The Sceptical Chymist

Maitland Jones, Jr, teaches in the Department of Chemistry at New York University.

1. What made you want to be a chemist?

When I was 12 or 13, I met William Doering. I had asked/demanded (remember I was all of 12) of my parents to be allowed to play the 12-year old tennis circuit that summer. My parents properly replied, "Time to get a job, kid." They met Doering at a party and coerced, or bribed, him into giving their kid what would today be called an internship at Hickrill, a privately funded basic research lab that happened to be near where we lived. There I not only met Doering, for whom I would work for the next ten years or so, but several other wonderful organic chemists, including Larry Knox, for whom I directly worked at Hickrill, washing dishes and being a general gopher. I knew nothing, of course, but the atmosphere was electric, the work intense, and the passion palpable. No one with the slightest interest in science could emerge from that place unchanged.

2. If you weren’t a chemist and could do any other job, what would it be - and why?

All my life I have loved jazz, and I have spent an enormous number of hours in dingy clubs over the last five or six decades. I know a lot about the music and run a jazz series in Princeton, New Jersey. I probably - certainly - could not be a musician, but I could run a club, or maybe be a critic. I still might do that.

3. What are you working on now, and where do you hope it will lead?

Well, I closed the research lab when I moved from Princeton to NYU, so I can only answer that in retrospect. My group worked on the chemistry of reactive intermediates, carbenes, benzynes, and the like. We also expanded into the chemistry of boron cage compounds, and the interactions of reactive intermediates with those three-dimensionally aromatic compounds. We hoped only that it would lead to a better understanding of how molecules react - and of how "electrons talk to each other."

4. Which historical figure would you most like to have dinner with - and why?

Thelonious Monk. I saw and heard Monk when I was a kid. Indeed, I was at the Five Spot for a few of the times Monk played with John Coltrane. I didn't have a good enough understanding of the music then, and I'd like to talk to Monk about his music, or, better, to see him play again, nowI have a deeper appreciation of it.

5. When was the last time you did an experiment in the lab - and what was it?

A long long ago, probably in the 1970's - or even 1960's. Peter Gaspar was visiting Princeton for a semester, and we happened on a result of Bill (Florida) Jones's that had, we thought, important implications for the chemistry of phenylcarbenes. So I ran the experiments, evaporating p-tolyl diazomethane through a hot pyrolysis tube and collecting the products, styrene and benzocyclobutene, as Peter and I expected/hoped. Write it out - it is a remarkable transformation. Then work out a mechanism. It's wonderful chemistry. It turns out that a student of Harold Shechter's had run similar experiment but for some reason Harold never published them at the time and they languished in Dissertation Abstracts.

6. If exiled on a desert island, what one book and one music album would you take with you?

It has to be a book I've read because one can't take chances on a desert island, so I might pick Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow, for sheer flat-out virtuosity. Even if one doesn't get all the references - or even if one doesn't get the point at all - one can read it page by page, sentence by sentence, just for the brilliancy of the writing. And it's long. If I am allowed another, I'd take David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest - for much the same reasons. Or maybe Vikram Seth's A Suitable Boy. Or....

Music is easy: Charlie Parker, the Collected Dials and Savoys.

7. Which chemist would you like to see interviewed on Reactions – and why?

There are only a small number of the great physical organic chemists left - Doering and Roberts, I guess. Few know them now, I'm afraid, as the discipline has fallen so far out of favor. It would be nice to let them have a chance to make the case again.

Posted by Neil Withers at 06:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I spent last week-end at the 9th Tateshina Conference on Organic Chemistry in Nagano, a couple of hours east of Tokyo on the train (from which I enjoyed a superb view of Mt Fuji on the way back).

This meeting is the Asian sister of the EUCHEM Conference on Stereochemistry, better known as the ‘Bürgenstock Conference’. At a time when there are many – and varied – conferences, these two adopt a very particular format (you can read our editorial on ‘meeting matters’ here, no subscription is required but you need a nature.com account).

Limited to around 60-70 invited participants, mostly from Japan, China, Singapore and Korea, the Tateshina Conference is designed to favour communication. Delegates gather in a secluded location (rendered particularly beautiful by the autumn leaves) for 48 hours, with about half a day left free so that they can engage in scientific chats, or make the most of the venue, or combine both. A large chunk of time is devoted to dialogue: a 25 minute presentation is followed by at least 15 minutes of discussion – rather than the mere 5 minutes allocated in most meetings – leading to some lively exchanges. And, this isn’t chemistry-related but I cannot not mention that we were treated to a fantastic clavichord recital, including a guest appearance from our chairman, Eiichi Nakamura, for a clavichord-flute ensemble.

This all contributed to a unique atmosphere — but I won’t tell you about the science because in order to encourage open and stimulating communication, it is agreed that any information presented isn’t for public use. Judging from the wide range of topics discussed I can reveal, however, that many areas of chemistry come under the umbrella of organic chemistry.

Anne

Anne Pichon (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Posted by Anne Pichon at 03:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

One of the most fundamental aspects of our job here at the Nature research journals is overseeing the peer-review process. In making our decisions on whether to accept a manuscript for publication, the advice given to us by experts on the topic in question is absolutely crucial. And we get a wide range of responses from referees - sometimes we get very lengthy and detailed reports (some of which even rival the word count of the original manuscript being evaluated - yes, really), and sometimes we get very short reports of just a sentence or two.

What do we want? Well, Nature Physics have written a wonderfully lucid editorial explaining just that. If you referee for any journal, but especially those in the Nature stable, this is required reading. You can find the editorial here - it is freely available, but you do need to have a nature.com account.

I'll leave you with one of the most important sentences from the editorial to whet your appetite and encourage you to go and read it - Whatever you think about a paper, it is vital to explain to us exactly why you think it.

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Chief Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 04:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

David Andrews is in the Department of Chemistry at The University of East Anglia, and works on the quantum theory of light-matter interactions.

1. What made you want to be a chemist?

I had a keen interest in science from early childhood, fired up by a memorable first visit to London’s Science Museum. Like many young lads I had a chemistry set, and I remember my Dad taking me to a supplier to supplement my basic stock of chemicals with more exotic compounds and reagents. In the sixth-form at school we were taught by a wild-haired Welshman with cracked spectacles, whose enthusiasm for chemistry was hugely infectious. I know at least three of our fifteen-strong class went on to do first and then higher degrees in chemistry; our schoolteacher was truly inspirational.

2. If you weren’t a chemist and could do any other job, what would it be - and why?

I would gladly go into graphic design. It is a subject that fascinates me; I can spend hours playing with the fantastic software now available. Decent graphics can play a very important role in scientific publishing; good artwork should be visually pleasing and informative. Inspired by the concept of dendrimer symmetry, my daughter recently produced a tailor-made cover image for one of my books, and I have contributed to the choice and production of several others.

3. What are you working on now, and where do you hope it will lead?

Most of my research group’s efforts at present concern what has been termed ‘optical binding’ – the astonishing discovery that light itself can produce and modify intermolecular and inter-particle forces. In a nutshell, this means that it is now possible to manipulate micro- and nano-particles into stable, non-contact assemblies, held together by light – rather like a scaled-up version of the atomic bonding in molecules. If it lives up to its current promise, this could progress into major advances in the field of nanofabrication.

4. Which historical figure would you most like to have dinner with - and why?

What a question! One of many in my A-list would be Michael Faraday who, despite significantly disadvantaged origins, rose to become world-renowned for his pioneering experiments and penetrating insights into chemistry, optics and electromagnetism. Lacking the pomposity that too often comes with fame, he would be fascinating and congenial company, I think.

5. When was the last time you did an experiment in the lab - and what was it?

Last year I visited St Andrews University with a colleague, and we were allowed hands-on experience of some highly sophisticated optical micromanipulation kit. That is the closest I have come to doing an experiment since undergraduate days. As a student I got on well in the labs, but although I enjoyed the physical chemistry, the organic experiments in particular I found quite scary. After electing for a third-year project in theory, there was no more practical to do. Letting me into a lab these days is probably quite risky.

6. If exiled on a desert island, what one book and one music album would you take with you?

For the book, almost anything by Thomas Hardy – but for choice, A Pair of Blue Eyes – and for the music album, the exquisite The Mask and the Mirror by Loreena McKennitt. She has the voice of an angel, and her songs are heartachingly beautiful.

7. Which chemist would you like to see interviewed on Reactions – and why?

I will choose Greg Scholes at Toronto; he is someone whose science I have the very highest regard for – and who is a very unassuming, modest individual. His views should be well worth hearing.

Posted by Neil Withers at 06:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Thanks to Derek Lowe's recent post 'Elements I Have Yet to Use', we've all spent some time this morning looking at the periodic table, casting our minds back to our days in the lab and counting up the elements we HAVE used.

Laura's in the lead with 31, and Stu is undecided "between 25 and 30" (bless his aged memory...), and I'm down around 20. Gav, as a physical chemist, is at the back of the queue with "between 5 and 10 — including the silicon in the computer!"

I decided to change the rules a little (in my favour, of course!), and asked "but how many elements featured in compounds you actually made?" (in other words, not just as reagents etc). As I hoped, that puts me in the lead thanks to solid-state syntheses rarely involving anything that doesn't end up in the product! My count for this is about 18, Stu around 12 and Laura 16. Gav says he's no longer playing the game...!

Between us we've used almost every group in the periodic table, apart from the noble gases and possibly group 5 (V, Nb, Ta) — although I did use vanadium cans in some neutron experiments, but apparently that doesn't count! Lanthanides crop up more than you might expect (La, Ce, Eu, Sm, Gd, poss Yb).

We're all behind Derek who has used 45 so far — as ever, we bow before his superior awesomeness.

Neil

Neil Withers (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Posted by Neil Withers at 06:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

It's that time again - time that you can listen to the chemistry@nature podcast: The ChemPod. You can download it from that link, or from iTunes.

As you might expect, we've got interviews with newly minted Nobel Laureates Ada Yonath and Venkatraman Ramakrishnan. They wax lyrical about their work teasing out the structure of the ribosome and how they're being reprogrammed to use artificial amino acids.

There are also interviews with Guillermo Bazan and Ting Xu, whose latest papers have just been published in Nature Chemistry and Nature Materials respectively. Bazan discusses his success using microwaves to make polymers for solar cells, and Xu about stimuli-responsive nanocomposites.

And the Sceptical Chymist's very own Andy Mitchinson chats to host Mark Peplow about the latest chemistry papers in Nature.

Neil

Neil Withers (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Posted by Neil Withers at 10:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

***This is cross-posted from The Great Beyond***

After Venkatraman Ramakrishnan learnt he'd shared the 2009 Nobel Prize in Chemistry (with Ada Yonath and Thomas Steitz), NatureNews went to meet him at the UK Medical Research Council's Laboratory of Molecular Biology, in Cambridge. Here he is, describing the thrill of seeing atomic-resolution structures of the ribosome - and his surprise at sharing the chemistry Nobel: a subject in which, he admits, he'd flunk an undergraduate degree.

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 11:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted on behalf of Materials Girl

I have been in grad school for two weeks. Already, my original plans to jump into research – and sleep 9 hours a day – are currently thwarted by a flurry of newly discovered fellowship applications. Also, my nemesis has returned: physics class! I now have the pleasure of competing against graduate students who majored in applied physics, instead of the previous motley crew of undergraduate science and engineering majors. Serves me right for going into matsci instead of inorganic chemistry. This sounds like grounds for a discussion on the merits of GPAs in graduate school…

Application writing is tedious. I don’t know a soul who actually enjoys composing personal statements, previous research reports, or proposals. I have also spent many hours typing personal information into online forms via the cantankerous internet connection in my office (at least it saves paper). Personally, my problem is not so much the time it takes to type up everything. The issue is in composing something scientifically meaningful, which communicates my ideas in a clear, clever fashion that does not put people to sleep. (Being a slow writer also causes troubles. Or maybe it's just my brain that might be slowing; my mother recently commented on yet another lapse in my short-term memory, stating that age 21 is a bit early for Alzheimer’s to be setting in. I’d like to think that we all have these sorts of problems, though.)

In terms of producing worthwhile content, I specifically have the personal statement in mind. It’s like a repetition of college applications, where all of my accomplishments, background, and any aspect that I write about has inevitably been done, experienced, and described by myriads of other applicants. How does one presume to be unique, and then convey it in one thousand words? To what extent can a short essay convey the subtleties of a personality and the drive to excel, avoiding horrid clichés and hackneyed concepts? For those who wade through the sea of incoming material: how do you distinguish between creativity and reiteration? The same can be said about research proposals, too. They need to know that I know what I’m talking about. But how?

All I can do is my best, and hope it is sufficient to propel my application into the “accept” list. Good luck to everyone else in the process of begging for funding. Unless you are one of my competitors. (Just kidding! Or am I…?)

Posted by Neil Withers at 08:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Jonathan Sweedler is the James R. Eiszner Family Chair in Chemistry and has appointments in Physiology and Neuroscience at the University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign; his research area involves analytical neurochemistry and he studies novel neurochemistry related to learning, behaviour and neuronal network formation.

1. What made you want to be a chemist?

I have always loved science and knew I wanted a career in science research. My original exposure to chemistry was home chemistry sets and learning how to make reactions that go boom – while perhaps not too acceptable in our society today, this was more accepted in the 1970s. Given this interest, I guess it is not too surprising that my first vhemistry-related job was working at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for three summers while I was an undergraduate student.

2. If you weren’t a chemist and could do any other job, what would it be - and why?

Since receiving my PhD in chemistry, I have moved my research toward my other science fascination — neuroscience and understanding the functioning of the brain. About one third of my group now includes students from the physiology and neuroscience departments and the rest are from the chemistry department. If I wasn’t a chemist, I would still be at a university but likely housed in a neuroscience department. I enjoy university research too much to do anything else!

3. What are you working on now, and where do you hope it will lead?

My group has two major interests — one is creating new analytical tools to probe nanoliter and smaller samples for their chemical constituents (sometimes such measurements are called metabolomics and proteomics), and the other applies these techniques to well defined neuronal networks to understand cell to cell signalling in the brain. We characterize novel neurochemical pathways related to neuropeptides, serotonin, chiral amino acids and nitric oxide, as well as try to determine the physiological function of the new compounds we uncover.

4. Which historical figure would you most like to have dinner with - and why?

What a question. Perhaps Antony van Leeuwenhoek; he created some of the first effective microscopes and made some of the most important discoveries in biology, such as discovering bacteria, microscopic protists, sperm cells, blood cells, and rotifers. Of course, he only spoke Dutch and I do not, and so perhaps this would not be the best dinner conversation.

5. When was the last time you did an experiment in the lab — and what was it?

I still go to marine stations to collect selected marine invertebrates as they make wonderful models to study learning and memory in a well defined neuronal network. I can collect animals, study their brains and probe their unique neurochemistry. Yes, spending time (and diving for animals) in the Caribbean or the Pacific Northwest really is part of my “job.”

6. If exiled on a desert island, what one book and one music album would you take with you?

So I am allowed a CD player and power with only one CD, but not my i-pod full of all my favourite music, games, and texts? How about if I use the power supply for the CD to power a nice two-way radio? OK, as far as the book, either the complete works of William Shakespeare (I have not read many of his plays), or one of the “How to Survive on a Desert Island” survival guides I see listed on Google.

7. Which chemist would you like to see interviewed on Reactions – and why?

Richard Zare at Stanford University: He is a very creative person; I am sure his answers would be more interesting than mine.

Posted by Neil Withers at 06:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

...biology?

This year's Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Thomas Steitz and Ada Yonath for studies of the structure and function of the ribosome. The reaction of an inorganic chemist (me), a physical chemist (Gavin), an organic chemist (Laura) and a supramolecular chemist (Stuart) was along the lines of 'biology again'. The Twitter-sphere seems to agree:

@sciencebase: Couldn't they create a separate #biology Prize? So disappointing when real chemists miss out. #nobel09 #chemistry

@LeighJKBoerner Sigh. Another yr, another chem Nobel awarded for biology. In last 10 yrs, only 1/2 of the prizes have gone to chemistry.#nobel09 #chemistry

@LeighJKBoerner I'm not saying that the ribosome discoveries weren't worthy of a Nobel. I just wish there were a biology category. #nobel09 #chemistry

@simon_frantz For anyone debating whether today's Prize is biol. or chem., see Roger Kornberg's answer in 2006 (~50 sec in) http://bit.ly/26vVbn #nobel09

@simon_frantz Another Chemistry Prize fact as told to me an hour or so ago. Ada Yonath is the first female Chemistry Laureate for 45 years #nobel09

@michaelgrr ribosome can assemble itself and do its job all in a test tube, no cell required. thus it is definitely #chemistry .#nobel09

@xiquitabacana biology at the moment is the most exciting science? #nobel09 #biology

@Hugenay23 Is biology science? };-> RT @xiquitabacana: biology at the moment is the most exciting science? #nobel09 #biology

@mgberlin Nobel prize in chemistry goes to biology. Not very encouraging to an aspiring inorganic chemist. #nobel09 #chemistry

@rpg7twit Chemistry don't mean a thing if it ain't got that zing! #nobel09

This isn't to suggest that the discovery wasn't prize-worthy (far from it - having done a bit of powder diffraction I can just about begin to imagine exactly how hard protein crystallography is). I guess we'd just like to see it go to some of the areas of chemistry that we know and love. Maybe even to people who, if affiliated to a university, would be in the chemistry department...

On the positive side, it goes to show just how broad - and impressive - chemistry can be. Read Stu's take on it in our research highlight.

Neil

Neil Withers (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Posted by Neil Withers at 10:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)