1 Dr Phil Reeves -Managing Director at Econolyst Limited. Phil has been involved in additive manufacturing since 1994, initially within process research and development, moving through applications development and more recently in a strategic advisory capacity. Phil currently advises organizations on the business implementation of additive manufacturing processes and works with technology vendors to identify future user trends and business opportunities. Econolyst are also engaged in a number of research projects focused on the management implementation and sustainability of additive manufacturing. 2 Dr Chris Tuck -Lecturer in Innovative Design and Manufacturing in the Additive Manufacturing Research Group at Loughborough University. Chris has been involved in the additive manufacturing field since 2003, completing a number of projects in mass customization and additive manufacturing. Chris was part of the management board for EU FP6 project Custom-Fit and a Research Associate on UK DTI funded ManRM project looking for additive opportunities in the automotive sector. Chris has continued this work and has a reputation in the areas of economics, customization, and implementation of AM. 3 Prof. Richard Hague -Professor of Innovative Manufacturing and Head of the world-leading Additive Manufacturing Research Group at Loughborough University. He has worked within rapid prototyping (RP) and additive manufacturing (AM) research since 1993. Richard has significant experience in leading large and complex research projects with multiple partners and is principal investigator of over £4M of EPSRC (UK), DTI (UK) and EU funded research projects. His research is focused on future manufacturing technologies and he is internationally recognized as instigating and leading work within the design, implementation, materials, textiles, and customization aspects of RM.

Drugs containing one or more chiral centres exist in stereoisomeric molecular forms. Most commonly, drugs containing a single asymmetric carbon atom exist in two enantiomeric forms, designated as eutomer (the more potent) and distomer (the less potent). As well as differences in potency and other pharmacodynamic properties, most members of enantiomeric pairs commonly differ also in their pharmacokinetic profiles. This article reviews factors underlying differences in pharmacological properties of enantiomers. The relevance of such differences for studies designed to evaluate the bioequivalence of products containing chiral drugs is also reviewed.