Slashdot Mirror


Star Trek's Synthehol Now Possible?

[TheBORG] writes "Professor David Nutt, a psychopharmacologist at the University of Bristol in the UK, believes that there is no scientific reason why 'synthehol' (a science-fictional substitute for alcohol that appears in Star Trek:The Next Generation television series) cannot be created now. It will allow drinkers to experience all of the enjoyable, intoxicating effects of alcohol without unpleasant side-effects like hangovers." Of course, there's still the real deal, Romulan Ale, for when you want a splitting headache in the morning.

44 of 509 comments (clear)

  1. Drugs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Synthehol is my anti-drug.

  2. Re:Actually by jpardey · · Score: 5, Funny

    Some nerds know about biochemistry and how to make alcohol have a lower toxicity... and some nerds know about star trek.

    --
    I have freaks! I did something right...
  3. Nutt? by virgil_disgr4ce · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I didn't make my career trusting scientists with names like "Professor Nutt." And for the record, the only thing more pointless than reading articles about things that "should" "theoretically" be "possible" is writing them.

    1. Re:Nutt? by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Insightful
      the only thing more pointless than reading articles about things that "should" "theoretically" be "possible" is writing them.

      Not to stomp on a good put down, but the only reason many things are possible today is because someone wrote "pointless" articles about them when they were only theoretically possible.

  4. How About... by Scarletdown · · Score: 5, Funny

    Romulan Ale is okay, but real life forms prefer the Pan Galactic Gargleblaster, for when you want to feel like you have had your head smashed in by a slice of lemon wrapped around a large gold brick.

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
    1. Re:How About... by LithiumX · · Score: 5, Funny

      The main difference is that while the PGG is legal in most of the more liberal parts of the galaxy, Romulan Ale is illegal, which is part of it's attraction (much like a Cuban cigar - it's the law that makes them taste so damned good).

      On the other hand, Romulan Ale doesn't leave you reeling like a man being mugged in a meadow, doesn't eat through the table when spilled, and never ever made anyone yell Pheoww in minor thirds.

      --
      Do not confuse "Freedom of Choice" with "Free Will".
    2. Re:How About... by joe+155 · · Score: 4, Funny

      another advantage to the romulan ale is that you can drink more than 2 of them even if you are not a 30 ton mega-elephant with bhronchital pneumonia

      --
      *''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
    3. Re:How About... by xSauronx · · Score: 4, Funny
      i heard it was the lithium content that made the things so attractive.

      the cigars, that is, not the adolescents

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
  5. Star Trekkin. by RandomLinguist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It seems to me sometimes that we focus more on trying to make the 'cool' tech and gadgets from the tv shows of our childhood than making new innovations sometimes. I wonder if it actually inhibits science to try and make it fit to fiction, or whether fiction really is the best inspiration.

    On the other hand, I really, really want my own replicator.

  6. Yah, alcohol by lazuli42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The future of alcoholism just got brighter.

    Now if only they could get rid of the part of alcohol that makes people act like assholes.

    --

    "There's companies that are just so cool that you just can't even deal with it," - Bill Gates, about Google

    1. Re:Yah, alcohol by ToteAdler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean the person themselves? "A drunken man's words are a sober man's thoughts."

    2. Re:Yah, alcohol by kfg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now if only they could get rid of the part of alcohol that makes people act like assholes.

      Indeed, I'm waiting for the alcohol that eliminates unpleasant side effects like; intoxication.

      As a friend of mine noted, as we watched the tables, chairs and fists flying around the bar:

      "Now there's a good idea, why don't we mix big, stupid people with alcohol?"

      Or, as an alcohol counselor friend of mine noted when I asked him why some people seemed to like getting wasted when all it does is make you feel like absolute shit:

      "Ah, well, you're not an alcoholic."

      He also noted that after 40 years in the business he could tell a lot about people by their drug of choice; and that alcohol was the drug of choice of people who were essentially unhappy and wanted to be numbed.

      There is a phrase, however, for ingesting depressants to be "happy":

      Vicious Cycle.

      KFG

    3. Re:Yah, alcohol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm posting this anonymously, because I'm an addict.

      You have some good insights into the problems of the addict, even if you don't or can't understand what it's like to be one, as you imply.

      The underlying drive of the addict is not so much to feel good as it is to feel differently from what ever base state they are used to feeling (unhappiness). Any feeling is better than the underlying feeling of unhappiness, even total lack of feeling. (It's interesting that at the same time, many drunks tend to extreme emotions of anger or sentimentality.)Some of us have drugs of choice, such as alcohol, speed, marijuana, etc., while others of us will imbibe anything and everything they can get their hands on.

      I wonder if anyone will ever be able to create an alcohol that is safe for alcoholics to drink. Even if they can find away not to trigger the physical craving response by some subtle manipulation of the molecules, how can they remove the powerful psychological urge?

      I could ramble on, but in short, I don't think this represents any sort of cure for alcoholism. It might be a great boon for non-alcoholics to enjoy, but this won't stop the progressive spiral of destruction of a person addicted to alcohol.

      Anyway, I just thought I'd share that with you. You've always seemed like the decent sort, KFG.

    4. Re:Yah, alcohol by visgoth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For anyone who's a daytrip away from say, Vancouver, BC, then its also quite obtainable, and pretty much legal to consume. There's a number of "amsterdam style" cafes there that let people spark up. Not that I know this first hand, I err, heard it from a friend of a friend...

      --
      My patience is infinite, my time is not.
    5. Re:Yah, alcohol by m50d · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Unless of course you think all drugs reveal the "true" inner person. So someone taking PCP was always secretly angry, but if they took ecstasy instead they were secretly in love with EVERYBODY, etc.

      No, but a major effect of alcohol is disinhibition. That's what it does, heck, that's a major reason for drinking it ("dutch courage" and all that"). So it makes people more prone to say what they think.

      --
      I am trolling
    6. Re:Yah, alcohol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I like your comment, so I'll post my story. I've suffered from social anxiety since I was 15 or so and, like most people with this problem, quickly found that alcohol kicked the anxiety away. Being aware of the potential problem I could get into if I started drinking regularly I did some research, and found what at the moment looked like a panacea: GHB. No hangover and presumably no addiction. Little did I know that 2 years down the road of using it daily I'd face a living hell trying to quit. Not so much the psychological aspect (it had long stopped being enjoyable) but the physical dependency. I made it and had to spend 2 years with psychotherapy to learn how to live with anxiety. The anxiety is no longer a problem and I can lead an almost normal life now. I live on my own and have a good paying work. I've never had a date though and, being 30 already, have mostly given up. To get to the point, not being to function with the aid of a drug is a situation people who don't need it can't imagine.

      I want to wish you good luck in kicking alcohol. Things like having a pet and listening to music helped me a lot.

  7. Oh no... by likwidoxigen · · Score: 5, Funny

    Speaking from the perspective of an American College student whom is reasonabally responsible. DO NOT REMOVE THE HANGOVER! I can only imagine how little work I would get done, and how many more students would fail out of college. There needs to be a bit of punishment, or else mass irresponisbilty would follow.

    --
    Walk with me or walk behind.
  8. Re:Actually by LithiumX · · Score: 5, Informative

    Synthahol got you drunk in Star Trek, but it was described as something that could be shaken off more easily than true alchohol (ie you can actually get sober quickly, as opposed to just thinking you're sober) and having "less" hangover afterwards. It was also suggested multiple times that it was primarily a shipboard/on-base beverage meant for off-duty Starfleet and other personell... with the real thing being in common consumption for civilians.

    As for taste, I get the feeling it didn't simulate it all that well (considering Scotty's reaction to it on that TNG episode. I'm a geek, but not geek enough to know the episode number).

    --
    Do not confuse "Freedom of Choice" with "Free Will".
  9. Re:Great... by r00zky · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry if I seem a tad against the idea... but I think alchohol is a waste of time and money that could better be used to improve oneself and the society in which they live.

    The same could be said about Slashdot but you still post in here.

    --
    I'm a chainsmokin' alcoholic sociopath, so-ci-o-path
  10. It'll never happen... by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's hard enough to get the much less addictive and less harmfull drugs like Marijuana that people have used for thousands of years to be legal. Making some new alcohol like substance legal as a recreational drug would be near impossible.

    Really, if alcohol didn't have the added guise of also being a food, and being impossibly easy to create on your own it'd be illegal now.

    --
    AccountKiller
    1. Re:It'll never happen... by Siffy · · Score: 5, Funny

      the US is STILL recovering from the effects of alcohol prohibition

      I don't think we're ever gonna be able to get rid of NASCAR now.

    2. Re:It'll never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's probably entirely pointless to debate this here, but what the hell. I'm bored.

      No darling, it's an order of magnitude 'stronger' (higher THC) then a generation ago.

      False. There is no proof that marijuana on the market today is, on average, stronger than that in the mid or early 80's, or even 70's/60's. You're buying the B.S. that the U.S. Gov'ts failing drug czar's office wants you to buy. If you look at the figures they use to try and promote this myth, you will realize a few things. First of all, the method used to determine the concentration of THC way-back-when was inconsistent, it was not always used on fresh stashes, but rather very stale stashes (THC breaks down over time) and even on feral hemp, which containts hardly any THC. So on average, they claim that marijuana of the past had less than 1% THC content. There's a problem with this though. You can't get stoned on 1% or less THC. You're brain doesn't notice it. So either the hippies of the past were hallucinating the effects of marijuana (which I wouldn't entirely rule out considering the high use of acid...), or else, you got it, there was more THC in marijuana back then than the officials want you to think there was.

      Second of all, there are anectdotal researches that show that with older age, lower doses of THC have higher effects on the brain. That is one reason why people that were hippies back in the 60's find todays marijuana to be stronger. It's not really stronger, they're just getting a much better ROI thanks to their aging.

      And finally, lets just pretend for a moment that marijuana IS much stronger today. Say, 10 times stronger. It still wouldn't matter. Unlike alcohol, where drunk people consume more and more and next thing you know they're wasted, marijuana does not have these effects. Users stop smoking after a certain level of intoxication is achieved. Individual users will have different requirements. Some would want to get a mild buzz, others may want to get stoned off their ass. Either way they'll stop smoking after they achieve that level. The total intake is the same. So what you may be able to say is that high THC varieties are SAFER than old, low THC varieties, as the total amount of smoke ingested is LESS.

      With that in mind do you think comparing what is on the market today with that of 40 years ago is particularly accurate?

      Again, no I wouldn't, if your comparison involves logical falacies and down right illogical thinking. The basic FUD spread by the drug czar is that:

      Today's marijuana has more THC, so it is more dangerous than previous hippy generations had it.

      The problem here is that the underlying assumption is that THC and marijuana in general is dangerous. This has not been proven. At all. Not in the slightest. There have been no fatalities from recreational use of marijuana. Smoking and driving, while undesirable, does not have the same effect as drinking and driving. Traffic accidents involving parties that were ONLY smoking pot are actually less likely than totally sober traffic accidents. Taking a sample of traffic accident fatality victims that had traces of THC in their blood (I'll skip the fact that the sampling method is inacurate), the majority of these people also had some other intoxicating agent present, alcohol being at the top of the list.

      Wouldn't you be just a bit concerned about any neuropharmacological agent that was delivered in a random dose, from implicitly suspect sources, that had been bred up so quickly with such little good research?

      There is more than enough anectdotal and scientific proof that marijuana is not dangerous. However, you have a point. Black market marijuana may not be terribly safe, due to the nature of it being entirely un-regulated in it's final sales form. There could be plenty of insecticides used on it, or, like there have been a few (very few) reports of angel dust laced marijuana. That angel dust will REALLY fuck with you.

      What you put into y

    3. Re:It'll never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
      and some studies have shown it does more damage to your lungs than smoking a pack of cigarrettes.

      ugh. I hate when people bring this one up. Yes smoking a pack or marijuana is worse than smoking a pack of cigarettes. Luckily a 'pack' of joints is an unbelievable amount of substance. Where a smoker could easily smoke a pack a day, if one smokes good pot the dosage is MUUUCH smaller. I can get quite intoxicated every night, including sharing a couple nights with my girlfriend for a week and only use 1 gram/week.

      Basically what I'm getting at, is how long does one gram of tobacco satisfy an average smoker?

  11. Re:Great... by hunterx11 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I hear that alcohol leads to close dancing and jazz music. Clearly it should be banned.

    --
    English is easier said than done.
  12. It already exists by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...and it's called pot.

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
  13. Yeah it's called "opium"... by ROBOKATZ · · Score: 4, Interesting
    and it's illegal. Well ok, it's not at all the same type of high, but the health side effects from opium use are negligible compared to alcohol. Alcohol and tobacco are only legal because they're already legal, and there are (as already has been demonstrated) social, economic and political consequences for changing our stance on these. If they had just suddenly been introduced today, no way would you would be able to legally manufacture, sell or possess them.


    We can also thank our anti-drug culture the practice of adding things such as acetaminophen to opiates (e.g., vicodin and oxycodone) to make sure it destroys your liver if you become addicted (as a "deterrent"). Given this, I don't think the government, or whoever decides such things, would be terribly pleased with a readily available drug with the "positive" effects of alcohol and none of the negative effects. If this really shows up, don't be surprised if it is simply labelled a "designer" drug and made highly illegal.

  14. GHB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually there is a very good substitute for alcohol, gamma-hydroxybutyrate (http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/ghb/). It is toxic at high dose (and mixed with alcohol), but at normal levels it feels the same as alcohol and is much healthier and without the hangover effect...

  15. Re:One good reason it'll never happen... by gbobeck · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...do you really think that any government is going to allow another synthetically produced substance that alters your mood in any way whatsoever?


    Hmmm... lets see: Prozac, Ritalin, Celexa, Lexapro, Paxil, Pexeva, Zoloft, Elavil, Norpramin, Tofranil, Aventyl, Pamelor, Wellbutrin, Cymbalta, Effexor...
    --
    Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
  16. In the name of science by Thnikkaman · · Score: 5, Funny

    If the inventors would like to send me a few kegs, I will consume them. Purely in the name of science, of course.

  17. TNG 6x04 by XanC · · Score: 5, Funny

    Duh!

    1. Re:TNG 6x04 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      WOOOOP. WOOOOP. WOOOOP.


      Lonestar: What the hell was that?


      Dot: That was my virgin alarm!

  18. Re:Actually by Burning+Plastic · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've been drinking Scotch since before your great-grandfather was in diapers... And this is not scotch...

    Synthetic scotch... Synthetic Commanders...

    --
    [All Your Fish Are Belong To Us]
  19. Politics by arrrrg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    (rant) Meth, tobacco, alcohol, and perhaps PCP are the worst popular drugs, in terms of bodily harm. People do fucked up things when they're addicted to heroin, etc, but the drug itself is not that bad for you. From Wikipedia: ... "Francis L. Young, an administrative law judge with the Drug Enforcement Agency, has declared that in its natural form, (cannabis) is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known." Whereas tobacco is the biggest easily preventable cause of death/bodily harm out there, with alcohol not too far behind. Its about protecting the interests of big tobacco and alcohol, not about the safety of people or even cost to society in terms of medical expenses, etc. Plus this way the politicians get to seem "pro-family" in their strong stance against "dangerous drugs". In this context, would it really be possible for some new drug to be allowed, even if it removes some of the negative consequences of alcohol (see GHB, benzodiazapenes, etc. etc.) (/rant)

  20. Beg to differ... by Aphrika · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...but I had lectures from him and he's really rather good and certainly knows his stuff. If you want to knock him for his name then fine.

    A psychopharmacologist is interested in why and how chemicals interact with the brain and nervous system, so it's quite within his mandate to speculate on how something like 'synthehol' should theoretically be possible. Invariably you tend to find that postgraduates in the UK have to write papers on how something is theoretically possible in order to attract funding for research.

    These papers are in the public domain, so if some Sci-Fi fan for LiveScience breaks the news with the sensationalist title "Hangover-free Buzz: Star Trek's Synthehol Now Possible" while at the same time quoting passages from the paper like "Some "partial agonists" of GABA-A receptors already exist; bretazenil and pagoclone were developed as anti-anxiety drugs. These drug molecules are instantly reversible by the flumazenil, used as an antidote to overdoses of tranquillisers.", I'd wager that you should be shooting the messenger here, not the scientist.

  21. Alchohol is a waste of time and money by palad1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The same could be said about Slashdot but you still post in here.

    Only when I'm drunk!

  22. Re:Who'd use it? by MadCow42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >> Now, be honest, do you really drink for the taste? If someone suggested fruit juice instead of wine what would you think?

    Yes, I do. I quite enjoy scotch, but rarely have more than one or two a week... I do drink it purely for the taste (one drink is hardly enough to get a buzz, let alone get drunk). When I drink beer, I also rarely have more than one. As difficult as this may seem to you, it's fairly normal with most people I know. My generation (born in early 70's if you ask) doesn't seem to have the "drink a few every night after work" mentality that our parents did. Maybe I live in an exceptional microcosm... who knows.

    As for fruit juice... I don't particularly like the taste, sorry. If it were as complex and enjoyable as Oban or Lagavulin, maybe I'd buy it by the gallon.

    MadCow.

    --
    I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
  23. Re:Great... by rohan972 · · Score: 5, Funny

    We human beings need stress reduction. Many of us choose to drink a moderate amount to do so.

    And there are also those of us who never use it for stress reduction, but do use it to celebrate! I like a quote I heard from a pastor one day "Jesus turned water into wine, and evangelical christians have been trying to turn it back ever since"

  24. Re:risk of psychosis and anxiety by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Those studies were a pile of crap, none of the participants were screened for psychosis before they started smoking, which leads to the inevitable question, would someone who is bordering psychosis possibly self medicate with marijuana? Correlation != Causation.

    They're pretty much both anti MJ propaganda pulled out by people who were against the reclassification of marijuana in britain. Strange how they suddenly got done right around when the reclassification became news.

    --


    He tried to kill me with a forklift!
  25. Re:My Preference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster beats YOU!

    No wait. It does that everywhere.

    Witty but useless comment defeated! Argh!

  26. Re:Actually by MadCow42 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sinthehol = synthesized alcohol replacement

    Sinthehole = personal entertainment device for Slashdot geeks.

    One may lead to the other, but I don't think they're the same thing. :)

    MadCow

    --
    I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
  27. You've never done opium, before, obviously. by Khyber · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Health risk of an opiate NEGLIGIBLE?? Hello, anybody home? I've smoked plenty of opium, let me tell you that you're dead wrong. A few things I've learned from personal experience...

    1. Opiates constipate you (Immodium AD, loperamide, is an opiate)
    2. Smoking opium is harsher on the lungs than marijuana.
    3. Opium is far, FAR more addictive than alcohol (witness China and Turkey with their opium wars way back in history)
    4. Once hooked to strong opiates, the general recourse to getting off of them is an even worse medication (methadone) as opposed to counseling and Antabuse prescriptions for alcohol addiction.
    5. Opium can and will kill you, or get you killed.
    6. Opium screws with your system more than alcohol. The only reasons more die from alcohol than opium are embarassingly simple - Alcohol's far easier to obtain, it's legal, and people get really stupid off of it, and therefore do stupid things.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  28. Inspiration by SeanDuggan · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Not really. The main reason things are possible is because somebody went out and worked out how to do them.
    Every good inventor has had to have some kind of inspiration to actually make the invention. Sometimes necessity is the mother of invention — the inventor needs a particular device or effect, so he creates it — but sometimes they don't realize there is a need, or they don't have a basis to work from. Some brilliant researcher could be looking at the paper, smacking his forehead and crying "Now why didn't I think of that?" and proceed to apply his research in anti-anxiety drugs to create alcohol without negative effects. Sure, it's the end result guy who gets the patent (or, if the first guy is clever enough to pull off a very general patent, he may get it), but it was the inspiration of the person who posted the theoretical idea that got things off of the ground.

    Heck, you see it all the time in programming. Someone points out a theoretical vulnerability in an encryption algorithm and next you know, someone's posted a practical implementation. Personally, I wonder if the original poster was trying to avoid DMCA lawsuits by getting someone else to be their catspaw, but the idea is there.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
  29. Just what we need... by slapout · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...a bunch of drunk people running around with phasers shouting "Make it so!"

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  30. No, it doesn't by TrekkieGod · · Score: 4, Informative
    Synthehol doesn't get you drunk in Star Trek. It's just that a lot of the characters manage to get their hands on real drinks. From the TNG episode Family:

    Robert: "Your synthehol...never leaves you out of control, isn't that so?"
    Picard: "That is so."
    Robert: "This will. Now there's something I'd like to see."
    Picard: "What's that?"
    Robert: "I venture you've probably never been drunk in your entire life."

    The episode you're remembering is Relics. Data does claim that synthehol, "simulates the appearance, smell, and taste of alcohol, but the intoxicating effects can be easily dismissed." I suppose you could interpret "easily dismissed" as "easily shaken off" but given the evidence from other episodes, I interpret it as him saying that the intoxicating effects are so low that they can be dismissed as inexistent.

    --

    Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.