · Score: 1

      Implanon? Never heard of it, and it's not in http://rxlist.com . Please enlighten me.

      --

      ~~~~~

      Pet Peeve: Perscription drug advertising to the general public.

    14. Re:Glossing Over.... by Mrs.+Neutron · · Score: 1

      OK... it's pretty established that you probably have worse problems with a traumatic injury than your doses being released. Besides, depending on where the thing is implanted, there are going to be different risks of the thing getting smashed. Put it in the belly or something. It'll take a lot to wreck it there.

      However, I see other problems with this...
      1) Some drugs are going to require larger pills than others if they're going to last the same amount of time. They should try to get them to all last a similar period, or Grandma has to remember to go get her implants changed all the time instead of taking her pills. This variation in size would necessitate using different delivery devices making the whole thing more expensive. (I assume they use a large syringe-like thing to insert this rather than have a surgeon make a cut to slide it in.)
      2) There is no way this can ever replace short-term drugs like ibuprofen. You don't need it constantly, so you're still going to be popping pills when you do.
      3) Some drugs are less stable than others at body temperature. Take all those lactase pills (Lactaid and all its generics) -- keep them in your pocket, and they won't work when you need them. This is an extreme example because it deals with an enzyme, but the comparison still stands.

      I suppose this could be useful in select individuals... HIV patients might benefit a lot once their dosage and drug combinations are established. For them, I'm sure it'd be nice not to be taking more than a dozen pills a day. It might also be good for the elderly -- both those who forget to take pills and those who are non-complient with their therapies could benefit. But I doubt your average, healthy, young individual will ever see much of this technology.

      --

      ~~~~~

      Pet Peeve: Perscription drug advertising to the general public.

  8. Microchip? by Eric+Ass+Raymond · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It is then covered with different types of polymer which slowly biodegrade releasing each dose at a different time.

    Where is the microchip? This sounds just like a typical retarded-release pill.

    1. Re:Microchip? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Really? I always thought of a microchip as something with, well, ICs in it or something."

      I sort of got the impression that the chip controls the release of the polymers some how. Granted, they didn't actually say that, but it strikes me that they needed the chip for timing when this stuff was released.

      Then again, I'm sleep deprived. Heh. I mean, it's not like they're going to install a tiny little pump with moving parts.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    2. Re:Microchip? by You're+All+Wrong · · Score: 1

      No these are compleeeeetely different.

      You see, the contraceptive ones and the ones for diabetics
      are long and thin, rod-like almost. These new ones are more rectanglar in shape and therefore are /microchips/, not
      merely /implants/.

      It's revolutionary, I tell you! They should patent it!

      YAW.

      --
      Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
  9. Microchip? by mumblestheclown · · Score: 3, Informative
    Really? I always thought of a microchip as something with, well, ICs in it or something. From what I'm understanding from the (very very short) article, this works via simple physical chemistry - polymer layers erode over time thus 'time releasing' what's under the next layer. presumably there are different thickness polymer layers depending on how often the medication needs to be delivered.


    Unless I'm really missing something here, I fail to see how this qualifies as a microchip in the sense that we commonly refer to it as.

  10. Microchip? by ottawanker · · Score: 1

    Didn't they have something like this before but for Birth Control pills? And where does the 'Microchip' come in? It seems like the polymer does all the work adjusting the dosage by
    slowly biodegrading..

    Anyways, I'd rather swallow pills than have a Microchip stuck into my body. While this could be very useful for people using addictive drugs like Morphine (the 'patient' would always have the same dosage, and wouldn't be able to do more than their normal dose), I don't know if it would catch on for other medications.

  11. but..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    do they run Linux?

    1. Re:but..... by foobrain · · Score: 1

      No, they might run ITRON :P

    2. Re:but..... by Asprin · · Score: 0


      Yes, and addicts even run a whole Beowulf cluster of them!


      ...sorry.

      --
      "Lawyers are for sucks."
      - Doug McKenzie
    3. Re:but..... by Atryn · · Score: 1

      Despite the parent's satirical nature, this does bring up an interesting idea. If illegal drugs could be provided this way... So an addict goes to a dealer who (with probably less than perfect surgical techniques) runs a shop to implant a time-release version of crack into the addict...

      The dealer could even have slightly increasing dosages released each cycle. :)

      I think I'm developing a very sick mind.

      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    4. Re:but..... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > I think I'm developing a very sick mind.

      Muwahaha, that's only the first step, young jedi... er something. Anyway, while that sounds fun and all (Who wouldn't want 20 days-worth of time-released LSD? Oooh, and lots of Pop Rocks too), I don't think too many people would jump on that bandwagon. I'd be first on, of course, but from the drug culture I know (admittedly, not crack) most like to do things in their own pace, like a drug ritual. Time release would be nice at first, but it would get old pretty fast.

  12. Whats the difference? by aderkach · · Score: 0

    Whats the difference, the person will still get the correct dosage of the drug with a normal pill, and they wont even have to swalllow a centimeter long microchip :|

  13. birth control? by blake8087 · · Score: 0

    i think this could be very useful in applying birth control drugs...

    --

    --Slashdot readers delight in generalizing the behavior of other Slashdot readers.
  14. Ooops! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I should have read the article before the comments.
    This microchip isn't an electronic device but a slow dissolving container for medicines.
    I still fail to understant why theu used the word "microchip", though.

    Sorry for the misleading parent post anyway.

  15. Fundamentally flawed approach by jkrise · · Score: 1

    The body is not a 'static problem', but a 'dynamic process'. (Okay, no kill -9 jokes, please).A microchip, despite all the possible intelligence, does not take into account that the body is (rather should be) capable of taking care of itself. -

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    1. Re:Fundamentally flawed approach by p3d0 · · Score: 0

      You, sir, did not read the article.

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    2. Re:Fundamentally flawed approach by jvkjvk · · Score: 1

      I don't quite get what you are saying.

      A logical extention of your idea, to my mind, is that we shouldn't have doctors, because "the body is (rather should be) capable of taking care of itself."

      Microchips would simply be another tool for those cases where the body *cannot* take care of itself properly without outside help.

    3. Re:Fundamentally flawed approach by ceejayoz · · Score: 1

      Well then, we'll just have to leave that sucking gunshot wound to the chest alone... afterall, the body is capable of taking care of itself.

      The human body is not always capable of taking care of itself. A hundred years ago people died of polio, smallpox, fairly minor bacterial infections, etc. - all easily preventable or treatable now.

    4. Re:Fundamentally flawed approach by zCyl · · Score: 1

      the body is (rather should be) capable of taking care of itself.

      Except that when it's not able to take care of itself, we get sick and die. For those of us who desire to live healthy lives, we have invented modern medicine to surpass the initial limitations of our bodies.

      Nature solves problems by the strongest living. Humans are individuals, and like to solve the problem of continuing their own individual lives.

    5. Re:Fundamentally flawed approach by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      Perhaps what is meant here is that certain situations within your body could cause more (or less) of the drug to be released. I could see things like major stress, or a serious illness screwing up the body chemistry and making the dose change. Also metabolism changes such as significant weight loss/gain, menopause, puberty, etc. might also affect how the dose is released. I think there is a LOT of research to be done before the FDA will let this thing be used except in some very strict conditions. I guess it completely dissolves and you need a new one ever so often (more $$).

    6. Re:Fundamentally flawed approach by tgibbs · · Score: 1
      The body is not a 'static problem', but a 'dynamic process'. (Okay, no kill -9 jokes, please).A microchip, despite all the possible intelligence, does not take into account that the body is (rather should be) capable of taking care of itself.
      Therapeutic drugs are used when the body's systems for "taking care of itself" fail, a situation known as "disease." For the most part, drugs are administered in such a way as to keep the amount of drug in the bloodstream fairly constant. The first generation of drug chips will be designed to do the same thing. But eventually, there will be dynamic chips designed to respond to changing circumstances, such as a chip that releases varying levels of insulin depending upon blood glucose levels.
  16. Err. by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

    So, you have to get this thing implanted in your body in order for it to release the stuff into your bloodstream... So, what's the advantage of having this thing instead of, say, a dermal patch? (Besides not having a patch on your body...)

    Seems to me that this thing would be quite annoying. You'd have to make sure you didn't fall on it, you'd have to go through the initial pain of getting it in there, etc. Why?

    -- Dr. Eldarion --

    1. Re:Err. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0




      In this case, I don't thing doctor means doctor, cumsniff.




  17. Translation: by Midajo · · Score: 1

    i think this could be very useful in applying birth control drugs...
    Translation: I have sired several illegitimate children.

  18. -1 MOD STORY DOWN by CowboyMeal · · Score: 0

    But really? How long until you can mod stories?

    --
    Your credit card information wants to be free.
  19. Re:Microchip, but not computer controlled release. by webhat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When I read microchip, I thought computer controlled release too, but as it is actually a small wafer build up of layers of polymer and whatever drug, in a similar way to what you might call a `real' microchip. I think you can use it.
    I very much doubt your potato chips are created in that way.

    --
    'I am become Shiva, destroyer of worlds'
  20. HIV in Africa by panurge · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It isn't a "microchip" but I wonder if the grooves are fabricated using the same kind of technology.

    This could be extremely useful in treating AIDS and tuberculosis in the 3rd world. Apart from the problems of many 3rd world people in ensuring that drugs are taken continuously, there is the risk that they will sell drugs or have them stolen by other sufferers who are not being treated. I do not know how dosage would stack up against feasibility, but the principle looks sound. There's also the possibility of slowly releasing chemotherapy right into tumors.

    Obviously any new technology is going to have risks, but if people are going to die of something without treatment, and existing means of delivery are unreliable or worse, surely this has to be worth pursuing.

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
  21. Microchip? by krilli · · Score: 1

    How is that a microchip? It's just slowly degrading polymer with drugs in it. Well, I may have misunderstood the definition of a microchip, but I figured that you'd need some sort of electrical binary logic processing going on for you to be able to call your piece of hardware an actual "microchip".

    --
    Jag pratar lite svenska.
  22. End of prohibition. by ahfoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While this particular device may not be what I'm thinking, I've long assumed that government prohibitions against drugs will eventually be made irrelevant by similar technologies.
    So much of the furor over "drug abuse" is truly about drug dosage and unhygenic methods of taking them.
    The whole argument against, for instance, coke, heroin and amphetamines becomes quite different when you take out overdoses, needles and high temperature pipes.
    At that point you're left arguing against euphoria from the obviously puritanical moral position that really does underlie many people's attitude's towards drug use. But, while those people will remain, by getting separating off the social evils of bad hygeine, dangerous paraphenalia and the medical compications of overdose, it should be much easier to win the majority over to the side of free choice.
    But it's not really going to be necessary to win people over, because just as the next generation of doage devices are maturing, so are micro labs. Chemical engineering is seeing a huge revolution in on-chip synthesis. It's obviously just a matter of time before illicit drug labs on-a-chip make their way into the consumer market. And coupled with new dosage devices, that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned.
    It may be the only way to knock out the money element in the drugs trade which I personally feel is the single greatest source of damage and destruction to human life in the whole prohibition game.

    1. Re:End of prohibition. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insightful. It doesn't really need new delivery systems to make drug taking safe -- paramacutical heroin is less dangerous than smoking. It is a kind of social madness which forces smack users to inject all that crap. I say give them the bloody drugs, at least it would stop them robbing my house.

    2. Re:End of prohibition. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole argument against Heroin is not bad hygeine but its adictiveness that then drives its addicts to ever more desparate ways of getting enough money to fund their habbit.
      Perhaps other, less addictive, drugs should be legalised, after all some people get addicted to alcohol, but the majority don't.

    3. Re:End of prohibition. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heroin is relatively cheap to produce. If it wasn't illegal, it wouldn't be expensive.

      You could try: "The whole argument against Tobacco is not bad hygeine but its adictiveness that then drives its addicts to ever more desparate ways of getting enough money to fund their habbit."

      And if you don't think some people find it both addictive enough and expensive enough to break the law to get it, you haven't heard of the blackmarket trade in tobacco. Usually gets a boost whenever governments increase taxes on it.

    4. Re:End of prohibition. by dustmote · · Score: 1

      Double insightful, in some ways. I remember not too long ago hearing about someone who had built a device that produced amphetamines by some sort of electrochemical reaction. I believe it was in Australia. The gist of it was that it was made from a film cannister suspended inside a slightly larger container, very portable and requiring few to none difficult to obtain reagents.

      --


      -1, "1337" speak
    5. Re:End of prohibition. by mekkab · · Score: 1

      Dewd, this is the second best post, EVER. Only slightly more coherent than the actual article, this post takes non-sequitor tangentiality and runs with it.

      You got me with "Drug lab on-a-chip."

      --
      In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
    6. Re:End of prohibition. by ahfoo · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I was stretching the association a bit but I appreciate the props either way.
      As for drug lab on-a-chip If you have time try Googling capillary electrochromatography. It's the next step in chromatography and these days it's being used for large scale purification and separation, not just analysis, of all sorts of things. There's a quiet revolution going on in chemical engineering and it's happening at a small scale. The DEA is already using it to try and find similarities between batches of speed. That's analytical obviously, but it can be used in separations and it is, even in the food industry.
      I'm sure before we see the pocket amphetamine chip we'll hear about the new superdrugs that will come from people cleaning up their speed using high pressure CEC. All a dealer has to do is take his lousy unsaleable product and filter it into pharmaceutical grade. Can even do chiral separations. That aint no country bumpkin biker meth baby.
      What happens is that as you shrink the scale of the lab work you can take advantage of commodity electronics like laser diodes. At a micro scale, a tiny laser is relatively high powered. Now you have cost effective means of doing volume analyses and separations that are traditionally way too pricey for the underground market.
      Instead of carrying around an ounce of junk that will get him five years, a dealer would be able to have the same potency in a few grams. There are real financial and legal motivations for such people to be ahead of the technology curve and you can bet some of them probably are.
      But as far as I'm concerned, these are all positive developments. The drug laws are all wrong and clean drugs are all right. Just ask Rush Limbaugh.

    7. Re:End of prohibition. by tgibbs · · Score: 1
      The whole argument against, for instance, coke, heroin and amphetamines becomes quite different when you take out overdoses, needles and high temperature pipes.
      True for heroin, false for cocaine, questionable for amphetamines. There is nothing particularly hazardous about a crack pipe (so long as you aren't trying to freebase the cocaine yourself). But cocaine is an inherently dangerous drug, being both intensely habit-forming and carrying with it a substantial risk of heart attack and stroke.
    8. Re:End of prohibition. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm, well I suppose I shouldn't go corrupting youngsters on /., but in the real world heavy users of coke and meth shoot up. It's cheaper bro. Little dab 'l do ya with a rig. See how the vicious cycle revolves around the dollah?
      And crack smoke can definitely cause emphysema among other things. Any hot gas can do that.
      But your point about coke seems to have failed to read the thread. Hey, it's /., you're forgiven. But I doubt you will find any statistics about strokes or heart attacks associated with low doses of Coke. You do realize where the cola brand gets its name, right? It's American as apple pie and tobacco. It won't hurt ya in low doses.

    9. Re:End of prohibition. by tgibbs · · Score: 1
      Uhm, well I suppose I shouldn't go corrupting youngsters on /., but in the real world heavy users of coke and meth shoot up.
      That used to be true, but crack changed that. It's cheap, efficient, and you don't have to poke yourself with a needle. These days, most people who get into trouble with cocaine are smoking it.
      But I doubt you will find any statistics about strokes or heart attacks associated with low doses of Coke. You do realize where the cola brand gets its name, right? It's American as apple pie and tobacco. It won't hurt ya in low doses.
      At the kind of low doses you are talking about, cocaine is about as euphoric as caffeine. But you won't find any statistics showing that it is safe, even at those low doses. Some people seem to be extremely sensitive to the damaging effects of cocaine on the heart, so I wouldn't be surprised if people were dropping dead here and there from cocaine colas, and nobody noticed. Back then, nobody kept track.
    10. Re:End of prohibition. by mekkab · · Score: 1

      Any coherent response will have to wait 'till I filter these ideas through my biophysicist buddy in Frisco (cuz I don't mind pestering him with my dumb questions).

      Thanks for giving my mind something new to chew on.

      --
      In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
  23. Re:The article mentions human implication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rush! They let you out of rehab already? Great to have you back.

  24. I'm not swallowing any Pllls! by TangoCharlie · · Score: 1

    I don't know about you, but I'm not up to swallowing a Plll! One of those VIA nano-BGA C3's maybe. Anyhow, Plll's are obsolete now.

    --
    return 0; }
    1. Re:I'm not swallowing any Pllls! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you seen the G5? It could easily choke a horse if you left the heat sink on.

  25. Re:Microchip, but not computer controlled release. by notque · · Score: 1

    I very much doubt your potato chips are created in that way.

    Aww man, I was going to try and get on Slashdot's main page with my revolutionary home brewed micro potato chips.

    --
    http://use.perl.org
  26. Lain is upon us by Rolman · · Score: 1

    I remember watching this very same concept on the anime series Serial Experiments Lain, but there, the microchip was actually a powerful drug sought after in the black market.

    I believe this is an accurate view of the future, because patients could automatically follow a doctor's prescription using a microchip like this.

    I myself have been yelled at several times by my doctor for not taking my medication on time, and I bet drug addicts would die to have something that takes care for them getting their dose and not having to hide in the bathroom or try to sneak prohibited stuff inside a disco.

    OTOH, it also has potential for drug screening, because the microchip could be used to detect the presence of certain drugs in the bloodstream and trigger an alarm.

    By the way, you can see a summary of the mentioned Lain episode here.

    --
    - Otaku no naka no otaku, otaking da!!!
    1. Re:Lain is upon us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Overclock your brain, baby!

      I feel....accelerated...

  27. Its not going to be easy to reverse by jubalj · · Score: 0

    re implanted heparin, well if the person had a haemorrhagic stroke or ended up somehow bleeding (eg. accident/injury) things will be a lot harder to control. Especially, if the impact of an accident dislodges and damages this device causing an unintentional infusion - making 'em bleed further.

    btw, what would you choose, a pill you need to take regularly or have an injection with a reasonable sized needle.. humm.. maybe i'm just needle phobic

    n yeah, the use of the microchip is poorly explained, wonder if it can alter the dosage delivered or even better monitor the coagulability (APTT) of the patients blood and accordingly alter the dosage - that would be cool!

    1. Re:Its not going to be easy to reverse by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

      It sure would - I'm on anti-coagulants right now (Coumadin, but was on heparin), and have to endure weekly blood tests as well as daily pills. If I could replace all that with a chip implant, I'd be the first in line to sign up.

    2. Re:Its not going to be easy to reverse by zodar · · Score: 1

      You'd be behind me, buddy. I'm tired of taking Coumadin every day. Now if they could get rid of that damnable ticking...

  28. Won't pass FDA by Graemee · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, how do you get it out if you have a reaction to the medication? Vomit? No, then Xacto or Dremel?

    1. Re:Won't pass FDA by psych031337 · · Score: 1

      Have you seen "A beautiful mind"? (If not go and rent it ASAP). Pay special attention to the scene where our hero tries to get out that numeric code thingy from his wrist. That's the way to handle negative reactions...

      --
      +++ath0
    2. Re:Won't pass FDA by cK-Gunslinger · · Score: 1

      Or even better, have you seen Pi? There's an effective way of getting something out of your head...

    3. Re:Won't pass FDA by extra88 · · Score: 1

      Simple, you don't proscribe one of these things right off the bat. You start the person on something more conventional like a pill or injection (injection assumes a hospital setting where a bad reaction could be dealt with). If the person does okay on the other delivery method, they can then switch to the implanted slow-release "chip."

    4. Re:Won't pass FDA by tgibbs · · Score: 1
      So, how do you get it out if you have a reaction to the medication? Vomit? No, then Xacto or Dremel?
      The FDA has already approved forms of implantable sustained-release medication, so this is just an improved technology for doing something that is already routinely done. You can check for reactions before going to an implantable form of a drug--and if worse comes to worst, it's not really that big a deal to cut it out.
  29. what about the cost? by schmack · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let's be real -- the artical talks about HIV treatments and the like, but I can imagine this chip being a _lot_ more expensive than standard gel caps or pressed pills. I don't see African countries shelling out for this, when even standard medication is a blue sky concept for them (about the only thing they have plenty of).

    Medicine is damn expensive, and maybe I'm overly cynical, but I can't see the big pharmaceutical companies getting all altruistic on us any time in the foreseeable future.

    1. Re:what about the cost? by TomV · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Two points - firstly, although you make a good point about the relative costs of the new 'chip' versus standard pills, it's not a comparison between the price of one chip and one pill but rather between the price of 1 chip and 140 pills, which should at least narrow the gap somewhat. Though probably not all the way.

      Secondly, the drug used in the tests was Heparin, an anticoagulant. I don't know about Heparin, but I know that Warfarin, another anticoagulant, is something my Mum's had to take twice a day every day since she had a heart attack 5 years ago, and something that my friend who just had a heart valve replaced will have to take every single day for the rest of her life (she's only 30, so that's an awful lot of tablets to remember). For both these people at least, reducing the memory requirement from 2-pills-a-day to one-chip-per-7-months would make a huge difference to the disruption their coronary health needs impose on their lives.

      I suspect as usual we'll see the neato technology being used in the 'west' for the treatment of the diseases of affluence, while we continue to make those in the developing world slum it with lowest common denominator medicines for the diseases of poverty. While all the while ignoring Malaria completely, of course.

      tV

    2. Re:what about the cost? by aridhol · · Score: 1
      reducing the memory requirement from 2-pills-a-day to one-chip-per-7-months
      I'm not so sure about that one. If you take the pills twice a day, it's easy to get into a routine. Wake up, breakfast, pills. Pills, brush teeth, bed.

      If it's twice a year, it's not as much of a routine to get into. Especially if you travel - "Oh shit, I need to get my medicine refilled, but I'll be in Timbuktu for that entire week". How much of a grace period do these chips allow for? Are they removed at refill time, or do they dissolve entirely? If it's removed, then you could probably get your refill early (but you'd still have to remember it). If it dissolves, you would have a week of overdosing while you have both chips in your system.

      --
      I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
    3. Re:what about the cost? by TomV · · Score: 1

      For both individuals I've mentioned, regular medical checkups are another part of the rest-of-your-life menu. The 6-monthly checkups are as immoveable as Christmas, the rest of the calendar falls in around that. Though I suspect if the tolerances on the dosage are fairly tight you might have to go through a week or so on the pills between chips to keep the levels controlled? Not ideal, certainly, but still saves you maybe 120 pill-days.

  30. allnighter - the pro version by azalin · · Score: 1

    just imagine what would happen if you'd use one of these babies to fuel our caffeine addiction

    1. Re:allnighter - the pro version by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > If God intended man to smoke, he would have set him on fire

      If God intended man to eat, he would have made him a jelly donut. W. T. F.

  31. This will make easier to write... by foobrain · · Score: 0

    ... real life viruses, worms and such, huh?

  32. "Have you ever seen the Lain?" :-) by ceeam · · Score: 0

    I hope they are not full of spikes.

  33. This reminds me of... by bicho · · Score: 1

    this reminds me of Seria Experiments Lain...
    And I thought to myself, "what? swallow a chip?"...
    well, I must admint I havent read the article :P, so I dont trully know if the chip is swallowed, but given its coated with some sort of drig, what are the chances?

    Anyway, "anyone knows what OS will it be running?"

    --

    errera hunamum ets
  34. The Matrix by 7*6 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Neo, you can take the red microchip or the blue microchip...

    Just doesn't have the same ring to it.

  35. Let's hope it isn't a Windows embedded OS... by thepacketmaster · · Score: 1

    But seriously, this could be an interesting breakthrough provided the technology is stable. Having a delivery problem could be deadly. While it would be beneficial to chronically ill people that would otherwise be forced to take pills for the rest of their lives, I think they need to improve on the 140 day dose limit. Depending on the invasiveness of the procedure, having to do it every 4 to 5 months could be though of as annoying. I think if they could get it up to a year, it would be much easier to except. And the next drug tested for this delivery system should be...Viagra!

    --

    --

    Luck is just skill you didn't know you had.

    1. Re:Let's hope it isn't a Windows embedded OS... by mrtroy · · Score: 1

      rtfa

      not computer controlled, just a degrading polymer

      I hope you arent in charge of implanting one of these.

      "Are you sure it goes there"

      "Yes...all microchips go in the CPU --- the 'brain'!"

      --
      [I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
    2. Re:Let's hope it isn't a Windows embedded OS... by cK-Gunslinger · · Score: 1

      There are several cool/disturbing potentials for this kind of thing. Some are nifty is a "Down and Out in the Magic Kindom" kind of way. Use nano-implants to control your medicine dosage. Wake up and feel a little queazy? *Blink* - administered [X]mg of [anti-nausea] medication. What about diabetics? And, like you mention, Viagra? It would definitely remove any stigmata/embarrassment from taking medication publicly.

      On the other hand, I think back to "Brave New World" kind of literature, and then it doen't seem like that great of an idea anymore. Oh well.

    3. Re:Let's hope it isn't a Windows embedded OS... by thepacketmaster · · Score: 1
      Yes, I did read the article, fully, before responding. The title was just a joke. However, just because it is a polymer does not mean it is a bulletproof delivery system. I would hate to think you have such blind trust in a new system.

      What if every once in a while one of these has a problem with the polymer degrading too fast due to a manufacturing problem? "Oh, so sorry you had an overdose resulting in your death. We'll give you your money back"

      --

      --

      Luck is just skill you didn't know you had.

  36. A news article based on an abstract by matchlight · · Score: 1

    I checked out the Nature Materials website and found this abstract that has the same info as the article. Apparently the author was as cheap as I am and didn't fork over the $30 US to see the full text.

  37. I can see my glasses: by floydman · · Score: 1

    ERROR-1341: Error supplying stroke dossage, not enough memory, please consult your nearest vendor.

    --
    The lunatic is in my head
  38. Trade descriptions act, anyone? by Channard · · Score: 1
    They're just using the word 'microchip' in the same way you might advertise microchips as fries that you can cook in your microwave oven. Bah!

    You mean I donned my tinfoil hat for nothing? There goes my 'govt using microchips in our body to track us' post. Damn you, Auntie Beeb!

  39. Effects of stomach acid? by Channard · · Score: 1

    Would this be usable on someone who gets heartburn a lot? Would too much stomach acid would release too much of the drug too early?

    1. Re:Effects of stomach acid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, they don't implant it in your stomach! They implant it in your head! But seriously, rtfa.

  40. What is it with pills anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't understand why people have such a problem just taking a pill everyday. I worked at a hospital for a while, and it was insane how often people would simply forget to take their pills. And I'm not talking about the confused or the elderly here, these were people quite healthy in mind, if not in body. And so often they would just skip a day or three, and then get upset at 'us' because they were suddenly feeling bad. If reaching out ones arm, opening a bottle, and putting the tablet in ones mouth is too much work to stay alive, than I have little sympathy at this point.

  41. Not quite... by stewby18 · · Score: 1

    How exactly would you end overdoses with time release pills? If one pill releases x amount per hour, 10 pills releases 10x. If you can put the drug in your body, you can overdose.

    Besides, hygene and dosage pale in comparison to the fact that coke and heroin are massively addictive and suck people into a spiral of poverty and crime. That's a little worse than some holes in the arm.

    1. Re:Not quite... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Actually Heroin is relatively harmless in controlled doses. The problem is with distribution and purity. You often hear of doctors who've been on Heroin for years with nobody noticing, until an audit catches them out and they wind up in jail...

      The *major* issue with hard drugs is hygene and dosage. The crime/poverty thing is caused largely by the systems we put around it (criminalising the drug taker, for example, who never gets help because to ask for help would be to get sent to jail for being in posession of the drug!).

    2. Re:Not quite... by stewby18 · · Score: 1

      The crime/poverty thing is caused largely by the systems we put around it (criminalising the drug taker, for example, who never gets help because to ask for help would be to get sent to jail for being in posession of the drug!).

      I understand that there's nothing intrinsically crime/poverty causing about the drug itself, but I don't see where having a pill form would suddenly change the a) legality or b) societal system of hard drugs.

      If we had a true way of controlling dosage and purity, and made it legal, and changed society's perceptions of drug use, then we could talk about ending some of the problems. But just being relatively harmless alone (which I don't see this being enough to do anyways) isn't enough to make something legal. Look at pot laws. Look sunday alcohol laws. Look at sodomy laws.

      The issue of how our society legislates behavior is far, far harder to deal with.

    3. Re:Not quite... by vidarh · · Score: 1
      Of course with Heroin there's the slight little issue that most people addicted to it are incapable of controlling the dosage. Heroin is pretty special in that overdoses tend to skyrocket when heroin prices on the street drop, because the heavy users use more and more, as they usually limit their usage depending on how much money they manage to get hold of (whether or not they cross enough barriers to rob people for it, or not). Which is also one of the reasons the reducing crime/poverty argument by legalisation doesn't work with heroin - you're assuming people will limit their usage based on willpower and not lack of money. The people who are prepared to break the law for a high will still be prepared to.

      At a previous company I worked in, I had business dealings with a company run by two partners once. None of us suspected that one of them was on heroin until he ended up in hospital after finally falling apart. The thing that got him over the edge was reduced prices - he could finally get money enough for significantly higher doses than what he'd been able to previously. In hindsight we should've seen it - around the same time the newspapers reported record lows in heroin prices he was getting more and more erratic, taking ridiculous amounts of cellphone calls and running errands all the time. But he seemed normal most of the time we saw him.

      Until that time, he'd (to our knowledge at least) not stolen to support his drug use, but with the low prices it apparently became to tempting (he could suddenly get "huge" quantities) and he ended up stealing from his partner.

      I don't spend enough time reading up on drug crimes to have made up my mind regarding "soft" drugs, but it's way to simplistic to just assume that decriminalization of drug use will remove more crime than the ones that are decriminalized for all drug types.

      I do agree, though, that people needs to be able to seek help without ending up with legal problems because of use.

    4. Re:Not quite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, apparently you switched sides somewhere. The article isn't about pills. You can already eat heroin if you've got the money to waste most of the effects. The topic was a dosage limiting device. The parent post spoke of lab-on-chip tech that would obviously solve the purity problem. So, the only exception you leave is "society's perception" but you're the one participating in that, right?

  42. Spam of the near future: by acb · · Score: 1

    I can see what the spammers will do with this:

    "Satisfy her with your 20" king kong schlong with a the new PEN1S C,HIP!!. No need to take pills. Also works as hair restorer and lets you play "backups" on your PlayStation 3".

  43. Anyone else Mis-read the headline? by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

    I was confused briefly until I read the body text... I thought the P4 replaced the PiII a while ago.

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    1. Re:Anyone else Mis-read the headline? by trippinonbsd · · Score: 1

      I too misread the head line, i was wondering why they didnt capitolize the first I...

  44. Wow... by ProppaT · · Score: 1

    ...That microchip pill will be the perfect match for this damn robot in my tooth.

    --
    Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
  45. I love these stories. by 3Suns · · Score: 1

    Scientists at [Research organization] have found a new way to do [common task]! Could this spell the end of [age-old solution]? [Age-old solution] is dead!

    What does this translate to? Maybe 5 or 10 years from now we'll start to see this being taken seriously by doctors. In 15 years it may be common practice in isolated situations. Our society doesn't move anywhere near as fast as technological innovation, and it never has.

    --

    -3Suns

    ~~~~
    The Revolution will be Slashdotted
  46. Think of the possibilitites! by digrieze · · Score: 1

    Can you just imagine what could be done here. Let's be honest though, anything this good will immediately be taken over by the high-profit sector of medicine (just like the smut peddlers took over the web). The first application will be viagra knock-offs. The man could program it to dump everyday when he gets home, the woman could restrict it to once every other weekend. This could be the ultimate battle for the remote.

    How Microsoft got into this I can't figure unless the poster is hoping to get modded up on MS bashing. Face it, Microsoft woouldn't want the liability. After all, a crash on one of these things gives "blue screen of death" a whole new meaning.

    --
    It doesn't matter what you wrap your emotions around, Reality is a brick wall specifically designed to scramble eggs
  47. Miracle Pills! by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Insightful
    You know, I'm getting a little tired of the ever-increasing "miracle pill" culture that has taken over much of modern medicine. We just keep getting more and more pills, all of them focused on treating narrower groups of symptoms, but rarely addressing the actual problem. For example: in college I was diagnosed as being severely depressed. About all they had then was Lithium-- which is more of a mood poisoner than a mood stabilizer-- and that helped, even if it did kind of zombify me. I eventually felt better and stopped taking the nasty crap and had no serious problems. That is, not until 10 years later when I became depressed again. This time they put me on Zoloft. It worked more subtly than Lithium, but the side effects were almost as bad. I tried that crap for a while, but it didn't feel like it was really solving the problem. SO I kept my eyes open for other treatment paths. I finally went to see a Traditional Chinese Medicine practitioner who examined me for five minutes and solved the problem. He told me to quit taking the Zoloft, 'cause I wasn't depressed, I was just tired. As it turns out I have a narrowed nasal cavity that causes sleep apnea and I'd never had a good night's sleep in my life. It explained everything. After some minor nasal surgery I sleep fine and I'm no longer "depressed". It just pisses me off that in 20-odd years of going to doctors for depression, they all reached straight for their Rx pad and didn't notice that I couldn't breathe through my nose!

    Mind you, I'm not one of those nuts who thinks all pills are bad. They have their applications. I'm just sick of doctors looking at every problem as something to be medicated. It's understandable, what with the big PharmaCorps out there pushing their particular products, but it leads to the classic single-solution problem: when all you have is a hammer, all problems start to look like nails.

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    1. Re:Miracle Pills! by hilbertspace · · Score: 1

      The problem with microchip delivered medication is that a large number of large states (including NY) have laws in the books which allow for coercive and/or involuntary psychiatric treatment. For the coerced or involuntarily treated patient, non-compliance is the only way out of a nightmare that some have described as "chemical lobotomization". (Anti-psychotics, neuroleptics, mood stabilizers and anti-depressants ALL interfere with and modify "normal" brain functioning and are quite possibly brain damaging over the long term. There is no medical literature that asserts a strictly biological etiology for all mental illness.)

      Whether it's a benefit to voluntary and/or non-psychiatric patients or not, microchip medical delivery would better ensure that the state has even more power over those they decide are mentally ill.

    2. Re:Miracle Pills! by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      No doubt. I went to a walk-in clinic because of a horrible pain running from my mid-back to my jaw. A 30-second 'examination' said that I was sitting badly at work, I should adjust my chair and take these muscle relaxants. End of appointment.

      Three days later, I was in emergency, unable to close my mouth. I had an abcessed tooth, which had lead to my back problems. I then got put on the RIGHT pills (antibiotics--I'm not a fan, but in certain cases they're absolutely necessary), and went for dental surgery later.

      The problem is twofold: First, many (most?) doctors don't actually examine the patient properly--they take the patient-reported symptoms at face value and treat those, rather than investigating. Seondly, they get most of their drug information from the drug manufacturers who are myopic at best.

      If you want to find out what a drug REALLY does, ask your pharmacist when you get a prescription filled--they're required to know far more about what they're handing out than the doctors are, and I've generally found them much happier to share information.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  48. just what I want by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

    a minor surgery to clear up an infection rather than just having to remember to take a pill 3 times a day.

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  49. it IS a microchip... by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 1

    It is a microchip, it's just not a microprocessor.

  50. Re:HIV in Africa -- 4th world // TB in New York by danharan · · Score: 1
    In 2001, 1,261 cases of tuberculosis were reported in New York City, [...]the lowest number of tuberculosis cases ever reported in the city.
    New York City's 2001 tuberculosis rate is still 2.8 times the national rate of 5.6 per 100,000, and is the highest case rate of all areas reporting to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/doh/pdf/tb/tb2001.pdf
    Should those numbers go back up, and too many poor people not comply with their prescriptions, I predict they will be the first to get these new expensive drugs.

    Africa and HIV can seem like a far away threat to justify such an expense when there's street people that could infect you with TB just a block away from you...

    --
    Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
  51. Food Allergies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This would work well for me, since I'm allergic to both the corn and the rice that most pill casings are made out of. ^_^.

  52. Fighting virii (of the biological sort) by sielwolf · · Score: 1

    Isn't one of the big problems with new strains of diseases is that folks don't finish their drug regimen thus increasing the probability of a drug-resistant version?

    This could really help out. I think to a certain point saying "finish your meds" is the same as "say no to drugs". Yeah it's easy to say but difficult in practice. If you're bed-bound at home with a 102 fever, it isn't hard to remember to take your pill every 6 hours. But once you're better, back at work, and trying to make up for the sick leave? I think people severely overestimate their own internal timekeeping.

    --
    What is music when you despise all sound?
  53. Microsoft Could Replace DLLs by s33t · · Score: 1

    ...ugh...need coffee...

  54. Ummm... by tommck · · Score: 1
    This thread has RTFA written all over it!

    --
    ---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
    1. Re:Ummm... by cK-Gunslinger · · Score: 1

      LOL. I read the article. But it turned out to be rather boring, so I decided to run with this "what if it really was a microchip (controller)?"

    2. Re:Ummm... by thepacketmaster · · Score: 1
      How about TAFJ - Take a f**king joke. Which is exactly what the title was. I read the article fully.

      Polymers aren't foolproof. A slight manufacturing fault and this could cause a massive overdose.

      --

      --

      Luck is just skill you didn't know you had.

  55. Norplant? by Phat_Tony · · Score: 1


    Isn't this effectively just a new Norplant?

    Phat Tony.

    --
    Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
  56. Microchip!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From what I can tell from the article (and IANAD) it is not a COMPUTER chip, bu merely some little 1cm long "thingy" that is little more than a retarded release medication pill that is directly in contact with the blood. I can imagine all sorts of complications, including overdoses.

    That said, I'm waiting for the day when we can GET RID of traditional medications and all their side effects that can be worse than the original problem being treated at times. I suspect that the answer is somewhere in a mix between nano-machines that actually monitor various conditions of the body, and much more natural medications (not synthetic drugs) which tend to have less side effects. (Atleast less drastic ones.)

    1. Re:Microchip!? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > much more natural medications (not synthetic drugs) which tend to have less side effects. (Atleast less drastic ones.)

      While I agree with your concept totally, I don't think all drugs should be done with. Some are very helpful, and natural medications have less side effects because they are generally less effective for the intended purpose. Granted, with patience & time, they can sometimes be more effective, but this article is more about releasing any kind of drug, including those that could be extracted from plants.

  57. WHAT??? by mark-t · · Score: 1
    Talk about making the cure worse than the disease!!!

    A microchip... *IMPLANTED* in your body?

    Taking pills is easier... it's already painless, and the so called "human error" factor generally isn't *THAT* bad.

    Now these guys are talking about taking a system that, imperfect though it may be, and introducing what would clearly be a delicate surgery into the equation. Not to mention that either this surgery would have to be repeated with each prescription refill or else plugs would have to be attached to our bodies for convient external access.

    Or is anyone here so naive as to think that different drug manufacturers would standardize, and all use the exact same external access device? No... a person who is taking a variety of meds could have a socket for each different drug they take... resembling what Neo, Morpheus, and the others looked like in the real worled in The Matrix.

    Are we really in that much of a hurry to become borg?

  58. Give it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many thousand articles have random morons posted to slashdot about things like this?

    Now how many of those things have become reality?

    None.

  59. Agatha Christie would be proud! by TheCrig · · Score: 1

    A whole new way of poisoning someone!

    --
    -- Jim Crigler In 1937, I began, like Lazarus, the impossible return. -- Whittaker Chambers
  60. Implants? by batquux · · Score: 1

    I'd rather swallow the pill. Heck, I'd rather get a shot.

  61. pssst...don't tell that to foundamentalists... by master_p · · Score: 1

    unless its a sign of Armageddon!!!

  62. Something similar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe this is may be done using MEMS (micro electro mechanical systems) for drug delivery.. Kurt Petersen (who published one of the first papers on the subject) is part of the company who develop similar products.. [Cepheid.com] Also [IVT Technologies]

  63. Mmmmm..... by anonymous+loser · · Score: 1

    Polymer Drug Sandwich. *drool*

  64. in other news by butane_bob2003 · · Score: 1

    A healthy lifestyle may one day replace synthetic drugs altogether.
    Western medicine continues to look for new ways of solving problems with drugs, instead of targeting the sources of those problems. Well, I guess that will continue until it ceases being profitable.

    --


    TallGreen CMS hosting
  65. Yeah by Kelz · · Score: 1

    The Christians are all shouting "Its the mark! The end is near!"

    Fer those that dont know what I'm talking about look here

  66. Re:Woah.... MOD THIS BABY UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MOD +35190 FUNnay MATRiX r0x0rsz!!!

  67. Re:You're not much of a doctor, then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't some sort of big pump to be implanted in the chest cavity to deliver drugs, it's a small (half-inch across, half-mm thick in the current form) wafer that could go under the skin. (Tell me, do you consider the *implants* that release birth control hormones to be "surgery"? This is very similar, except that it's dose-based delivery rather than a constant level.) Of course you know this, since of course you read the BBC report and the original article before condemning it sight unseen. (That is, again, assuming you're not just a karma whore.)

    What's somewhat more ridiculous is automatically opposing new concepts/technologies simply because they tend to blur previous distinctions or defy easy categorization. But I guess it'll make life simpler for you to understand, so what does that matter?

    But I for one am thoroughly disgusted by you and other wilfully-close-minded opponents of this.

    (And no, I don't think it'll solve all the world's problems either, even with the kinks worked out, but it's an interesting new application and it does sound like it's got exciting possibilities for providing medication in ways that really do patients good.)

  68. And the added benefit by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Of monitoring all your movements and intake of chemicals, so it can be reported back the next time you walk past a street post.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  69. Where is the drug delivered? by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

    If you want the drug delivered to your stomache or duodenum, then I guess this works. But it's hardly optimal.

    My company is working with "contrast destruction agents", which is a way to use ultrasound to precisely deliver an agent to the heart at a precise time. The agent (drug) is encapsulated in microscopic bubbles that get disintegrated at a specific ultrasound frequency. Target the area with ultrasound, press a button to briefly change the frequency, and you get delivery where you want it. Apply this same technology to chemotherapy and you have an amazing innovation in cancer treatment. The process already out there, and once the research and approval hurdles are met, it will become a routine application in many areas of medicine.

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  70. Who installs it? by Trillan · · Score: 1

    If it needs to be installed by a professional, and it does, then it's surgery. It becomes slightly more dangerous and MUCH more expensive.

    Medical care is expensive enough without needing surgery every time I have some minor infection or somesuch.

  71. Pardon my puritanical moral position by PCM2 · · Score: 1
    At that point you're left arguing against euphoria from the obviously puritanical moral position that really does underlie many people's attitude's towards drug use. But, while those people will remain, by getting separating off the social evils of bad hygeine, dangerous paraphenalia and the medical compications of overdose, it should be much easier to win the majority over to the side of free choice.

    Sure, I'll bite. I'm all for free choice.

    If you came up with a way that you could spend your days sitting around your apartment doing heroin without any threat of spreading disease, without harming yourself such that you became a burden on the health system, without supporting underground economies that funnel money into much worse things than drugs, then I guess I might run out of reasons why such drugs should be regulated.

    But you'd still be a loser. And the worst kind of arch-materialist, I might add. True "euphoria" does not come from a product you buy.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
    1. Re:Pardon my puritanical moral position by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but see it says that it doesn't matter what you think.
      And, by the way, euphoria comes from realizing there is no truth.

  72. Re:You're not much of a doctor, then. by Davak · · Score: 1

    Are you one of my patients? (g)

    I would call you a troll... but your latest 18 replies have yielded no moderation and only 4 replies. You comments appear to be not interesting at best.

    Anyway, to defend my position... Implants are more dangerous than pills. Inability to take various medicines orally is more dangerous than implants for many medical conditions. No one is suggesting this will replace oral medications.

    Options are good.

  73. aha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so if you dont feel good with the chip , you have to break it off your body ?

  74. Re:You're not much of a doctor, then. by annisette · · Score: 1

    Opposition does not mean closed mindedness, actually Opposition can lead to a discussion that leads to an improvement or working the kinks out. IF you want to reply on /. and get touchy with any opposition you recieve then why...? Being an A.C. doesent help your solidify your argument much either. so fish or cut bait.

    --
    I eat my grapes at room temperature, cuz the cold ones hurt my teeth
  75. Micro chip? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um, hello, a centimeter hardly qualifies as micro. No thanks, pass me the pill and call me when the chip is one millimeter on a side.