Do you really need to keep up with the Joneses?
07/01/2001
 |
We all know someone, or perhaps even a group of people, in constant, subliminal competition to have the best of everything first.
I can't help but think that's what some contamination control end-users and drug makers went through when they opted for isolation technology. In the last few years, many have been rather reactive when in comes to isolation technology—a must if the competition has it.
But there seems to be a shift in philosophy, and it was evident at the International Society of Pharmaceutical Engineering's 10th Annual Barrier Isolation Technology Forum, held in Arlington, VA, last month.
Joerg Ruescher, manager of Boehringer Ingelheim Espana, says isolators recently installed at the hypodermic ampoule filling facility in Sant Cugat, Spain, may not have been the choice if they had to do it all again.
"You have to think about your necessities," he says. "If you are dealing with sterile products, do not complicate your life with isolators, but if you are dealing with products that are cytotoxic, you may want to consider an isolator."
Ruescher's candor is a terrific indication that being practical is taking precedence over being reactive to keep up with the proverbial Joneses.
The isolator is truly a fascinating, promising and frustrating instrument—and it's here to stay, like it or not.
Let's not use it as a threat to create an us-vs.-them-situation that breeds philosophies like "cleanrooms are an endangered species" or "isolators are too problematic." Instead, embrace contamination control with objectivity. Cultivate it, and protect it.
Mark A. DeSorbo
Associate Editor