There's an interesting news piece over at news@nature.com that caught my eye - a team led by Helge Riemann at the Institute of Crystal Growth is trying to generate a 'pure' sample of crystalline silicon-28:

The new barbell-shaped crystal, which weighs 5 kilograms and was completed on 23 May by Riemann's team ... is nearly isotopically pure. It was made from Russian source material, whose silicon was 99.994% pure silicon-28.

A standard kilogram is currently calibrated using the "international prototype," which "was manufactured in the 1880s [from] an alloy of 90% platinum-10% iridium" and is housed in the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures in France. Over time, the loss and/or gain of atoms from the international prototype may have altered its weight - the news story suggests that it might be off by 0.1 milligrams/0.01% (but I couldn't find any additional information to verify that statement...)

Making this (two-million euro/2.7-million USD) piece of silicon was no easy task:

The researchers spent six months eliminating contaminating elements by repeatedly melting the silicon in an apparatus that does not touch the material. The resulting crystal is thought to contain one foreign atom to every 10 million atoms of silicon.

Talk about a pure sample...

Joshua

Joshua Finkelstein (Senior Editor, Nature)

Posted by Joshua Finkelstein at 12:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)

1. What made you want to be a chemist?

Hard to be sure, but probably a visceral fascination with order, geometry, complexity and symmetry. Only chemistry allows the curious observer to examine all of these things and then to use what they learn to make new molecules which haven't ever existed. Chemistry is the science of synthesis, the most creative powerhouse of all the disciplines.

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

Attacking midfielder/captain, Liverpool FC. Being a fellow Huyton boy, Stevie Gerrard's job’s the one for me. Oh: we're talking about 'real' jobs? In that case, probably an author. I'd guess almost all scientists love writing papers, lectures, and articles: crafting a piece of writing, choosing the best, succinct, weighty but pithy phrase demands a precision which is immensely satisfying (surpassed only by certain watchings of LFC). So, professional writing would be a real treat; and I'd take on fiction and non-fiction with equal relish. Fiction? Plays, short and long stories. Non-fiction: football, politics and history (scientific and other).

3. How can chemists best contribute to the world at large?

When we talk about making life better for people, only democracy has contributed more than science, and chemists have made thousands of discoveries which have directly benefitted 'ordinary' people. If we continue to innovate with the pace of the last 200-odd years, we will directly benefit society by making and using new molecular structures not only to help people through difficulties (chemotherapy, amongst others) but also by making everyday life far more comfortable and enjoyable (iPods, mobiles, PSPs and the like). If we continue to create and implement useful inventions, whilst also keeping society properly informed about the significance and value of what we do, we'll make life better, don’t worry about that.

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

George Orwell. If you have to ask why, you need to get out more. OK, if you push me, because: (a) he was the greatest writer of his generation, (b) everything he wrote was (sooner or later) true and, (c) he was brave enough to physically take part in a distant struggle because of his principles. An erudite and true hero. If George Orwell's demise was too recent to register him as a historical figure, then Isaac Newton. Because he was Newton. Anyone who stuck a bodkin into his own eye socket just to further his study of optics is alright by me. If Isaac's busy with an alchemy committee meeting, Shankly, Paisley, Busby, Stein.....

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

Hmmm. About seven years ago. It was an asymmetric aza-Darzens reaction, which we had developed as a method to make enantiomerically-pure aziridines (pretty useful chemicals). As I recall, I was complaining to a guy called Andy McLaren about the yield of his reaction and he challenged me to do better: so I did the reaction, with all my research group watching me like vultures and throwing abuse my way. And I did get a better yield - by 1%. Ha!

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

Science is an intrinsically socialist (lower case) occupation: the collective is more important that the individual, and the system is only as successful as its weakest link. Not for nothing did Newton talk about the "shoulders of giants". Moreover, for someone from my social background, knowledge and learning was a religion, the means by which you could make sure you did something useful with your life. So, I choose a Manic Street Preachers CD, almost for a single line: "Libraries gave us Power; then Work came and made us Free". Eleven words which completely encapsulate the true ethos of science and give a perfect Design for Life. Even typing the words raises the hairs on my neck and brings tears to my eyes. I find it impossible to choose a 'best' book; notwithstanding the comments re. Orwell as dinner guest, the one which comes into my mind now is "Anna Karenin" (Tolstoy).

Professor Joe Sweeney is in the Department of Chemistry at the University of Reading and works on the design and implementation of new processes in organic chemistry, with a focus on asymmetric and target-oriented synthesis, and chemical biology. His ultimate objective is to actually make a difference.

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 04:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In honor of a recent discovery of Andy Mitchinson's secret talents (you'll see...), I thought I'd check out what the internet had to tell me about that dangerous place known as the intersection of science and song. Everyone has heard some of the more common science-inspired songs ('She blinded me with science', or Kate and Ann McGarrigle's charming NaCl), but I was also amazed to discover a vast array of normal songs that have been reappropriated as science teaching tools (here's an example) and, even better, the Science Songwriter's Association, a group of folks who just like singing about science. A quote from Feynman (below) indicates how they might have been inspired to not only write science songs but to band together against the void of science in song:

Our poets do not write about it; Our artists do not try to portray this remarkable thing. I don't know why. Is no one inspired by our present picture of the universe? The value of science remains unsung by singers: you are reduced to hearing not a song or poem, but an evening lecture about it. This is not yet a scientific age.

My favorite find on the 'Find Songs' page was this quote about Carl K. Winter, Ph.D.:

He's been called the Elvis of E. coli.

I'm really not sure what that means, but I find it hilarious.

So, the remaining question is, if you were to write your own science song, what would the title be? Strangely, for most of the ideas I can come up with, it's much easier to imagine them as country songs... Anyway, here are some titles I'll be working on...

Ozone, you broke my alkene heart in two

Crying over spilled butyl bromide

Chromophore (to the tune of Kodachrome)

Catherine (associate editor, Nature Chemical Biology)

Posted by Catherine Goodman at 06:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (1)

In a couple of weeks I'm off to The Young(-ish!) Giants of Chemistry, a conference - and related fancy dinners - to celebrate the 65th birthday of Sir Fraser Stoddart. There's a pretty good line up of speakers - it's a combination of former students and postdocs, colleagues both past and present, as well as a selection of prominent researchers who are at least a generation younger than Fraser. There will also be a couple of poster sessions.

It's short notice, but Edinburgh in June is quite nice (so I am told), and there is some space left, so if you would like to come, check out the contact page on the conference website. For those of you who won't be able to make it, I'll probably find some time to blog from the meeting - with perhaps a few guest entries, and our next chemistry podcast will also include some content from the event.

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Associate Editor, Nature Nanotechnology)

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 05:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Thanks to one of my colleagues for bringing to my attention an article in the education supplement of today's Guardian in which chemistry Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto expresses grave concerns about the future of British science. The piece contains some strong stuff, and here are some quotes I wanted to share with you:

About how the numbers of young people choosing a scientific training are in decline across the developed world, not just the UK, but some countries find other ways to cope:

"...over decades, the US has been spectacularly successful in making up its own homegrown science and technology shortfall by draining first western European scientists, and now eastern European and Asian scientists."

About the consequences of university vice chancellors - "who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing" - dispensing with science departments in favour of other courses:

"Just as cheap fast food has resulted in unprecedented levels of obesity, so this McDonald's approach to cheap, trendy, seductively soft courses designed for mass consumption in tertiary education has resulted in a plethora of students trained for non-existent jobs."

About the teaching of 'intelligent design' in some British schools:

"State funds are also being used to support some schools that abuse impressionable young people by brainwashing them into believing that non-believers will burn for all eternity in the fires of hell."

About the future of British science:

"Do panic!"

So, what do you think - is he right?

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Associate Editor, Nature Nanotechnology)

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 07:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

I was just browsing through The Times over lunch and found this story about students trying to cheat in an economics exam at the University of York.

It reminds me of my teaching days at UCLA, where, in my experience, cheating was rife (in the Chemistry Department at least - but I suspect elsewhere too). Sure, we'd check IDs, but also I'd often have two versions of an exam and alternate them along the rows of students. For multiple choice quizzes, all of the questions were the same, but the possible A thru E answers (yes, five options, not four) were re-ordered in one of the scripts. It was amazing how many times an exam was handed in, in which every single letter answer was wrong, but corresponded 100% with the letter answers on the alternate quiz.

The fundamental flaw that most cheats do not appreciate (or understand) is that they cheat because they are generally less intelligent than other students, which makes them a lot easier to catch... (as pointed out in The Times article above).

Anyway, at UCLA, unless you had videotape evidence and a signed confession, most students (not all, but most) got off with a slap on the wrist. So, it was nice to see how it was dealt with in this incident at York, as reported in the last line of the article in The Times: Each was sentenced to 100 hours of community service and ordered to pay £35 costs.

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Associate Editor, Nature Nanotechnology)

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 08:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

I was out at the pub last night with a few other editors, and one of my colleagues mentioned that an editor from Nature Materials is leaving the company (and the country) - while she'll be definitely be missed by all, this means that Nature Materials is searching for a new associate editor to join their team:

We are particularly interested in applicants with expertise in bio-inspired, biomedical and biomolecular materials, but we would welcome applications from outstanding candidates in any area of materials science.

The ideal candidate should have a PhD and preferably postdoctoral experience with a strong research record. The successful candidate will play an important role in determining the representation of their field in the journal, and will work closely with the other editors on all aspects of the editorial process, including manuscript selection, commissioning and editing of Reviews and News & Views, and writing for the journal. A key aspect of the job is liaising with the scientific community through laboratory visits and international conferences.

If you're interested in the position (which will be based in the London office - with Stuart and Andy), you'll need to apply soon - applications need to be in by June 4th...

Joshua

Joshua Finkelstein (Senior Editor, Nature)

Posted by Joshua Finkelstein at 06:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

1. What made you want to be a chemist?

I was interested from a very early age in science, and alternated as a boy between the telescope, microscope, chemistry set, and so on. (My wife would tell you I haven't changed.) I suppose chemistry fit nicely in between biology (too vague for my tastes at the time) and physics (which was too austere). It had some rigor, but not too much. Of course, I loved reading literature from a very early age, too, but decided that it would be easier to have a library in my house than to have a lab.

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

I think I still would want to be some sort of research scientist. Finding things out that no one else knows, running real experiments where the outcome rides on your own skills and intuition - there's nothing else like it for me. I could enjoy teaching, writing, or even managing an investment portfolio, but not as much as what I do now.

3. How can chemists best contribute to the world at large?

The same way as other scientists do: by working at the top of their abilities, on the most unusual, far-reaching problems they have access to. I don't want to propose any specific topics; that's not how it works. Work on what excites you, and allow some time and space for blue-sky experiments. Getting the word out about what chemistry (and science in general) is would help, too, because most people (all these centuries later) still don't really know.

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

Arrgh, that's hard. No kings or politicians that I can think of, first off. Newton wasn't too sociable, was he? More recently I'd have loved to have met Richard Feynman or Peter Medawar - actually, I'd love to have dinner with Freeman Dyson, and he's still around! If I could tell them what we're up to now, some of the natural philosophers of the 1700s would be a lot of fun. Outside of science, it might be Nabokov - James Joyce would probably have tried to borrow money off me.

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

Easy. When my company announced the closure of our research site, I went straight back to my lab and started setting up experiments for a fascinating side project I'd been working on. It was then or never, so while everyone else was packing up their offices, I was out there taking aliquots and mixing up buffers. I did the last one in January, and the next day the instrument I needed was mothballed. My next experiment will be (I hope) not long after I start my next job, wherever that is. I never want to lose access to the lab.

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

I've never been able to answer these questions! I'm looking at a wall of books over my shoulder right now; how could I narrow down to one? I suppose I'd have to find the thickest anthology I could possibly carry - it would double as a flotation device. Literature, poetry, some math and logic problems - I don't think they make one of those, actually. CDs are a less wrenching call - something by Bach, maybe, if I had to pick just one thing, although Steely Dan would be a contender.

Derek Lowe is a research chemist in the pharmaceutical industry. Despite nearly twenty years of trying, he has yet to put anything on the market, so if you're looking for a reason for high drug costs, look no further.

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 04:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)

Ok, I just like that title too much to let the obvious joke go. Sorry for the near repeat!

Anyway, unlike Stuart, (and as you all probably know by now) I am not averse to pointing out things in relation to our journal. In particular, our June issue has just appeared online. The brain in question relates to a paper about the dynamic/reversible glycosylation of proteins in the brain. I especially like the eyes at the top, which I imagine to be googly, like the muppets.

For those of you folks who actually get the hard copy of the issue, you should also have received a copy of Nature's recent glycochemistry and glycobiology insight, and two of our News & Views pieces discuss other recent sugar-focused work, so hopefully any sugar cravings you're having will be saturated.

In other news, our Editorial this month discusses the journal's presentation of chemical structures. I recently told you all about our most recent addition to the chemical functionality (the 3D visualization tool), but what else could we be doing that would help chemists and biologists think about chemistry? How do you all (as chemists) use the web now to improve your understanding of or ability to communicate chemistry? Or does online chemistry just seem ... well, insane?

Catherine (associate editor, Nature Chemical Biology)

Posted by Catherine Goodman at 07:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Every six months or so, I pop over to England to catch up with my colleagues in our London office (NPG's largest office). I love visiting this city, and it's not just because I get to use words like 'skint' and eat fantastic Indian food every night...

But I was thinking about how difficult it must be for people who move to a new country to start their Ph.D.s/post-docs/jobs - in addition to adjusting to a new lab/co-workers (which can be difficult even if you're working in a familiar city/country), you have to learn how things are done/how things work in your new environment. As trite as it sounds, so many things can be so different.

For example, I lived in London for two months when I started at Nature, and I'm embarrassed to say that I had to dig out the manual for my combo washer/dryer to figure out how to operate it. (I thought I was doing something wrong because my clothes never came out 100% dry - it turns out that the machine in my apartment didn't use heat to dry the clothes, just an extended spin cycle...) Even going to the pub can be problematic: we had a German post-doc in our lab who frequently forgot to bring his passport when we went out for drinks. Despite the fact that he was in his mid-30s (and clearly looked old enough to drink in the U.S.), he had a difficult time convincing waiters/waitresses to serve him without ID...

For those of you who changed countries when starting your Ph.D./post-doc/job, I was wondering what little differences were the most frustrating for you? And for those of you who are living in a city/country you know well, how do you help your new co-workers adjust to their new environment? (For example, I've heard that some schools/labs distriubte packets that contain local information, FAQs, etc. - are these useful/helpful?)

Joshua

Joshua Finkelstein (Senior Editor, Nature)

Posted by Joshua Finkelstein at 11:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

There's a lot of cool things you can do with DNA - much better than the stuff I see in CSI on an almost nightly basis...

The last week or so has brought us a few more examples, including a self-assembled DNA bipyramid in yesterday's JACS ASAP from Turberfield's group at Oxford. This follows hot on the heels of a review article he wrote with Jonathan Bath that appears in our current issue of Nature Nanotechnology - free access here.

In addition, Ned Seeman from NYU - who was featured in our Reactions series last week - has a paper in yesterday's Nano Lett. ASAP on DNA nanotubes. Finally, there's a DNA catenane paper from last week's JACS ASAP, that uses everyone's favourite - click chemistry.

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Associate Editor, Nature Nanotechnology)

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 07:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A paper in PNAS has just caught my eye, because it emphasizes a problem common in natural product research – where do these funky molecules really originate?

This collaborative effort looks at alkaloids — including the synthetically challenging pumiliotoxins — that are isolated from Oophaga pumilio poison frogs. But these toxic amphibians don’t make the alkaloids themselves. It turns out that they get them by eating mites. What’s more, these mites contain lots of new alkaloids that hadn’t previously been discovered.

This reminded me of a story I once heard about another famous natural product, epibatidine, which was also isolated from a frog. Someone had the bright idea of farming the frogs, so that the precious compound could be harvested. But the farmed frogs didn’t have any epibatidine in their skins, because they hadn’t been eating the right food. Bang goes another brilliant idea…

So the next time you see a natural product synthesis, think of the story behind the compound, and the complex biological chains that originally led to it. Not forgetting of course, the unsung heroes who chase insects all over Costa Rica to work out the links of these chains.

Andy

PS If you're interested in other tales of natural product isolation, have a look at this paper in Angewandte Chemie which reports the identification of Platencin (an antibiotic structurally related to platensimycin, which was reported in Nature last year).

Andrew Mitchinson (Associate Editor, Nature)

Posted by amitchinson at 07:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I don't often plug Nature Nanotechnology papers here on the blog, but I couldn't resist this one... (mostly because of the title I get to use!)

A couple of days ago we published a paper on our website by Naoki Komatsu and co-workers, entitled, "Optically active single-walled carbon nanotubes". As we all know, however you go about cooking up a batch of nanotubes, you get a mixture - different diameters, different lengths and different chiralities. Now, what is meant by 'different chiralities' in this context, is different degrees of twist when you roll up your graphene sheet - not really 'chirality' as the chemist knows it. Methods have been developed to sort carbon nanotubes by length and diameter (and also by degree of twist to some extent - see this free paper here and associated News & Views article here).

What is largely ignored/forgotten, is that chiral nanotubes are, wait for it..., chiral! They come as left- and right-handed forms, depending on which may you roll your graphene sheet, i.e., you can either curl the edges up and over to form a tube, or down and under. (If you want to try this at home, take a couple of overhead transparencies - for those of you under 25 years of age, you may want to look up what one of those is - and draw a hexagonal lattice on each one and roll them up in opposite directions - hey presto, enantiomeric nanotubes!).

Now, Pasteur, all those years ago, separated the enantiomers of tartaric acid by painstakingly sorting through mirror-image crystals, presumably with a microscope and a pair of tweezers. What Komatsu and colleagues have done is to make what they call 'nano-tweezers' - chiral gable-type diporphyrins that can discriminate between left- and right-handed nanotubes. One enantiomer of the nano-tweezers forms a stronger complex with either the left- or right-handed nanotubes and these diastereoisomers have different solubility properties, which means that they can be separated by centrifugation. You can then wash away the tweezers and record a CD spectrum of your resolved nanotubes!

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Associate Editor, Nature Nanotechnology)

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 05:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

The office coffee machine broke down this morning, so I've been using Coca-Cola to fight off the postprandial dip. I rarely drink soda (aside from the occasional Cuba Libre), so I'm usually the last to know about (crazy) new kinds of soda. But there's a case of Diet Coke Plus in our office refrigerator - you might not have seen it in your local supermarket, but it's a new version of Diet Coke that contains several vitamins and minerals:

Each eight-ounce serving of Diet Coke Plus provides a good source of Niacin (vitamin B3), vitamins B6 and B12, zinc and magnesium (15% Daily Value [DV] for Niacin, B6 and B12, 10% DV for zinc and magnesium).

Great news, no? Now you don't have to take that pesky multi-vitamin every day. Just have a few cans of Diet Coke Plus and you'll be all set...

Not a fan of Diet Coke? Not a problem: PepsiCo is responding with the launch of Tava this fall, which will contain "vitamins B3, B6 and E, and chromium." (Chromium?)

I'm just waiting for them to combine soft drinks with OTC medication: "have a hangover and can't stay awake at your morning meeting? Try new Coke NSAID - it comes in two flavors: cherry aspirin and vanilla ibuprofen..." Yum...

Joshua

Joshua Finkelstein (Senior Editor, Nature)

Posted by Joshua Finkelstein at 02:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (1)

1. What made you want to be a chemist?

I took high school biology from a person who spent the first third of a semester teaching us about atoms and molecules, because he saw life as a chemical phenomenon. I've been entranced with the edge of life ever since, and have spent my entire career on that cusp, sometimes venturing into biology, and sometimes into chemistry. The structural beauty of crystallography and informational nature of nucleic acids seduced me into working at their interface. Being able to make things, rather than just analyze them, vectored me into structural DNA nanotechnology.

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

Chemistry gives me an outlet for my creative urges. If I couldn't do that, I'd probably try to be an artist (though I lack talent in that direction). I'm a totally visual person, with not a lot of response to acoustic phenomena.

3. How can chemists best contribute to the world at large?

By doing what they do - creating and analyzing new forms of matter, and gaining control over the structure of matter on the finest possible scale. Saying that, one cannot forget that chemists are subject to the same social responsibilities as other citizens of the world, and they must recognize them.

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

Probably one of the early empiricists, such as Bacon. It was a huge conceptual leap to go from arguing about what might happen in some circumstances, to actually looking to find out. I would hope my dinner companion had eclectic culinary tastes.

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

I've never done much in the wet lab. Mostly, I've programmed and modeled. I continue to model.

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

My favorite author is Thomas Pynchon, but if exiled alone on a desert island, his paranoiac tilt would not resonate with the isolated circumstances. I'd probably try to take a book on how to build boats from earth, air, fire and water, or more conducive materials if they were present. I don't listen to music, so I would trade in the CD for a DVD, probably of 'Casablanca'.

Ned Seeman is in the Department of Chemistry at New York University and works on structural DNA nanotechnology. He builds objects, lattices, and nanomechanical devices from DNA.

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 04:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

So I've just returned from Germany, one of many lands of superior chocolate goodies... Oops - that's not related.

Anyway, while I was riding the train across central Germany, and eating some food of some sort, I noticed that I was getting my daily dose of Natrium (that's Sodium for us Americans, in case that isn't clear...). It made me wonder how much easier it would be to learn the periodic table if the names actually matched the symbols. Unfortunately, since most of the original names appear to have Latin roots, it's unlikely that any particular current language is using all of the 'real' names. (although please correct me if I'm wrong?!)

So, since changing the symbols seems unlikely, I suggest we revert to the original names of these crazy elements. Let's call them Natrium and Wolfram, and Aurum, Argentum and Kalium. Ok, maybe not Kalium, as that sounds like something out of Superman.

Alternatively, we could make up new names entirely, like Nancy and William, Aurelius and Agamemnon... what do you guys think? Is Na by any other name still as reactive?

In any case, hope you like the food for thought.
Catherine (associate editor, Nature Chemical Biology)

Posted by Catherine Goodman at 06:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

1. What made you want to be a chemist?

I've always enjoyed building things, looking for ways to improve some feature or combine functionality. Synthetic chemistry is all about building things - except at a very small scale. The field of organic electronics provides a beautiful opportunity to enjoy both pico-scale construction (molecules) and macro-scale construction (devices). It's always a real thrill to take an idea all the way from initial target molecule, through synthesis and then into a working device in a matter of a few weeks.

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

I think I'd still be designing and building things. I'm already an avid woodworker - I could envision myself in architecture / homebuilding, furniture design / construction - any job where I can use my hands to create something beautiful, new and useful.

3. How can chemists best contribute to the world at large?

I suppose at first blush we contribute by doggedly pursuing our intellectual curiosity. Chemistry is central to so many endeavors - from understanding the fundamental science of molecules and molecular assemblies, to synthesizing compounds for pharmaceutical or materials applications. However, I see my most important contribution as the education of a new generation of scientists. I have had the pleasure of working with some exceptionally talented graduate and undergraduate students, and feel confident that their curiosity and enthusiasm will carry them into productive careers as chemical researchers.

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

I've always been fascinated by the history of early England, and the one person I'd love to have the chance to converse with is Eleanor of Aquitaine. She exercised an incredible amount of power in an era critical to the development of modern Europe.

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

Last week - I performed an Ullman coupling to put a perfluoroalkyl chain onto an iodothiophene compound. While I don't spend nearly as much time in the lab as I would like, I do try to do at least one reaction every few weeks, just to maintain credibility with the students that I instruct.

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

The CD question is tough - my musical tastes are strongly influenced by what I'm doing at the time. When writing, the von Karajan recording of Beethoven's 4th and 7th symphonies is a top pick. In the lab, lately I've loaded my i-pod with Tool's "Undertow". When grading, Blues are more appropriate, such as Tom Waits' "Real Gone". But the one CD I would never want to be without is Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here". As for books - since the 5th grade I've been fascinated by the works of J.R.R. Tolkien, and his complete works would serve as an entertaining read as well as a phenomenal example of literary creativity.

John Anthony is in the Department of Chemistry at the University of Kentucky and works on the design, synthesis and application of high-performance organic semiconductors for display and photovoltaic applications.

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 04:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

My fellow Cambridge-London commuters; did you work it out? Once you know that it depicts a gene, it’s annoyingly obvious. But despite travelling past it by train about three days per week, I failed to identify the thousands of brightly coloured bars painted on the cycle path next to the rail track near Cambridge’s Addenbrooke’s hospital as a nucleotide sequence. It should have been a clue that only four colours are used.

It probably comes from generally not being very biochemistry minded, as a straight-physics editor. Nevertheless, a friend of mine mentioned he had heard about the biology-inspired cycle path artwork and after some quick Googling, the rumour was confirmed; the colourful sequence stands for the BRCA2 gene, implicated in breast cancer and discovered in 1995.

What a good idea to combine scientific topics with railway scenery. After five years of commuting I would welcome more of these puzzles along the rail track to keep me entertained!

Liesbeth

Liesbeth Venema (Senior Editor, Nature)

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 07:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Being an associate editor of Nature Nanotechnology, I now know a lot more about carbon nanotubes that I ever thought I would. There's a lot I don't know, however, and I was surprised by what I learned today...

Every now and then I need to look up some interesting (or otherwise) little fact about nanotubes and just get an idea of what the popular terminology is, i.e., is it a 'chirality vector' or a 'chiral vector'? I won't spoil that one for you. Anyway, first port of call, as with a lot of people, is the web, and, in particular, Wikipedia. Now, I know that any information garnered from Wikipedia might not necessarily be 100% accurate, but it's a good place to start for casual references.

So, as I was scanning through the entry on carbon nanotubes, I was interested to see how their cost is normalized to the price of a more widely known chemical product in society:

Single-walled nanotubes are still very expensive to produce, around $1500 per gram as of 2000 (compared to marijuana, which generally costs between $10 and $30 per gram, depending on who you know and how sweet the nug is), and the development of more affordable synthesis techniques is vital to the future of carbon nanotechnology.

I don't know if this is Wkipedia vandalism or not... anyway, maybe this new standard will give the Big Mac index a run for its money...

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Associate Editor, Nature Nanotechnology)

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 09:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)