A science blog with Eric Berger

11 for ’12: King Li asks, “Can we develop remote-controlled drugs?”


(Note: My weekly weather report will be posted tomorrow morning).


Today’s question comes from Dr. King Li, director of Translational Imaging at The Methodist Hospital Research Institute.

Li. (The Methodist Hospital)

For 3,000 years, physicians have been giving drugs to patients.  However, once the drugs enter the body, we lose control of them. The drugs may go to the right places and produce the intended therapeutic effects — or they may go to the wrong places and produce unwanted side effects.

Designing the right drugs for different diseases requires we achieve a delicate balance between producing sufficient therapeutic effects and no significant side effects.

My big question is whether we can design new drug delivery systems that allow doctors to get the drugs to the right places, that activate at the right time and treat only the cells we want to treat.

It is very difficult to do this using traditional drug making technologies, since they rely on using small molecules.  Traditional drug molecules are so small that it is not possible to have the control we need.  Using nanotechnology, various imaging technologies, and different ways of using energies such as laser, microwave, and radiofrequency to change tissue properties or release drugs, it is becoming possible to build in more and more controls.

Imagine the day we can say to the drugs, “Come Here! Turn On! Turn off!” and the drugs do exactly as we say.  That will be the day we revolutionize drug therapy.  We have moved a long way toward making “remote controlled drugs” practical, but a lot more work needs to be done.

It will be a great achievement if we can do this before the world ends.


Eric Berger

9 Responses

  1. ScientistMike says:

    The answer certainly is, “Yes, we can.” We just need to get smarter to figure out how.

    (This one seems rather easy, compared to finding out if there is life on an Earth-like planet in a distant star system.)

  2. StanleyS says:

    My first thought is “this concept is absolutely mind-blowing.” We enclose the actual drugs inside of a closed nanocontainer. Then we electromagnetically beam a signal to the disease location telling the nanocontainers in that location only to open and release the drug.

    Then my second thought is “this treatment will be very expensive after it is developed and in production.” And there lies the most basic economic problem of medical care delivery. As the science advances, we will be able to treat more and more diseases successfully. But because modern science is inherently expensive, then the advanced treatments will inevitably become more and more expensive. This will happen no matter how perfect our public policies might become regarding health care.

    • JohnM says:

      StanleyS: Yes, cost is certainly an issue with newer developments in pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamic breakthroughs, as is the push towards “personalized medicine”.

      As these techniques become more common, their cost per clinical use will decrease. Personalized medicine usually involves genotyping, a process that was very cost prohibitive initially, but has come down considerably (similar in concept to Moore’s law).

      For diseases such as cancer, where early detection and treatment are critical, these newer treatments might actually be more cost-effective in the long run when compared to less effective rounds chemo/surgery over the course of many months/years.

  3. Rodger Farley says:

    Back to the weather, please.

  4. Jim says:

    I don’t think Dr. Li has been studying the right literature
    for inspiration on this.
    Claus-Dieter Ohl

    has been working on a propulsion system for this problem. Of course,
    it has something to do with my favorite, cavitation.

    And then there is the 1966 Raquel Welch movie Fantastic Voyage

    where Raquel and her submarine were miniaturized
    and injected into a man’s body.
    I don’t remember much about the miniaturization process
    even though I saw the movie 5 times.
    It was for science.

    • StanleyS says:

      Also, that was when Raquel was young and you got to see her in the form-fitting diving suit. I think it was even before you got to see her in the cavegirl outfit in 1,000,000 years BC.

  5. established.facts says:

    “Can we develop remote-controlled drugs?”
    wow….Evidently King Li never studied Hitler or Stalin fluoride and the affects it had on the Jews , which is now illegal to use in Europe.
    But… in the good ol u.s. and a. , they brainwash its tax payers so they can control them better , just like in hitlers time…

  6. xxx says:

    Maybe he can help the Mayans

    They say the remote communities will benefit from tourism from around the world. I suspect, unless a deadly strain of virus is carried from Europe/US/Asia/etc into the villages, for which the Mayan are not immune For certain, one prophecy would come true 2012.

  7. Captain Mandrake says:

    Do I look all rancid and clotted? You look at me, established.facts. Eh? Look, eh? And I drink a lot of water, you know. I’m what you might call a water man, established.facts – that’s what I am. And I can swear to you, my boy, swear to you, that there’s nothing wrong with my bodily fluids. Not a thing, established.facts.