1. What made you want to be a chemist?

When I was 14 or 15, I was certain that I would become a journalist. By this age, I had already gained experience working at a local newspaper as a sports reporter. I was also beginning to research journalism programs at a number of colleges. My high school guidance councilor suggested that I take chemistry to “make my college applications more competitive” and the rest, as they say, is history. My high school chemistry teacher (Mr. Donohue, East Syracuse-Minoa High School) was superb and I knew almost immediately that chemistry was my calling. Another real turning point came in college when, as a chemistry major, I began doing research in Professor Petr Zumans’ laboratory. This experience opened up a whole new world for me, one which continues to excite me many, many years later.

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

Given my previous response, you'd probably think that my answer would be journalism. However, I think that archeology would be my number 2 choice. Over the years, I've acquired a great appreciation for history. The idea of pursuing clues that help to unravel ancient history is really quite appealing to me. Of course, three months of digging in a hot desert could very well change my mind.

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

I think the simple answer is to be excellent. Chemists are a fairly bright lot. We work on very challenging problems that impact many fields including medicine, materials, energy, etc. It is absolutely inconceivable that chemists will not play a large role in providing long-lasting solutions to the major problems that face us (i.e., diseases, limited fossil fuels, global warming and climate change, hunger, etc.). The best way for us to contribute is by being excellent at what we do. After all, we surely can't expect much from the physicists :)

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

John Adams, 2nd President of the US. David McCullough's biography of John Adams was a real eye-opener. It fascinated me to no end. I would love to spend an evening picking John Adams' brains, preferably at a time after his presidency had ended. He was a remarkable visionary with an amazing intellect. He raised and debated fundamental questions about governance and human rights and prosperity - questions that are still very relevant today. By the way, if Abigail Adams happened to join us, all the better.

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

Probably six months ago when I attempted to demonstrate that carbon nanotubes could be transferred from one substrate to another using simple mechanical forces. I was surrounded by several students who were (1) amazed to see me in the lab and (2) laughing because they thought that this could never work. Fortunately for me, AFM images revealed a clean transfer. For the most part, I'm smart enough to leave the experiments to the people that know what they're doing.

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

For the book, I'd probably take the latest edition of March's "Advanced Organic Chemistry" from which I could draw inspiration while drawing chemical structures in the sand. For the CD, I'd take my copy of "Faith Rewarded: The Historic Season of the 2004 Boston Red Sox". This way, even if I was never rescued, I could continuously relive the greatest comeback in the history of sports by the greatest team in the history of sports. And although I draw no pleasure whatsoever from watching the misery of others, this monumental feat, as it turns out, also marks greatest collapse in the history of sports by another franchise which I refuse to name,… ever. New Hampshire, by the way, is just one hour north of Boston.

Glen Miller is in the Department of Chemistry and the Materials Science Program at the University of New Hampshire and works on a number of projects at the intersection of organic chemistry and nanoscience. These typically involve fullerenes and carbon nanotubes.

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

The joy of this job is that we are constantly reading about new research, whether its newly submitted manuscripts or just keeping up with current literature. The downside, of course, is that all of these things are written in prose. Where's the poetry in science, I ask? (as did Feynman) You can find one recent example in a News & Views in our July issue, but I think this is only the start of something good, as Herman's Hermits told us.*

Since all cultural revolutions have to start small, I thought I would suggest the idea of chemistry haikus, since a) they don't have to rhyme, b) they aren't very long (remember the 5-7-5 motif?), and c) they don't have the tendency for the downward spiral in the same way that limericks do...

The idea is easy. Instead of writing down that your reaction went with 0% yield, try this:

Water gets in and
Messes up everything. Bah!
It's time for a break.

Or, when your rotation student tends your reaction overnight and you return to a mess, sum it up with these few words:

All at once I find
My nice halogenation
Didn't work at all

Finally, for those of you bioorganic folks, I think the starter 'Oh stupid peptide' could take you a long way... For example:

Oh stupid peptide,
why won't you make a helix?
It isn't that hard

Oh stupid peptide,
please come off the resin now.
TFA ran out.

You see how it works. So, with these suggestions as your rallying battle cry, go forth and be poetic! And let me know what good ideas you come up with to describe your scientific adventures.

Catherine (associate editor, Nature Chemical Biology)

(*ed's note, 01/31/08: a reader who is a more knowledgeable music fan than I am (or just not as inept at using the 'interweb', perhaps) pointed out that this song was actually by this group, not the Beach Boys, as previously indicated. Oops!)

Posted by Catherine Goodman at 09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (1)

While standing on the tube platform this morning (trying to ignore the general unpleasantness associated with London’s public transport system), an advert caught my eye. It featured a model wearing a T-shirt with a periodic table on it. For a brief moment, I was overcome with the notion that chemistry had become fashionable, possibly even sexy.

Further evidence of the chemistry-fashion interface is, admittedly, rather scarce. A few years ago, a manufacturer of safety glasses came up with a new streamlined design, incorporating brightly coloured arms and so on. I thought this was pretty ridiculous – it’s very difficult to make safety equipment look trendy. But they went down a storm with my colleagues. I was even criticised during a safety inspection for not wearing the ‘cool’ version of the safety specs (and not for safety reasons - this is not a joke…)

Other than that, my university’s chemistry society had a few rather sad T-shirts emblazoned with slogans such as “Chemists have solutions” and “Tickle a chemist and see the reaction”. But who knows? Maybe chemical elements could become the new iconic brands? Fashionistas wearing ‘Sb’ logos could look down on their less up-to-date friends, who are still wearing last year’s ‘Cs’ jeans. Where would it all end? Any other ideas?

Andy

Andrew Mitchinson (Associate Editor, Nature)

Posted by amitchinson at 07:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

On Wednesday night (June 27th), Nature Network Boston will be hosting their first 'pub night' at Tavern in the Square (in Central Square, Cambridge). Corie Lok, the editor of Nature Network Boston, recently blogged about this event, which will be "your chance to meet other scientists from the Boston area, including other members of and bloggers on Nature Network Boston and a few people from Nature’s Cambridge office..."

The pub night officially starts at 6:30 PM, and I'll be there for an hour or so; I think Catherine said that she's planning on being there for a little while too. So if you're in Cambridge that night, please swing by and say 'hello.' Make sure you come early, as Corie's buying the first 30 people a free drink...

Hope to see you on Wednesday night!

Joshua

Joshua Finkelstein (Senior Editor, Nature)

Posted by Joshua Finkelstein at 05:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Apologies to our international readers for the U.S.-centric post, but the National Institutes of Health announced earlier today that PAR-07-353, a grant involving Cheminformatics Research Centers, has been canceled for "programmatic reasons." For those of you who haven't heard of the Cheminformatics Research Centers, they are part of the Molecular Libraries Roadmap Program (MLP), which is

an integrated set of initiatives aimed at developing and using selective and potent chemical probes for basic research ... [The MLP] was proposed to introduce high-throughput screening approaches to small molecule discovery, formerly limited to the pharmaceutical research industry, into the public sector... [and] is made up of the following major components: (1) access to a library of compounds (Molecular Libraries Small Molecule Repository); (2) access to bioassays provided by the larger research community; (3) support for the development of breakthrough instrumentation technologies; (4) access to a network of screening and chemical probe generation centers (MLPCN) where assays are screened and probe development is undertaken; (5) Pubchem, the primary portal through which the screening results of the MLPCN are made public and (6) the Cheminformatics Research Centers (CRCs) with multiple roles focused on high-level data analysis and dissemination with a focus on developing new understanding of the cellular processes (genes and pathways).

One reason why this is so surprising is because the grants were due next week (June 28th). I imagine the timing of this decision (and the decision itself) is bound to upset a number of people in this community, especially since many applicants were probably working around the clock to get their grant submitted before the (now non-existent) deadline...

Does anyone know more about this story or why the grant was canceled?

Joshua

Joshua Finkelstein (Senior Editor, Nature)

Posted by Joshua Finkelstein at 02:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

[In lieu of profiles, the contributors to this blog have decided to do their own Reactions pieces...]

1. What made you want to be a chemist?

Like Josh, I didn’t get interested in chemistry until quite late in the game. My high school science classes were not very inspiring, but they were also sufficiently painless that I wasn’t averse to taking more when I got to college. My freshman general chemistry class, then, got things moving: It was taught in the Socratic method by the best teacher ever, John Hutchinson. While the rest of the class was great, my ‘eureka’ moment came during a lecture about how soap works… as stupid as it sounds, the idea that physical processes could be explained in such a meaningful and elegant way really set me on the scientific path.

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

Well, I’ve been saying for a long time that I wish someone would pay me to read things, so if I couldn’t have this job, the other obvious choice is as an editor for a ‘normal’ publisher where I could read silly things (i.e., fiction). The other other (i.e., non-geeky) obvious choice would be as a dancer, although I would have to get back in shape (ahh, guacamole, the plague of my exercise plan!).

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

Without getting too negative, I think that many people live their lives without thinking things through, either in terms of their consequences (i.e., ‘it doesn’t matter if I throw this trash on the ground’…) or in how they will affect people around them (hmm… not sure I should get into this one, but let’s say I do not see eye-to-eye with Bush’s policies…). I like that scientists, as a whole, seem to be more willing to think about things carefully and act accordingly. Thus (although I guess this isn’t specific to chemists), an important potential contribution is to help people think more often.

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

Do they have to be dead? I would say Jon Stewart. I simply cannot imagine a more hilarious evening.

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

Last spring (May ’06) – I was trying to figure out if my beta-peptides had structure or not, and spent a few frustrating days on the CD. The last time I did an actual chemical experiment was shortly before that – homologating alpha amino acids to the beta compounds with diazomethane. I am proud to say there were no explosions.

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

I am, as my sister would say, an easy reader, so this is a tough one! Since I know I love it, and it’s long enough to take more than ~a day to read (and I could use it to further improve my Japanese), I would probably take Shogun, by James Clavell. (Josh thinks I should point out that I got this book for 25 cents, amidst a used-book-sale binge of 300 books. Fortunately they all cost ~25 cents.) Otherwise I’d take the complete works of Shakespeare. A CD… probably Crash, by Dave Matthews Band. Unfortunately, my favorite time to listen to that CD is while driving, which doesn’t work out so well for being on a desert island... can I have a (CD-equipped) dune buggy too?

Catherine Goodman is an Associate Editor for Nature Chemical Biology and a regular contributor to the Sceptical Chymist.

Posted by Catherine Goodman at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

(Editor's note: at the request of the GRC, this post has been removed.)

Joshua Finkelstein (Senior Editor, Nature)

Posted by Joshua Finkelstein at 11:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

[Editor's note: over the next few months we will feature guest bloggers from a range of backgrounds and hopefully some of these posts will turn into regular series... first up is Mushy, a former chemist who has left it all behind for the bright lights of the City!]

-------------

Posted on behalf of Mushy:

My name is Mushy, and I am a recovering chemist - it's been over 6 years since I ran my last chromatography column. I have been asked to write on the Sceptical Chymist every now and then to give the views of an ex-chemist.

After completing a PhD in supramolecular chemistry in the US, and following a rather meandering job path, the undisputed highlight of which was months of unemployment, I now work in IT in the City of London.

After finishing Uni, I was certain that I didn't want to work in chemistry. I had something of a long job search, most of which was spent mired in a Catch-22 where I was not qualified for the jobs which I wanted, and the only jobs for which I was qualified, I didn't want. In spite of a few negative experiences with - sour grapes notwithstanding - short-sighted companies which only wanted people with very specific degrees, nothing could be further from the truth. The skills I learned as a chemist - the methodical approach, the empiricism, the confidence, the flawless proff-reading - have served me well in an industry in which I had no experience at the outset.

I suppose that that's where I'll start summing up my inaugural post.

At work, I've never been asked to explain a [4+2] cycloaddition. The astrophysicists have never been asked their opinions on the Hubble constant. The chemical engineers have never become embroiled in heated debates about theoretical plates. The molecular biologists have never orated on the pros and cons of gel electrophoresis. The people who studied golf course management - well - they didn't get the job. What we all do use every day of our working lives, though, is the thought process that got us into science in the first place, and the excitement of finding out new facts and methods. That's the most transferable of all skills.

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 04:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

In the words of my news editor, I've had a day geeking out on chemistry, and it's been great. Two papers in Nature this week about newsworthy chemistry (it's all newsworthy, I hear you cry....).

I'm not sure which was my favourite - as someone who did their masters degree doing organometallic synthesis in ionic liquids, I loved the latest application of the erstwhile green solvents - to support a liquid mirror on the moon. (News story here and paper here.) And the accompanying News and Views article focuses on ionic liquids, rather than going to the moon (which my news piece hangs on). It was a bit of a leap of imagination for whoever thought about using ionic liquids in this way, but a great new application for them. I'm impressed. Of course, we have to colonise the moon first - a minor point.

The second news story from a second paper was about another subject I have delved into in the past - biofuels (see feature). This latest research effort uses acid-hydrolysis to turn fructose into 5-hydroxymethylfurfural, and then a ruthenium/copper catalyst to turn that into 2,5-dimethylfuran (DMF). DMF has the potential to be a far, far better biofuel than ethanol. All that is required now is the funding to develop the processes.

Posted by Katharine Sanderson at 12:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Love 'em, hate 'em? It's hard to ignore them - 2006 journal impact factors were released by Thomson yesterday.

Expect to be bombarded with publishers telling you how much better their journals are than in previous years. I feel a little left out, Nature Nanotechnology won't get it's first impact factor until this time next year, until then you'll just have to take my word that we're good!

If you care (and have access), check out your favourite journals and how they did at Thomson's ISI Web of Knowledge, under Journal Citation Reports...

More generally - how important is a journal's impact factor to you (or your advisor)? Does it influence where you publish, or do only publishers care about these metrics?

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Associate Editor, Nature Nanotechnology)

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 05:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (1)

Hi all,

It's the one time of the month when you can count on me for a blog entry... our next issue has gone live. This July is our third official focus issue, and we're talking all about natural products, and particularly my favorite class of biomolecules, the terpenes. The issue is free for about a month, so check it out!

This was a pretty fun issue for me as, among other things, I got to go to Germany and chat with some folks at the Hans Knoell Institute working on all things natural products. In chatting with some other scientists (and Maggie Smallwood in particular) at a subsequent terpene meeting (Terpnet), I discovered that there are still some strange differences in the ways that the general public perceives and regulates metabolic engineering, which you may see reflected in our editorial. We also got a look from Phil Baran and Tom Maimone into the most exciting methods for and significant achievements in terpene synthesis in the last decade.

One of the reasons that I am so fascinated by terpenes has to do with an advanced organic class I took in college. The professor, Seiichi Matsuda, gave us a handout of 88 terpene structures. It was then our responsibility to figure out how to form all these different structures from oxidosqualene just by varying the path of cyclization or the subsequent proton and methyl shifts. The idea that there were enzymes that could control all of these different processes, ending up with only one product (or as a commentary in the issue suggests, a few more) pretty much blew my mind at the time and biosynthesis has entertained me ever since.

Anyway, we hope you like the issue. And if you have any great ideas for upcoming focus issues, we'd love to hear them!

Catherine (associate editor, Nature Chemical Biology)

Posted by Catherine Goodman at 09:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I was chatting to an old friend recently, who used to work as a research chemist for a multinational company - until she lost her job as part of a downsizing campaign. She now works for a much smaller biotech business. I knew that she had taken a while to settle down, so I asked if she’d like to go back to another global corporation.

“No way,” she said, “those companies don’t want or respect people of my age.” She’s in her mid-forties. To my mind that’s young, but she pointed out that none of her downsized colleagues of a similar age (or older) secured jobs in global companies. Yet they were snapped up by smaller businesses.

So why the apparent difference in attitude between small and big business? It seems that the smaller companies were flexible enough to make room for more experienced chemists, whereas the bigger companies, despite their greater wealth and relative security, were not. Instead, the multinationals grabbed the younger people – who were certainly highly employable, but who had lower salary expectations.

So which businesses have the right strategy? I think it might be the smaller ones. Although they’re paying more for the experienced staff than they would have done for the younger people, they expect to get a lot of bang for their bucks. If you ask me, those multinationals don’t know what they’re missing.

Andy

Andrew Mitchinson (Associate Editor, Nature)

Posted by amitchinson at 03:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

[In lieu of profiles, the contributors to this blog have decided to do their own Reactions pieces...]

1. What made you want to be a chemist?

I was a bit of a ‘late bloomer’ when it came to chemistry: I didn’t own a chemistry set when I was growing up or run reactions in my garage. And I didn’t really enjoy high school chemistry classes (though I liked that feeling you get after successfully balancing a complex chemical reaction...) But I had an amazing AP chemistry teacher in high school, so I went into college with an open mind. When I got there, I was drawn to organic and biological chemistry: I thought it was so cool that a chemist could (design and) synthesize a biologically-active organic molecule that could be used to tease apart a complex cellular process or could be developed into a drug.

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

Like Andy, I probably would have been a musician - I play drums, jazz piano, various percussion instruments, and sing a bit. (I’m trying to learn how to play guitar, but don’t think my fingers are the right length/shape - or maybe I just need to practice more?) I played in a few bands in graduate school (which really helped keep my spirits up when my chemistry wasn’t working), and I miss the feeling you get when you’re playing music with close friends in a dirty/dusty basement...

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

The simple answer is to work on an important scientific problem that isn’t being adequately addressed by other chemists - easier said than done, though... I guess an important question to constantly ask is "why am I doing this experiment/project?" As long as you know the answer to that question, then you are probably "contributing to the world at large" - if you can't think of a good/satisfying answer, maybe it's time to change projects?

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

If I had to choose a scientist, I’d probably invite Linus Pauling or RB Woodward to dinner - I’d be interested in hearing what they think about all the things scientists have discovered in the last few decades. If I could choose any historical figure, I think I’d invite Oscar Wilde or John Coltrane – I imagine Wilde would be hilarious in person and I’d love to hear Coltrane talk about music and tell stories about the jazz scene in the 50s and 60s...

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

Several years ago – I can’t remember exactly what it was, but it involved DNA glycosylases...

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

I think I’d want to bring something I’d read before/knew I liked - so I’d probably go with Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina or Eco’s Foucault's Pendulum. As for music, I don’t think I could survive if I only had a single CD - does a mix CD count? If so, I'd burn one that had the second movement of Beethoven’s 7th Symphony, John Coltrane’s Giant Steps, Dizzy Gillespie’s A Night in Tunisia, Beck’s Tropicalia, Life In A Glass House from Radiohead’s Amnesiac and/or Morning Bell from Radiohead’s Kid A, Stevie Wonder’s Superstition, and a few other tracks… (Thank goodness for iPods…)

Joshua Finkelstein is a Senior Editor for Nature and a regular contributor to the Sceptical Chymist.

Posted by Joshua Finkelstein at 05:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I was privileged to find myself having dinner with chemistry's newest Knight Bachelor (Sir Fraser Stoddart) at the Ritz Hotel last night, where we chatted about his visit to Buckingham Palace the day before - the bit where Her Majesty the Queen taps him on the shoulders with a sword. He recalled the sequence of events and the brief conversation he had with Her Majesty and has kindly agreed to share them with the readers of the Sceptical Chymist:

It all begins with Fraser being presented to Her Majesty by the Lord Chamberlain:

Lord Chamberlain: "May I present to Your Majesty, Professor Sir Fraser Stoddart, for services to chemistry and nanotology" (No, that last word is not misspelled!)

THE CEREMONY (the kneeling and sword bit)

Her Majesty: "He got that wrong, didn't he?"

Sir Fraser: "He certainly did, Your Majesty."

Her Majesty: "What should it be then, nanotechnology?"

Sir Fraser: "You've got it right, Ma'am"

Her Majesty: "It's about very small things, isn't it?

Sir Fraser: "Indeed, it's about tiny things that are 100,000 times smaller than the diameter of a human hair, Ma'am"

Her Majesty: "That's exceedingly small. You work in America now, I'm told."

Sir Fraser: "That's so, Ma'am"

After approximately 18 seconds, apparently the average amount of time each person receiving an honour spends with Her Majesty, Fraser recalled that, "At this point, she extends her right hand, and I mine for she leaves me with no choice. A strong handshake is followed by a big approving smile from Her Majesty, and I am on my merry way."

I normally try to end these posts with a witty comment, but this one speaks for itself..!

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Associate Editor, Nature Nanotechnology)

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 04:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here I am having a whale of a time at the Fraser Stoddart 65th birthday celebrations. Celebrating a birthday with science; I like it. I like it a lot. The line up of speakers is incredibly impressive. These are all people I would want to hear talk at, say, a huge meeting like the ACS. But the beauty of this conference is that you don't have to wade through 15000 abstracts to find the best speakers. They're all here, undiluted.

I wrote a news story about the festivities, but was just too late to include one of the highlights of the conference - Chad Mirkin has used his dip-pen nanolithography technique to draw Fraser's portrait in a one-molecule high layer of 16-mercaptohexadecanoic acid on a gold surface. Unfortunately I can't post pictures here, but I will update later with a link to the pic. It's well worth seeing.

UPDATE: The portrait is here

Posted by Katharine Sanderson at 08:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

1. What made you want to be a chemist?

I was a beginning pharmacy-biology major in Mexico when, on a Saturday morning, a friend asked me to help him with work related to his natural products chemistry research. Following a manual, and with his help, I set up and ran a steam distillation extraction and analyzed fractions by TLC while he was doing something else. The whole process was so absorbing and entertaining that by the time I remembered that I had something to do that afternoon, it was already well into the night. About ten hours had gone by and I was having a lot of fun. That night I realized that chemistry research doesn’t feel like work (…and I hate work).

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

I would have been an archeologist. I like history, digging, classifying and solving puzzles.

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

There are many more questions and challenges in the world today than all chemists are capable of solving. We need to attract more talent and many more resources. While it is obvious that our society does not invest enough in the creation, preservation, and distribution of knowledge, we cannot expect poorly informed societies to make a significant investment in something they do not understand. In addition to having fun at work, we could take responsibility for not having the public engaged in all aspects of chemistry, and then do something about it.

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

Leonardo Da Vinci, because he may be the most amazing human being on record.

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

About six years ago my research group started work in the area of crystalline molecular machines. The project seemed so risky that I did all the initial work. Eventually, several students took over and have done wonders with it. However, I run emission spectra under cryogenic conditions regularly. We have a 15 year old (but still very nice) setup and I am one of the few experts in my group.

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

Any book worth reading multiple times will have to be poetry. I am a Pablo Neruda and Federico Garcia Lorca fan. For the CD, I’d bring a Mandarin language course. It would be the greatest irony that, with Spanish, English, and Mandarin I could speak to a significant fraction of the world’s population, yet there would be no one to talk to. Learning Chinese would be fun and it would take a while.

Miguel Garcia-Garibay is in an organic chemist in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of California, Los Angeles and works on the development of stereoselective solvent-free synthesis and on the design and testing of crystalline molecular machines.

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 04:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A bit of a stretch for a chemistry blog, perhaps, but I couldn’t resist sharing this lovely find. The designer Makoto Tojiki has created some stunning light sculptures with a little bit of science thrown in. Well worth a look if you get a chance as they’re really quite beautiful. Pi is cited to a large number of decimal places along the side of the glowing twisted tapes that make up the sculptures, and he’s called the design ‘Archimedes dream’, apparently because Archimedes was renowned for being a bit of a visionary and ahead of his time.

In some places on the web people are saying that these sculptures are made from organic light-emitting diodes (which is what first attracted my attention). After a closer look, however, this doesn’t seem to be the case. The electroluminescent (EL) tapes appear to be a copper wire threaded through a layer of phosphor, covered in a protective plastic sheath. I’ve never seen them before, though, and I can’t locate more information than that – does anyone know which kind of phosphor is used for them? They tapes are available in a range of colours and I can think of a number of uses for them, though to be fair, most of them involve me doing my own Tony Hart impression and trying to create something artistic out of them.

Vicki

Vicki Cleave (Senior Editor, Nature Materials)

Posted by Victoria Cleave at 12:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

[In lieu of profiles, the contributors to this blog have decided to do their own Reactions pieces, and first up is Andy...]

1. What made you want to be a chemist?

I think what got me truly hooked was getting a chemistry set as a child. The very first experiment I did, I managed to blow up the reaction flask, which I’m now somewhat ashamed to admit I thought was pretty exciting. (Note to budding chemists: blowing up reaction flasks is not cool or clever).

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

In my spare time I sing with a choir - not as dull as it sounds, since we specialize in tongue-in-cheek arrangements of pop songs (which I compose) alongside the more serious stuff. So, if money was no concern, I’d like to train as a proper musician and try to make a career out of it.

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

By making useful things. I know a lot of chemists in the pharmaceutical industry who chose that career because they wanted to make something that could benefit society. Imagine being the chemist who made the first successful drug for Alzheimer’s disease – what a difference you’d have made.

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

How about Henrietta Lacks, who gave the world the first immortalized cell line (the ubiquitous HeLa cells)? She never knew that her cells made such a huge contribution to medicine and biological research, and I’d love to know what she thought about it.

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

About a year and a half ago, but I don’t recall what it was. I was an industrial synthetic organic chemist, and the company I worked for closed down my site, making about 350 people redundant. The experiment I was working on at the time didn’t stick in my mind, probably because I had other things to worry about.

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

I’d go for a couple of peculiarly British options. The book would be Behind The Scenes At The Museum by Kate Atkinson, which is a tragicomic examination of family life, written mostly from a child’s point of view. The CD would be Tropical Brainstorm, the final album from the much-underrated singer/songwriter Kirsty MacColl. (But I’d also like to take my Massive Attack CDs, especially the Blue Lines album).

Andy Mitchinson is an Associate Editor for Nature and a regular contributor to the Sceptical Chymist.

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 04:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)