That is absolutely false. We cannot reliably design drugs computationally, and that doesn't even take into account the tremendously difficult problem of predicting efficacy and toxicity. Drug interactions are very complex, poorly understood, and while our ability to do predictive analysis has improved a lot, we are not even close to designing drugs computationally today. What we can do is minimize the amount of trial and error and direct fugure experiments.

> Actually, the ability to make drugs or biologicals is quickly dropping in complexity. Right now, one can design drugs and biologicals on one's workstation.

Uh, no you cannot. I have worked on these exact sorts of problems, and we are nowhere near being able to "design drugs and biologicals on one's workstation."

Dr. Alexander Shulgin managed to some pretty groundbreaking drug design in his small home laboratory.

Of course it was hardly rigorous, and his analysis of what he made was mostly subjective rather than scientific, but it seems kind of analogous to what a hacker does vs what an engineer does.

I'm not sure how this is related to the technical issue of not being to just "design" drugs on a computer and have them "printed out."

> in his small home laboratory.

You can certainly work out of a home laboratory, if you so desire. The location is not particularly relevant. But it will definitely cost you a lot more than a laptop and internet would. And even then, what Shulgin did was quite limited by his capital resources.

> it seems kind of analogous to what a hacker does vs what an engineer does.

Don't forget that he already had a PhD in biochemistry from UC Berkeley. If he had just tried to learn like a "hacker," he would have either bankrupted or killed himself (or killed someone else and ended up in jail).

And even then, he got raided by the DEA and fined $25000 (the regulation issue).