Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Award for anti-cook solution

Nicodem - 14-5-2011 at 09:01

Got surprised to read the latest InnoCentive challenge. Since we have a bunch of cook-haters at the forum, I though to post this here. You can now, not only make the life of cooks even more miserable (is it even possible?), but you can even earn quite an award:
Quote:
AWARD: $100,000 USD | DEADLINE: 8/09/11 | ACTIVE SOLVERS: 69 | POSTED: 5/09/11

The Seeker desires a method for producing pseudoephedrine products in such a way that it will be extremely difficult for clandestine chemists to extract and use the pseudoephedrine in the production of the illegal drug methamphetamine. The Seeker may be interested in pursuing further collaboration with Solvers whose solutions they find promising. The Seeker may also allow Solvers additional time after the submission deadline to finalize experiments required for the full reduction-to-practice award.

This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires a written proposal and experimental proof-of-concept data (and/or sample delivery). In the absence of a proven solution, however, the Seeker may make a partial award of up to $20,000 USD for a purely theoretical contribution. The Seeker may, at their sole discretion, attempt to reduce to practice a purely theoretical contribution. If this reduction-to-practice is successful, the Seeker will make a partial award of $40,000 to the winning Solver.

https://www.innocentive.com/ar/challenge/9932789

The challenge may be even more interesting for the cooks as they are generally stereotyped as greedy - 100 k$ is a good enough motivation. With that money you can actually buy proper equipment and chemicals to make meth on kilogram scale, without using such idiotic precursors like pseudoephedrine pills.

UKnowNotWatUDo - 14-5-2011 at 10:21

Thank you Nicodem. This post is both interesting from a chemistry perspective and entertaining.

hissingnoise - 14-5-2011 at 10:38

Quote:
100 k$ is a good enough motivation. With that money you can actually buy proper equipment and chemicals to make meth on kilogram scale, without using such idiotic precursors like pseudoephedrine pills.

The thread title looked a bit ominous - and little did I think I'd end up laughing . . .
Nice one!



Jon_Swars - 18-5-2011 at 07:08

Long live the cooks and all their cooking (and laughing)

Sedit - 18-5-2011 at 07:33

Hmm,

But wouldn't the formation of experiments be cause for a raid? If someone spent there time trying to make Ephedrine hard to extract they would have to spend there time attempting to extract Ephedrine. As rewarding as this would be it would be mighty dangerous to attempt to collect this bounty.

It seems pointless to worry about extracting it when in theory it would be more practical to hinder its use by the addition of a non toxic amino alcohol with simular properties of the Ephedrine making it very hard for a cook to extract or use the materials obtained.

All in all it does appear to be a ploy to turn cooks on each other so to speak and get those with the most knowledge of extracting ephedrine to destroy the chances of the lesser cooks. Shocked they didn't think of this sooner:D

Rogeryermaw - 19-5-2011 at 11:01

ok first this is just a joke so no need to tell me how sick i am...i know that already. the trick would be to formulate two types of pseudo pills with a different additive in each. in a package of say, twenty pills there would be ten of each. safe taken as directed but when the extraction is attempted, the two chems combine to form a compound that poisons both the cook and the clients. now that's anti cook!


also i have to wonder why they still use cold pills when claritin d has almost a full gram of pseudo sulfate in four pills...240 mg each versus the 30 mg in advil cold n sinus or tylenol ect. ect.

[Edited on 19-5-2011 by Rogeryermaw]

anotheronebitesthedust - 19-5-2011 at 13:22

Quote: Originally posted by Rogeryermaw  
now that's anti cook!
Not to mention anti anyone who eats more than one pill.

peach - 28-5-2011 at 11:46

Funny! :D

The deadline is quite close to my birthday, $100k would be a nice present.

How I'm going to get samples of pseudoephedrine from a supplier to supply the ones they want is beyond me. I'd have to cook it out of the pills and then reblend it.

"What do you want ten packs for sir?"
"An experiment."
"Right...."
"No really."

[Edited on 28-5-2011 by peach]

Nicodem - 7-5-2013 at 09:27

Looks like they got nothing satisfying from the last challenge. Two years have passed and they are repeating it again, and again for 100 k$.
Quote:

Pseudoephedrine #2: Outsmarting Methamphetamine Producers

TAGS: Life Sciences, Chemistry, Engineering/Design, Scientific American, RTP
AWARD: $100,000 USD | DEADLINE: 7/30/13 | ACTIVE SOLVERS: 107 | POSTED: 4/30/13

The Seeker desires a method for producing pseudoephedrine products in such a way that it will be extremely difficult for clandestine chemists to extract and use the pseudoephedrine in the production of the illegal drug methamphetamine. The Seeker may be interested in pursuing further collaboration with Solvers whose solutions they find promising. The Seeker may also allow Solvers additional time after the submission deadline to finalize experiments required for the full reduction-to-practice award.

This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires a written proposal and experimental proof-of-concept data (and/or sample delivery). In the absence of a proven solution, however, the Seeker may make a partial award of up to $20,000 USD for a purely theoretical contribution. The Seeker may, at their sole discretion, attempt to reduce to practice a purely theoretical contribution. If this reduction-to-practice is successful, the Seeker will make a partial award of $40,000 to the winning Solver.

Source: InnoCentive Challenge ID: 9933386

https://www.innocentive.com/ar/challenge/9933386


Who would have tough that outsmarting meth cooks is difficult? I guess it just an unfair stereotype the meth cooks are lazy and stupid.

unionised - 7-5-2013 at 12:50

I would have thought it was difficult.
Not least because I know that pseudoephedrine is excreted in urine, largely unmetabolised.

So, if I don't care very much about their health, I can feed these new pills to people and extract the cleaned up material from urine.
I might decide to use a cow rather than people, but the idea is still viable.

Finnnicus - 7-5-2013 at 16:03

I have a lot of things to say about breaking bad. Would you win money if you find a better substance than pseudoephedrine.

Dr.Bob - 8-5-2013 at 13:15

That is interesting, as I know that there has been work in that area as well as opiates to find ways to make the pills "tamper resistant", such that if you grind up the pills, there are other ingredients which were put in the pill which might be in microencapsulated units (like the old Contact capsules for those old enough to remember them) which are designed NOT to dissolve in the stomach (maybe wax coated or such), but when you grind them up, they are then soluble and act as antagonists or such to the main ingredient.

As well, there are some salts and other compounds that interfere with some reductions that could be added to pseudoephedrine to make it harder to reduce with OTC products. There have been a few groups/institutes/companies working on this in the last few years, likely with little result, based on the offer being renewed. Most already have DEA licenses, so they can do this work without issue. Not going to be very easy for individuals to work on this without some risk. Maybe the non-US drug cartels will submit a bid to try to regain some sales.

Mildronate - 9-5-2013 at 03:20

I think nobody coking that way nowdays

zed - 11-5-2013 at 12:50

Phhhtt. If they want my help, they need to make a serious offer. 100K just isn't enough!

Furboffle - 11-5-2013 at 22:48

How impure would it have to be to make it useless for synthesis?