1. What made you want to be a chemist?

It’s a genetically inherited condition – my father was one. When I was very young he would show me test tubes of different coloured solutions and I’d watch them change as he mixed them up. Then he would make bright pink solutions ‘disappear’ by adding colourless liquids. Who knew that acid-base chemistry could be so much fun! All this gave me a great interest – if not a great ability - in chemistry. After a degree from Nottingham, I ended up in Tuscaloosa, Alabama working in Jerry Atwood’s group. It was an outstanding training ground for supramolecular chemists and where I really felt the excitement of chemical research and discovery for the first time.

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

Fiction writer - though I doubt my family would appreciate trying to live off the proceeds. I have just started my second science book and enjoy the process enormously - but it would be a lot easier if I didn’t have to make complex molecules look good in two dimensions or hunt for appropriate papers to reference.

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

Clearly by doing what they do best – making discoveries at the molecular level which eventually make a positive impact upon everyone.

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

An alchemist - particularly one working in Rudolf II’s court in Prague. I’m fascinated by the split that occurred during the European Renaissance when analytical science emerged from alchemy/metallurgy and left the philosophical and mystical aspects behind. Paracelsus, however, would not be welcome at the table. Anyone who believes that “the true use of chemistry is to make medicines, not gold” has entirely missed the point of third stream funding in the modern university. Maybe, if I listened carefully enough, I could learn how to transmute base metals into gold and never have to write another grant proposal to fund my research. Actually, for those who are interested, the appendix to the 1709 edition of Wilson’s Chemistry contains a dozen ways to accomplish this feat.

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

I have some interesting, but unfunded, collaborations with colleagues who want samples of compounds, so a couple of days ago I cooked up a batch of oxacalix[3]arene from scratch and filtered it off yesterday. There is great satisfaction in knowing that I can still get things to work in the lab myself.

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

I ought to take Joyce’s Ulysses to read as I’m half way through right now but I doubt I’d enjoy rereading it too often. Perhaps C. P. Snow’s The New Men? No. Thomas Wharton’s Salamander – at its core is the creation of an ‘infinite book’ so it will keep me going for a while.

I’d listen to something live by the Grateful Dead (yes, that’s my tie dye T-shirt on the cover of January’s Dalton Transactions) but, as they played for hours without a break, it would be impossible to fit much on to a single CD. Instead I would load up my mp3 player with their complete four night run at the Fillmore West in 1969 and maybe some jazzier material from 1973. To fill up space I’d add some John Coltrane (the different takes of ‘India’ and ‘Spiritual’ from the Village Vanguard recordings) and a good version of J S Bach’s B minor mass played on appropriately ‘authentic’ instruments.

Peter Cragg is at the School of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences at the University of Brighton and works on artificial transmembrane ion channels as part of a wider interest in the application of supramolecular chemistry to problems in the life sciences.

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, I didn't want to disrupt the flow of the ACS entries, so I'm a bit late in telling you that our September issue has gone live. This month we've assembled articles on alternate approaches to antibiotic action and applications, an assortment of antitumor agents that associate with and antagonize mRNA-altering appliances, and also advances in the artificial assembly of antibacterial and antifungal asymmetric asterriquinones and ACP-dependent architectures.* Phew! And, in keeping with the title of this entry, the spine includes pages 517-592, so I hope you enjoy it! If not, feel free to go out and get yourself an Orange Crush (and, in case you read this wikipedia entry, be aware that I am sticking with the misconception as being much more entertaining than the truth).

* Yes, I am well aware that you may need to go look at the issue to make sense of all these silly sentences. Don't you think that's the point?

Catherine (associate editor, Nature Chemical Biology)

Posted by Catherine Goodman at 03:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted on behalf of Materials Girl:

1. Ah, physicists. Ampere! Faraday! Biot and Savant! All undoubtedly brilliant, but to what extent are chemists required to know the laws so named after those individuals? I jokingly asked a physics-inclined friend to take a midterm on my behalf, and was answered with a resounding, “I don’t remember that magnetic crap” (Eloquent, that boy...)

Physics is indisputably my worst subject. Words such as “torque”, “flux”, and “vector field” fill me with dread, while classes in other fields have caused no major crises. Although the concepts in physics are simple enough, I rarely seem to derive solutions without help. (Interestingly, my Science of Engineering Materials course was very physics tuned, but caused few difficulties). I have yet to take physical chemistry, and am deeply alarmed by my inability to conquer physics-based problem-solving – an impediment that has not been rectified with extra tutelage and homework...

To the more experienced, have you had notable problems with physics, or any other prerequisite classes to chemistry? What did you do?

2. People have labeled me insane for taking summer classes, but it is a necessity if I am to graduate in four years. On the other side, what occupies a typical graduate student during the summer? Taking classes? Researching new projects? Procrastinating on writing theses? Sleeping and relaxing? Same old, same old?

3. As far as mathematics goes, I recently finished my last final in that field: differential equations! Great class – nothing beats interesting material taught by an articulate teacher with a sense of humor.

Quoting my professor, while he was demonstrating a problem: “Oooh, I forgot t’s.” After observing multiple blackboards covered with matrices in power series expansion: “Let’s just erase it in 'e to the At' here [near the beginning]. That’s better. It still works!” If only chemistry problems could be so easily rectified! “Oh, there’s a methyl missing in my product and all the previous steps – let’s just change the initial reactants and erase a bond over here...” Or, as my favorite o-chem prof always reiterated during exams, “You may NOT put five bonds on carbon!!”

Another question. How often do differential equations present themselves in higher level chemistry? According to the chemistry catalogue, only quantum mechanics includes DEs as a prerequisite. Hmm...

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 05:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

1. What made you want to be a chemist?

In my high school chemistry class, my lab partner and I took a small scoop of every reagent from every lab experiment and placed it in a beaker, which we hid in our supply cupboard. (I don't know what came over us, and I am definitely NOT advocating this sort of behavior!) One day, the beaker began to exotherm and the lab began to fill with greenish brownish fumes. Rather than placing me in detention, my teacher required a thorough analysis of what reactions were most likely the cause of the fumes. This assignment captured my interest and made me want to become a chemist.

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

Why would I want to be anything other than a chemist? Honestly, I have no idea what I would be if I couldn't be a chemist. Probably, I'd try to do something that still allowed me to work with college students.

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

My PhD advisor, Dr. Howard Whitlock, once told me that he believes every one of us should find whatever it is that we are driven to do and pour our energy into succeeding in that area. I would add that, as chemists, we have a responsibility to focus our scientific endeavors toward problems of societal relevance. As educators, it is our responsibility to provide an encouraging learning environment and to try to combat the scientific illiteracy that is so prevalent in our culture.

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

I'd like to spend an evening with Dr Albert Schweitzer because I think I could learn a lot about how to be a better person from him. If I could meet with a fictional character, then I would probably pick Don Quixote. An evening with Quixote would surely teach me how to see the best in everyone and how to always stand up for what I believe is right (even when other people think that I am just fighting windmills!).

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

A few months ago, I added t-butyl lithium to a reaction for one of my students. This was a large-scale reaction, and the student was nervous. I have always felt that I should never ask a student to do something that I am not willing to do myself. However, I broke the syringe (never a good outcome with t-BuLi is involved!), and none of my students have asked for help since then. A few weeks ago, I purified a compound using size exclusion chromatography for a collaborator in the physics department. My students won't let me touch their compounds very often, but they still allow me to do occasional work for collaborators.

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

At first, I thought I'd bring along "How to Survive when Exiled on a Desert Island." However, I am sure that I won't be good at things like starting fires by scraping rocks together and hunting for my own food with handmade weapons. Since I'm not even sure the survival guide will be enough for me, I have decided that I will bring the bible. My best chance of survival, on a deserted island, will be through prayer.

Since no one else will be there, I'll be able to sing as loud and as off-key as I want. I'll bring along "One Fair Summer Evening" by Nanci Griffith, and I'll sing so loud the animals will figure out how to make sure someone rescues me right away.

Mary Cloninger is in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Montana State University and works on multivalent protein-carbohydrate interactions and other challenges in glycobiology and carbohydrate synthesis.

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The last day of an ACS meeting is weird. Lots of people have gone already, so the cavernous convention center starts to feel a bit empty. On top of that, everywhere you look people are dismantling all the conference stands, pulling up the carpet, and, for some reason, wrapping up displays in cling-film. It reminded me of a restaurant I went to once, where I was trying to finish my dessert but the waiters were putting their coats on and turning off the lights.

It's been a great trip, but I'm ready to go home. My abiding memories will be:

An analytical speaker, who claimed that he loved mass spectrometry, then peppered his talk with phrases like "Mass spectrometry tells lies" and "Mass spectrometry data is like having a map of hell".

Another guy describing an assay with fruitflies, in which he described the fruitfiles that couldn't learn to avoid electric shocks as 'Republicans'.

The lady who spiced up her talk by showing a picture of herself dressed as a salt cellar, with a large strawberry on her head. (There was a very good reason for this, but there's not enough space here to explain.)

So, farewell to Boston - here's hoping, like Katherine, that British Airways have some functional planes. Oh, and can the last person to leave the convention center please remember to turn the lights off?

Andy

Andrew Mitchinson (Associate editor, Nature)

Posted by amitchinson at 04:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

That's it, I'm off. I've had a great week, as ever the conference didn't fail to surprise, impress (and exasperate). All good ingredients for a productive few days. I assume the delegates were equally as productive. We'll find out in New Orleans in March, I suppose.

Hopefully I'll make it home on time - please British Airways... I am anticipating a huge welcoming committee.

Posted by Katharine Sanderson at 03:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Even though there are reportedly 14,000 people at this meeting, I'm always amazed at how small the chemistry community can be. I've bumped into lots of my ex-colleagues from when I was in industry, and they all have different stories to tell.

Some of these people are working in the pharmaceutical industry, which is having a tough time at the moment. There's a lot of anxiety about jobs, which seems particularly cruel given that some of these people have only just recovered from being made redundant elsewhere.

Still, big pharma seems to be doing a lot better than agrochemistry. A friend of mine who used to work in that area says that there are very few agrochemistry R&D presentations at this meeting, which basically reflects the state of the industry. Genetically modified crops and lower price margins have taken their toll, and the industry seems to be in real decline.

Finally, some thoughts from a process chemist. He comments that there seems to be no appreciation of environmental concerns in most of the lectures that he's seen. Green chemistry is a noble thing, but he says that the simplest way of helping the environment would be to phase out certain solvents - such as dichloromethane or benzene. At least one big pharma company will be doing this in the next few years. My friend believes that the top academic chemists should set an example by using more environment-friendly solvents, but they rarely do.

What do you think? Do the big name chemists have a responsibility to be green?

Andy

Andrew Mitchinson (Associate editor, Nature)

Posted by amitchinson at 12:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

It's the last day of the conference, a sleepy atmosphere pervades the air. Or at least my head, which has up until now been filled with worms - but you'll have to pick up a copy of Nature next week to find out why I might be investigating worms at a chemistry conference. The suspense is unbearable, I know...

I saw some talks on antibiotics today. Resistance to antibiotics has one good thing going for it, that's for sure - chemists and biochemists are always going to be in a job. Talking to Gerry Wright after his talk really brought this home - we might find a way to beat drug-resistant bacteria, but the bugs are constantly beavering away working out ways to beat us back in return.

Posted by Katharine Sanderson at 11:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There was a new session in the medicinal chemistry session today, called Hot topics in medicinal chemistry. I spoke to the session organiser, Jeff Zablocki, about the motivation for the session - he wanted to get industrial parties to come and talk about new results. This wasn't easy, he said, but he managed to pull together a session with five different companies come and talk about early results for five different drugs.

One of the talks was by Thais Sielecki, from Cytokine PharmaSciences. She was showing us new preclinical data for a type of molecule based on small molecule inhibitors of macrophage inhibitory factor, MIFs. Her impressive data showed that their orally-delivered drug could halt MS symptoms in mice, and actually show improvements in some symptoms. Sielecki told me that for a small company like Cytokine PharmSciences, a chance to present data like this is great for getting business partners. Of course there was a large chunk of data - such as the structure of the actual product - that she didn't show, but I noticed lots of furious scribbling going on in the room anyway.

It's always going to be hard to get pharma companies to disclose information, but Jim McCarthy, programme chair for the Med Chem division is planning to encourage more openness - with the introduction of a session at the next meeting for companies to make first announcements about clinical compounds in medicinal chemistry. And take up has been good so far he says. But he knows that there will never be any disclosure of new target molecules. "This is industry" he says. Intellectual property rights will always keep peoples' mouths clamped tightly shut.

Posted by Katharine Sanderson at 08:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

This week has driven me slightly insane, for a number of reasons. Included in those reasons is the vastness of the conference. We all say it, year in, year out and I've been trying to bite my lip. But really, ACS - can we have a conference that doesn't involve half-hour bus trips between venues?

Now that's off my chest let me tell you about ionic-liquid marbles. I saw some incredibly cool videos of droplets of ionic liquid being rolled in PTFE powder, and then forming marbles which are very hydrophobic and have amazing floaty properties on water surfaces. The work is being conducted by Tom McCarthy and Lichao Gao at the University of Massachusetts.

Some of the marbles they made were magnetic and could be dragged around - with potential for drug delivery. The coating of the marbles is held in place by magic. Well, actually, it is held in place by electrostatic forces (but I thought I'd inject a bit of children's storybook fantasy into this post), and this means that when an electrostatically-charged rod - rubbed on a pair of nylon trousers or something like that - is brought near the marbles, they pop! And in drug delivery this could mean them being dragged to a target using the magnet, and then being allowed to release their bounty with the stroke of a charged wand...

Posted by Katharine Sanderson at 02:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Yesterday, I popped along to hear Roald Hoffmann (again) talking at his own birthday symposium. Also there was author and neurologist Oliver Sacks, who is not a chemist, but when I met him this morning was wearing a very natty periodic table t-shirt. It was in colour, much better than my white-on-red version. Note to self - update wardrobe.

Back to the facts. Roald Hoffmann got a Nobel prize for some very clever theoretical chemistry and some rules that explain, and can be used to predict, why and how reactions proceed. But his first published paper was actually on the thermochemistry of cement. Fascinating.

Oliver Sacks has not only a periodic table t-shirt, but he told me that for the past 60 years has carried a periodic table in his wallet as well. I don't think it has been the same one all that time, because it was in very good condition. And haven't they added umpteen elements in the past 60 years.

Posted by Katharine Sanderson at 10:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Quick, hurry over to booth 434 in the exhibition hall, you still have 42 minutes to get your entry in to win an iPod so that you can listen to the Nature chemistry podcast... Hurry! The draw will be made at 11 AM.

Posted by Katharine Sanderson at 10:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As much as I've enjoyed my forays into analytical and flavour chemistry, yesterday afternoon I had a relapse and attended the Arthur C. Cope session on organic chemistry in the cathedral-sized ballroom. Actually, the cathedral analogy doesn't seem a bad one, as sometimes it does feel as if there's a certain amount of worshipping going on.

I really enjoyed this session because it had an ecelectic mix of topics. Highlights for me included Kenneth Shea's talk on how to build polyethylene molecules from single-carbon units, in a living polymerization reaction involving ylides and diazoalkanes. In this way, he's made some unusual polymers - such as chains with high steric congestion that can't be prepared using traditional methods for polyolefin preparation.

I also liked Leonard MacGillivray's presentation on solid-phase organic reactions. He co-crystallizes pairs of organic compounds to form lattices in which hydrogen-bonding aligns the molecules in a perfect orientation for reaction - specifically, photodimerization reactions between alkenes to form cyclobutanes. Because the lattice holds the molecules in very specific orientations, the stereochemistry of the process is precisely controlled.

But my favourites were Dave Macmillan and Andre Charette. Charette described his work on the preparation of chiral amines by adding organozinc reagents to N-phosphinoylimines. Now I've always been a bit dubious about dialkylzinc compounds, because they're a pain to make. But Charette has thought of this, and has developed a relatively simple way to make them from zinc methoxide - so top marks for thinking of the practicalities.

MacMillan discussed his work on SOMO-activation reactions using organocatalysis. I liked the way that he gave much of the credit for this idea to his co-worker, Teresa Beeson. His group are currently developing new reactions using SOMO-activation, so expect to see enantioselective alpha-halogenation of aldehydes, vinylation reactions, and the enentioselective alkylation of cyclic ketones (which apparently requires a completely different catalyst to the one currently published).

All in all it was a top session. The only down-side was the way that people in the audience would get up and leave as soon as the speaker they were interested in had finished. I know that people have to focus on lectures in their own fields to get the most out of these meetings, but if they'd stuck around for the whole session I think they'd have found the variety of topics refreshing and stimulating.

Andy

Andrew Mitchinson (Associate editor, Nature)

Posted by amitchinson at 08:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Like Catherine, I'm a bit behind on scientific posts - so here's a quick recap of some of the talks I attended earlier in the week.

My Sunday morning started with an excellent session on malaria/anti-malarials - Solomon Nwaka from the World Health Organization's Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases 'kicked off' the session with a broad overview that really drove home why malaria is (still) such an important disease: every 30 seconds a child dies from malaria, and the disease is responsible for more that one million deaths each year. Anti-malarial drug resistance is a huge problem (and there aren't that many new drug candidates in the pipeline), so the session focused on several academic scientists who are searching for new drug candidates. This is often done as a collaboration with Medicines for Malaria Venture, a non-profit organization created to “discover, develop and deliver new antimalarial drugs through public-private partnerships.” (For more information on public-private partnerships, click here and here).

I was only able to stay for the first half of the session, but I heard Jonathan Vennerstrom talk about synthetic peroxide anti-malarials (including this simplified analog of artemisinin) and Paul O'Neill talk about analogs of amodiaquine that were active against drug-resistant strains of malaria (click here for a recent review on 4-aminoquinoline anti-malarials).

The debate about whether or not academic scientists should try to get involved in drug discovery can get quite heated (see Derek Lowe's take on it here; you might also be interested in this NRDD 'Outlook'). Though I understand why some scientists think that academics should avoid this area of research, many pharmaceutical companies aren't willing (or able) to pursue a drug discovery program that focuses on malaria or other important, yet neglected, infectious diseases that disproportionately affect developing countries. (NITD and GSK are important exceptions to this general rule...)

So my question is if many pharmaceutical companies aren't willing/able to tackle these problems, why shouldn't academic groups give it a try?

Joshua

Joshua Finkelstein (Senior Editor, Nature)

Posted by Joshua Finkelstein at 08:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's a bit of gossip - Avogadro's constant, the one that lets you work out how much is in a mole of something, is under threat from a bunch of physicists who want to see it declassified as an absolute number, and instead tied to Planck's constant, which is altogether more complicated to explain but essentially is used in quantum mechanics to bunch things into packets, or quanta. Not very clearly explained, but I'm no physicist. Check out other definitions here and here.

The person who told me this shocking piece of news is a member of the ACS nomenclature committee. Before you all rush out and try to recalculate the number of moles in your morning coffee - don't panic. My source tells me that on a practical day to day basis, there will be no change, although explaining moles to a tenth-grader will be more difficult if the change ever makes it through.

The paper that started it all was apparently published in the journal Metrologia, by Ian Mills, although I'm having trouble tracking down the paper.

From my brief conversation, it seems that the idea is to relate Avogadro's number to Planck's constant so that the number becomes a relationship between the two numbers rather than an exact number. The grandiose phrase I heard was that this would relate Avogadro's number to the invariants of nature. What would happen in your world if suddenly you had to redefine Avogadro's number? Anything? Nothing?

Posted by Katharine Sanderson at 09:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

One of the great things about ACS meetings is the incredible breadth of topics that are covered. In my quest to learn about branches of chemistry that are unfamiliar to me, this morning I attended a session of the division of agricutural and food chemistry. To be precise, the lectures were all about interactions between taste and smell.

I've always been intrigued by flavour chemistry, and the way that the body senses chemicals and interprets them as smells and tastes. So this session was a real eye-opener. I have to say that there wasn't much that you could really describe as chemistry - not a chemical structure in sight, in fact. But here are some interesting factoids that you might be interested in.

First off, have you ever stopped to think about why some smells seem sweet or sour, when sweet and sour are tastes? Its all to do with associations in the brain. The associations become so hard-wired that if you smell something like strawberry while you're eating something sweet, then the taste becomes sweeter. And if you smell caramel while you're eating something bitter, the taste seems less bitter. Perhaps most remarkably, sweet smells can even improve your tolerance to pain.

The attention you pay to a taste can also affect your enjoyment of that taste - the more you try to analyse a flavour, the less you enjoy it. Which suggests that professional wine tasters enjoy wine less than joe public. And one final thought - if all this is true, then coffee will smell different depending on whether or not you use sugar. Speaking of which, it's time for my latest caffeine fix...

Andy

Andrew Mitchinson (Associate Editor, Nature)

Posted by amitchinson at 05:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Continuing my proud tradition of not blogging in real time at ACS meetings, here are my memories of a lovely Sunday:

I went to my first ever session in the chemical toxicology division, which was a session on zebrafish organized by Peter Dedon. Knowing a bit about his background (in DNA structure/damage/etc), it was quite a surprise to find Dr. Dedon bringing this group of people together; it turns out that the simple explanation is: scientific curiousity. How delightful.

Leonard Zon gave the first talk about using zebrafish as a model system for stem cells, some of which (that prostaglandins increase the number of stem cells in bone marrow) was recently published. In some of his new work, he's discovered a pre-cancer phenotype (a cell cluster) as well as a molecule that can reverse the clustering. As comes as no surprise, we didn't get to see the structure of the molecule.

Patricia McGrath* gave a very informative talk about zebrafish in general, and outlined some of the ways that her company can monitor what these fish are up to for screening applications. She also gave out plastic fish, to the delight of everyone except the people who arrived too late to get them. There was also randomly a plastic fish sitting next to me - hard to know whether it was there just to get information, or perhaps to protest animal testing? In any case, it made for a good neighbor.

John Stegeman gave a great talk which highlighted the importance of carefully thinking through your biological model system: he's found that there are significant differences in the cytochrome P450's in zebrafish vs. humans; this is important because these Cyp450's are the enzymes that process drugs and other foreign molecules, meaning that bioavailability and identity of any metabolites could be quite variable.

The final speaker, Jackie Lees, closed out the session by discussing cancer in fish.( Who knew??) She's discovered an interesting correlation between cancerous cells, the presence or absence of p53, and ribosomal proteins. While their initial theory was that the ribosome was just not producing p53, it seems there may be more complicated mechanisms at work.

Overall, it was a really good session. And fish (plastic or otherwise, except for the ones with electrodes in their heads) are cute.

In other chemical toxicology news, Joanne Kotz (the senior editor at Nature Chemical Biology) has organized a session in the same division on Thursday morning, focused on understanding the full scope of what drugs do, including intended and unintended interactions. If any of you are still around that day, check it out!

Finally, I need your help: I was walking out of the convention center, and passed a room labeled 'CHED - DUCK'. I glanced in and all I could see was people eating ice cream. Can anyone explain?

Catherine Goodman (associate editor, Nature Chemical Biology)

* I can't seem to find a website for either Dr. McGrath or Phylonics, the company. However, I was amused to discover that if I just searched for 'McGrath', this website was the first result. Coincidence? Or a convenient way to get rid of the test subjects?...

Posted by Catherine Goodman at 11:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I have just worked out that, since saturday afternoon, all my meals have been sandwiches for one reason or another, although I almost ate a slice of cold pizza at one point, but didn't want cheese-related nightmares so declined. I have broken the cycle now thanks to a chocolate croissant in the press room.

My mind turns to food because a major thread of this conference is the genomics of obesity. In particular I was interested to learn that human adenovirus-36, known to be the "obesity virus", has now been shown to turn stem cells into fat cells. Magdalena Pasarica at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center and Nikhil Dhurandhar from Louisiana State university, took stem cells from the fatty tissue from a bunch of liposuction patients. Half of the batch of stem cells were exposed to Ad-36, and half not. The virus-infected stem cells developed into fat cells.

So does this mean, as long as I don't get the virus, that I can happily eat my chocolate croissants without worry of becoming obese? Or am I missing the point?

Posted by Katharine Sanderson at 10:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I only have time for a quick post, but I wanted to mention a few other blogs/bloggers that are at the fall ACS meeting - most of you know that Paul and Kyle are here, but it looks like journalists from C&EN and Chemistry World are blogging from the meeting (including Carmen Drahl, who used to post at She Blinded Me with Science/who now works for C&EN...)

It also looks like Mitch (from Chemical Forums) and Eric (from Homebrew and Chemistry) are here too... Have I missed anyone? If so, please add a link to their (or your) blog in the 'comments' section of this post...

It sounds like some of these bloggers will be at John Harvard’s Brew House in Harvard Square tomorrow night. I'll try to swing by for a round (and will see if I can convince any of the other NPG editors to join me) - hope to see you there...

Joshua

Joshua Finkelstein (Senior Editor, Nature)

Posted by Joshua Finkelstein at 09:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Ah, the poster session. I like these things; they have allowed me to perfect that useful social skill of marching up to strangers, thrusting a hand out in the hope it will be shaken, and saying "Hi, I'm Katharine. Who are you?" Once in a while the tactic pays off and you learn something incredibly interesting.

Tonight's session was slightly marred, not for the first time, by the realisation that members of the press had not been issued with drinks tickets. I had experienced this at the previous ACS meeting so should have anticipated it. Instead i had to charm one of the posterees into donating one of his tickets. In return i got to learn about rotaxanes that can be stacked up to make switchable liquid crystals, in a very elegant piece of chemistry. This is the first controlled, switchable liquid crystal to be made, and no surprise that the work, done by Ivan Aprahamian (thanks for the beer Ivan) comes out of the lab of Fraser Stoddart. The work was recently published.

The poster also had a molecular carousel - an incredibly complicated molecular machine with three "axes" joined at top and bottom each holding a ring that can move up and down, independently of the other rings. Hard to describe, but a carousel, where the rings represent the galloping horses, is a good analogy.

My favourite title of the evening has to be "highly absorbing superabsorbent polymers" by Thilini Mudiyanselage, from Bowling Green State University. These are hydrogels that can absorb thousands of times their own dry weight in liquid. The lightly cross-linked 3-D polymer nets expand a lot after soaking up all that water.

As usual, a huge mix of chemistry was showcased at the poster session - from a system that gets rid of bird poo, to a poster called "Girls in science" - bet you can't guess what that was about - and try saying it without using a Muppet-esque "Pigs in Space" voice...

Posted by Katharine Sanderson at 10:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I'm an organic chemist at heart, but for this meeting I've decided to explore beyond the wonders of total synthesis. So this morning, I attended one of the analytical chemistry sessions - and it was fascinating.

I opted for a session on metabolomics. For those of you who think this sounds like a rude word, let me tell you that it's the study of metabolites as markers for disease (or at least that's one application; it's impossible to do justice to the full range of possibilities in one blog entry).

The session began with a talk by Lily Tong, from Greg Stephanopoulous' lab. They were able to identify metabolites that are upregulated in patients that die of kidney failure. In this way, they were able to devise an accurate model to predict patients at most risk from the disease. Impressive stuff.

Rima Kaddurah-Daouk described a study of plasma taken from people with schizophrenia, and showed that each of three commonly-used antipsychotic drugs produces its own pattern of lipid-metabolite perturbation. This provides further evidence of the so-called 'lipid hypothesis' of schizophrenia, which suggests that the disease is not just caused by disturbances to neurotransmitters.

And finally, the award for gross presentation of the day goes to Andy Ewing, who is using fruitflies as models to study the effects of alcohol intoxication and dependence. This involves harvesting fruitflies' heads, and we were treated to some lovely pictures of his special fruitfly-head masher in action.

It's been a while since I looked at how metabolomics is progressing, and I was impressed at how far the field has come over the last few years. And now that I know fruitflies get drunk, I'll never look at them the same way again.

Andy

Andy Mitchinson (Associate Editor, Nature)

Posted by amitchinson at 05:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I recently wrote a feature about storing hydrogen gas in incredibly porous materials (shameless bit of self promotion there, but one needs to keep the fans happy). But now I'm wondering whether I got it all wrong - a talk today by Bob Crabtree raised an interesting point - the motoring industry has an infrastructure that is all set up to revolve around liquid fuels, so why go after hydrogen as a fuel if one keeps it in the gaseous state?

Crabtree has a strategy to store hydrogen as a liquid, by using organic liquids that have readily-releasable hydrogen. In this case he has studied, both experimentally and computationally, nitrogen-containing cyclic molecules. The amount of nitrogen present can be changed so that the temperature at which hydrogen can be released is also changeable. There is much to say on this topic, I feel... but for now I must run - the monster-sized poster session is happening this evening and I'm hoping for a bit of excitement.

Posted by Katharine Sanderson at 04:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I think I've just encountered the highlight of my visit - a poetry reading by Nobel prize-winning chemist Roald Hoffmann.

Coincidentally, I've been thinking a lot about poetry lately, and how a poet can convey their thoughts. I am not brave enough to attempt to write anything other than a jaunty limerick myself, so I have a good deal of admiration for anyone who can convey a complex thought in an abstract, but senseful way.

And Hoffmann just spent an hour in the middle of a busy, bustling exhibition hall, packed full of people trying to sell mass spectrometers and the like, with a crowd of people captivated by his poems that cross from hard-core science to his childhood experience growing up in Poland during the war, to more philosphical matters. Check out the next issue of Nature's chemistry podcast, when it hits your ears in a few weeks to hear more.

Posted by Katharine Sanderson at 01:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the drug store, but that's just peanuts to space.

This Douglas Adams quote was one of the first things that popped into my head when I entered the Boston Convention & Exhibition Center. Simply put, the building is huge: "516,000 square feet of contiguous exhibit space" with "3 exhibition halls each ranging in size from 162,000 to 184,000 square feet."

After looking at the floorplan, I realized that it would be pretty tough to rapidly hop from session to session - the convention center has two skybridges that you need to use if you're moving from the west side of the building to the east side of the building, so it can take 10 to 15 minutes to get from one session to another. This must be why the refrigerator in the press office was packed full of bottles of Gatorade/Powerade...

The first day of the ACS was great (more about the science in my next post), but I've yet to find a good place to grab coffee that doesn't have a huge line at all hours of the day - on my way to the afternoon session I saw people crowded around a table containing snacks and coffee. Alas, the giant drum of coffee was decaf! I saw another table further down the corridor, but it too contained only decaf coffee. Oh cruel world, why must you mock me so?

Joshua

Joshua Finkelstein (Senior Editor, Nature)

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

So, here I am , gathering news for Nature. Like Andy, I had a less-than smooth arrival, after being unceremoniously bumped off my flight last night. But here I am, a day late and raring to go.

I'll be blogging mainly on the news@nature.com site, so check back to get the latest from the conference floor...

Posted by Katharine Sanderson at 03:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

People often say to me that travelling must be one of the perks of the job, but, oh boy, there are times when I beg to differ. I tried so hard to check-in online, but the British Airways system kept chucking me out. So I tried to use the electronic check-in kiosks at Heathrow airport, but after queuing for 30 minutes, the machine refused to give me a boarding pass. I was told to join a nearby queue for the actual check-in desks, where I waited for an hour, before being told that, actually, it was the wrong queue.

When I eventually got my boarding pass, I then had to stand in front of an x-ray machine in security, striking different poses (turn to the left, hands in the air, turn to the right, hands down...) I know security is important in these troubled times, but I couldn't help thinking that they were just making me dance the Timewarp in slow motion, and taking pictures of me in my underwear with their x-ray camera. I imagine the images will be on YouTube by now.

The plane was late, and once we'd boarded, we were told we'd have to wait for an hour for a take-off slot. Eventually we trundled to the runway, whereupon the plane immediately turned around and went back to the gate, because a passenger had taken ill. The stricken passenger was removed, and we had to wait for his luggage to be located in the hold and removed. Then the plane had to be re-fuelled, and we waited for another take-off slot. After three hours on the plane, we finally took off.

It could have been worse; some of my friends from the Royal Society of Chemistry had their flight to Boston cancelled. And at least I didn't have to watch any films about penguins this time.

Thanks for letting me get that off my chest - on with the ACS meeting...

Andy

Andrew Mitchinson (Associate Editor, Nature)

Posted by amitchinson at 12:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, the fall ACS meeting is nearly here - a few NPG editors will be attending the meeting (including myself), so don't forget to check back for daily updates...

I also wanted to mention that we've put together another special issue of Nature that will be distributed at the meeting - in this week's issue, there's a News Feature on metal-organic frameworks and several papers:

- Structure-based activity prediction for an enzyme of unknown function by Hermann et al. (click here for the News & Views)
- Vitrification of a monatomic metallic liquid by Bhat et al. (click here for the News & Views)
- A transglutaminase homologue as a condensation catalyst in antibiotic assembly lines by Fortin et al. (click here for the News & Views)
- Selection and evolution of enzymes from a partially randomized non-catalytic scaffold by Seelig & Szostak (click here for the News & Views)

If you're going to be at the meeting, don't forget to swing by the NPG booth (booth #434) to pick up free issues of Nature, Nature Chemical Biology, Nature Materials, Nature Methods, Nature Nanotechnology, and Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

And last (but certainly not least), Paul thinks we should meet for "[d]rinks or dinner at a neutral location" - depending on where and when it is, I'll try to swing by (and bring along a few of the other editors...) Hope to see you there!

Joshua

Joshua Finkelstein (Senior Editor, Nature)

Posted by Joshua Finkelstein at 03:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

1. What made you want to be a chemist?

When I was in high school in India, I wanted to be a physicist. Because, I thought, physics is logical. But, I did not score that well in physics in my high school finals. In the college that I was interested in attending, the faculty were more interested in admitting me in chemistry, because I scored very high in chemistry. I was okay with it, because of the possibility of doing physical chemistry. During the process, I had to take organic chemistry. I had a couple of great O-Chem teachers and I fell in love with the subject. I also recognized that this subject is likely to have a greater impact in people's lives than any other. Therefore, I decided to pursue research in organic chemistry as my career.

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

A business consultant. When I was interviewing for my jobs, a friend of mine at Caltech dragged me to a presentation by a business consulting company. This friend then convinced me to apply for an interview. I did not even know how stocks and bonds worked (I still don't!). When I went through the interview process, I thought the exercise was very interesting. However, I did not pursue this much, because I did not think that I would be happy with it in the long-run.

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

I think we owe it to the world to pick a problem that is of true societal interest. The current system leads us in to a mode of being a bit publication-crazy!! This is unfortunate!

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

President Abdul Kalam, the past President of India. When I visited India during his presidency, I realized that he was the most influential president that modern India had. He truly transcended all the barriers that humans seem to build around them. Here is a Muslim man, who is a scientist, in a Hindu-majority country just captured the hearts of everyone. Most of the country wanted him to continue as a president. He walked away from it without regrets mentioning that he would like to spend time teaching.

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

Five years ago! I did a simple alkylation experiment to build a dendrimer; did not purify the molecule myself. Handed it over to my postdoctoral associate who was working on the project.

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

ArdhaShastra - Indian classic - never read it so far, always wanted to!
mp3 CD with the maximum number of classical songs in my native language, Tamil.

S. Thayumanavan (Thai) is in the Department of Chemistry at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and works on the design and synthesis of macromolecules of interest at the interface of chemistry with materials science and biology.

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 05:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Although it could be argued that the most controversial summer signing is that of a certain Argentine footballer - who moved north from a smallish team in east London to the greatest football club on the planet – it may not be the most significant.

Northwestern University, recently dubbed ‘Nano U’, has also been dabbling in the transfer market this summer (not for footballers, however) and has recruited Fraser Stoddart, currently a professor of chemistry at UCLA and the director of the California NanoSystems Institute.

Obviously, Chicago is his kind of town...

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Associate Editor, Nature Nanotechnology)

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 04:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Controversies about the preparation of heavy elements are nothing new. While browsing through a 50-year-old issue of Nature, I came across a report describing the preparation of element-102 (Nature subscribers can see the report here). This described a multinational effort performed at The Nobel Institute of Physics, Stockholm, in which curium atoms were fused with carbon-13 atoms. The new element was named ‘Nobelium’ in honour of its place of birth.

Unfortunately, they were wrong. A year later, in 1958, the physicist Albert Ghiorso and his colleagues at Berkeley unambiguously identified nobelium-254 (the product of bombarding curium with carbon-12). They decided to retain the name of the new element - otherwise I suppose it might have become ‘Ghiorsium’, which somehow isn’t quite the same.

Speaking of dubious elements, I also recently stumbled across a spoof version of the periodic table (it comes in three parts: click here, here and here to see each section), which is worth a look if you fancy a break from the bench. This came from a BBC TV programme called ‘Look Around You’, which made fun of school science programmes from the 1970s. The rest of the web site is worth a look too – there are a few quizzes you can do, including one on iron. The answer to the question “The human body contains enough iron to make what?” was particularly illuminating.

Andy

Andrew Mitchinson (Associate Editor, Nature)

Posted by amitchinson at 12:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

It's now official.

As Josh mentioned a couple of days ago, Nature Chemistry is coming...

The press release can be found here.

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Associate Editor, Nature Nanotechnology)

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 10:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted on behalf of Materials Girl:

Inspired by Mushy's recent post, as well as classes with presentations that put students to sleep... PowerPoint does not (necessarily) equal lecture!

Well, at least from the perspective of a professor communicating to students. Staring at slides, no matter how well-made, has never allowed material to absorb into my brain as well as the traditional ‘chalk-talk’. Technology allows for the creation of wonderful things, but even the effectiveness of the best, most beautiful slide pales in comparison to a blackboard under the spell of an eloquent, but chalky, professor.

For scientific presentations in general, audiences are not likely expected to explicitly learn the material and to be tested in the horrifyingly near future. Hence, I presume that slides are (typically) superior in those situations - especially if made following Mushy’s guidelines.

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 04:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Steve Ley's latest total synthesis triumph is a whopper - the 22-year, 64-step synthesis of azadirachtin. Nature's news story attempted to tackle the subject of total synthesis as a whole, and see where it might be headed, as there are many mutterings, in quiet corridors, that the field is not what it once was. The article has prompted some discussion on Derek Lowe's blog, whereas synthesis fans can get their azadirachtin fix over at Totally Synthetic.

Reactions on the piece have dribbled into my ears with opinion falling strongly on both the pro- and anti- total synthesis sides. It would be interesting to hear what others think... I might add that the motivation for the news piece was not to rubbish the field, rather to explore a geniune debate within the community.

Posted by Katharine Sanderson at 08:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted on behalf of Mushy:

The flippant answer is this: I do.

The proper answer deserves perhaps a little more discussion.

When I finished my PhD, as I have discussed previously, I spent quite a while holidaying on the state*. During this time, one of my thoughts was that I could set up my own business making presentations for academics. I looked into this matter pretty seriously. Armed with a copy of ChemDraw, and another of PowerPoint, I had the building blocks of my empire and eventual happy oligarchy. It was not to be. When I started looking for a market for a professional slide-maker, I was quite surprised to find out that no such market existed. I was even more surprised to find that there was no appetite for this market.

During the years of my studies, I was forced to sit through infinite interminable lectures given by speakers both in-house, and external. Although some were splendid, in most cases it never ceased to amaze me that people so meticulous and caring over their chemistry could be so slapdash when it came to communicating it to their peers. To me, this negligence was to miss the whole purpose of science. What point is there in carrying out research if its eventual communication is carried out in such a manner as to make it inaccessible?

Although I was lucky to work in a field which lent itself to the aesthetic, there are tips which apply to any presentation given in any field of science.

Tell a story. In most cases, you have 45-50 minutes to introduce yourself and your field to an audience of strangers. Ask yourself what you want to say, and how best to say it. Presenting 45 minutes of results tables—although impressive in its own right—does not make a good talk. It will, however, make a good paper (see below). If you can use the time of your presence to capture the imagination of your audience, they'll go and read the paper themselves after you've left.

Less really is more. Of the many hundreds of slides which I produced, the one which I remember having the most impact was in a group literature review meeting. After waxing on about a field of chemistry too obscure to remember, I segued into a slide with the line "So what use is this work?" I then removed the old acetate, and replaced it with a completely blank one. I think that made the point fairly well. Although an extreme example, it got me thinking how easy it is to camouflage a great result with unnecessary text on a slide. If a slide is cluttered with paragraphs of 10-point font writing, it's easy for your audience to miss-or to misunderstand-what you're trying to tell them.

Papers are not presentations. When people read a paper in a journal, all they are doing at that time is reading. There's nothing to get in the way of that activity, and we can do it well. To create a successful presentation, different considerations need to be borne in mind. Humans—especially males—are only really good at concentrating on one thing at a time. If you want someone to concentrate on what you're saying, have little to nothing on the screen. Conversely, if you want a person to concentrate on the screen, say little to nothing. Both tactics are hard to grasp, and quite daring to pull off successfully, but can be extremely successful.

Think about fonts. Although seemingly trivial, the font in which your presentation appears can have a huge impact. Much has been written on font choice, although a good rule of thumb is this. Serif fonts—such as Times and Palatino—work well from a printed page. For viewing from a screen or projector, sans serif fonts—such as Verdana and Arial—are particularly well suited.

A picture is worth 1000 words. But if you don't have a picture, please don't substitute it with 1000 words instead. There's few things worse than spending 45 minutes of your life reading spectacularly wordy slides whilst the lecturer reads them verbatim. Written prose differs spectacularly from the spoken word in its construction, so don't try and orate a sentence which looks good on paper, and vice versa.

That's enough preaching for now. If anyone is interested in any of this, leave a comment, and I can write more. Failing that, if you think I'm writing a load of old tosh, then I'm more than happy to hear your views also.

- Mushy

*Unemployed

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 04:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

It's been ages since I've posted, but I saw this news this morning and thought it'd be worth mentioning on the blog - the board of directors recently decided to continue Nature Publishing Group's foray into the chemical sciences, and has just announced that it is searching for a Chief Editor to launch Nature Chemistry:

Alongside the highest-quality original research, Nature Chemistry will cover news, commentary and analysis from and for the chemistry community, as well as striving to develop a voice that chemists care about. We require a dynamic Chief Editor who is able to develop, launch and establish Nature Chemistry as the essential publication for the chemistry community. The role will be based in NPG's Boston office.

Applicants must have a strong track record of research in a related discipline, as well as significant editorial and/or senior research experience. They must demonstrate a good understanding of the challenges faced by researchers in both academia and industry. This is a demanding and extremely stimulating role, which calls for a keen interest in the practice and communication of science. The successful candidate will therefore be dynamic, motivated and outgoing, and must possess excellent interpersonal skills. Applicants should include a covering letter stating their suitability for this post, as well as their salary expectations, a current CV and a statement (maximum 1500 words) that encapsulates their vision for the content, competitive position and longer-term development of Nature Chemistry.

Applications are due in a few weeks, so don't forget to mark your calendars if you're interested in this position... And best of luck to you if you decide to apply!

Joshua

Joshua Finkelstein (Senior Editor, Nature)

Posted by Joshua Finkelstein at 11:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

[Editor's note: another guest blogger has joined our team...]

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

Posted on behalf of Materials Girl:

Writing here makes me feel like a freshman all over again. Only, this time, I’m rather giddy with excitement. (My actual first-year experience involved enjoying the change in scenery, staying cool, and “just chillin” – despite getting lost at 7 am in the maze of dusky hallways that constitute the math building, all on my first day of class). However, I digress - a frequent occurrence in my case. The downfall of an active mind is a proclivity for becoming distracted, notably with what I’m not actually supposed to be doing... At the moment, the word “homework” seems to be flashing in the back of my mind in blinding red font.

So, why am I writing on a chemistry-related blog? The title should explain enough... References to Madonna notwithstanding, “Materials Girl” describes who I am in the academic community: a 3rd-year undergraduate female majoring in chemistry/materials science, with an organic concentration.* Any ramblings here will chronicle my random thoughts in relation to chemistry, “however tenuous”, in my passage through all things chemistry, the education system, and beyond.

Where does the journey begin? More precisely, which parts matter? In high school/community college, I learned to play with Bunsen burners, mix pretty-colored chemical solutions, and overall skate my way through chem with A’s. “Real university” o-chem began the wakeup call (and the descent of my precious GPA). However, I stayed afloat and gradually learned to balance a love/hate relationship with the subject I’d begun studying by default: chemistry! Second year, fall quarter, I unsuspectingly enrolled in an adjunct seminar to my inorganic chemistry course.* From that, I become entranced in “It’s a Materials World”, and discovered that learning about the practical application of materials intrigued me more than other branches of chemistry. On the basis of a particularly good lecture, I impulsively petitioned to shift majors from pure chemistry to chemistry/materials science.

I have yet to regret that choice (notably since I no longer am required to take ANY biochem – some of the most dreaded courses ever taken by those outside the major*)... Granted, I haven’t reached the heaviest classes of my new major yet, but any difficulties in material should be overruled by the joy of learning, right? We shall see how everything fares, especially with the upcoming fall quarter.*

So many thoughts, so little space and time! It’s long past midnight and my summer classes’ homework calls.* Before stopping myself from babbling off again, I would like to thank the editors of the Sceptical Chymist for offering me what my older brother calls “a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, especially for a mere undergrad.” (As if he isn’t “merely” an undergraduate at Caltech). It is with greatest anticipation and honor that I make my first post.

*more on that in a later post

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 10:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

1. What made you want to be a chemist?

My undergraduate research experience. I grew up using computers, enjoyed the challenges of the sciences, and was raised in a creative (i.e., musical) environment. It all seemed to all come together when I started to perform research.

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

The head groundskeeper of Wrigley Field (the home and 'shrine' of the Chicago Cubs major league baseball team). A perfect mix of history, sports, escapism, and attention to detail.

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

Through teaching. Enthusiasm is contagious and we have an opportunity to instil an interest in such a central science for a lifetime.

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

To be honest, each grandfather in each generation of my family. I imagine I would get quite astounding insights. From a more 'historical' standpoint, Winston Churchill. A strong believer and an effective leader during relatively modern and very difficult times.

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

I only trust my graduate and undergraduate students to find themselves around in the synthetic lab. I continue to enjoy the thrill of determining the structure of a solid for the first time.

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

Book: Shoeless Joe by W. P. Kinsella (basis for the movie 'Field of Dreams'). Having lived in Iowa, my home is beginning to look like the house in the movie!

CD: 'Changes in Latitudes, Changes in Attitudes' by Jimmy Buffett (featuring 'Margaritaville').

Len MacGillivray is in the Department of Chemistry at the University of Iowa and works on research in the field of supramolecular chemistry, particularly as it relates to the organic solid state.

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

In the interest of getting chemists involved in the current phenomenon of reality TV, I have a few ideas of new shows that some silly network can use (although, on the off chance that they do, I'm claiming rights...*)

Idea #2: Along the lines of American Idol, graduate students would get to compete to become America's favorite Ph.D.** We would start with an incoming class at some prestigious university (or at least, one that is willing to have a reality show determine who graduates?!). Then the students would have to face certain challenges, like completing oral exams or giving a seminar to the department, followed by an audience vote to determine who failed (and thus, gets kicked out of the program, or perhaps sent to the Masters' track). Depending on how squeamish the school is, or how scientifically-illiterate the audience is expected to be, the relevant professors could perhaps pick a subset of the students to be voted on to help weed out the worst students. In the weeks (or months?) when there aren't any elimination competitions, the students could compete for prizes, like who gets first choice of graduate advisor, or who gets to keep the office they had as a TA. The final student would win... a professorship somewhere? The postdoc of their choice? A 30-city tour to present their thesis? Ok, some of the details aren't quite fleshed out...

What I think would be really interesting is that, with an audience vote, the best scientists are by no means guaranteed to succeed, as the stereotypical ideas of what a 'good' (or 'smart', etc - insert random complimentary word here) scientist does (such as reading a lot, and working hard in the lab) would not make for interesting TV.*** Thus, there would definitely be an element of strategy on top of the science - how do you engage an audience and get them to vote for you? In my mind, it somewhat relates to currently existing questions about how scientists are evaluated - what are we recognizing/rewarding, and what should we be rewarding? Well, perhaps that's another show in the making...

Catherine (associate editor, Nature Chemical Biology)

* In all fairness, this is really an idea that arose in grad school, so my two friends would get in on the rights as well.
** And, kudos to Propter Doc, who suggested a similar idea in response to my last post. In fact, given the timing of graduate school vs. postdoc appointments, his/her idea may work better in practice...
*** I think a similar problem would also apply with Propter Doc's idea (of a professor picking his Next Top Postdoc), as working hard unfortunately doesn't always equate with getting good results, etc.

Posted by Catherine Goodman at 04:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Big news, everyone! The website for our next symposium (Feb 22-23, in NYC) is now up and running, and those of you with any interest in chemical neurobiology (or chemical biology in general) should check out the program and/or register (because, while we will have more space than last year, we do anticipate that the spots will go quickly).

One thing that's been interesting to notice in the meetings I've attended this year is the specific pronunciation of some scientific words. Some distinctions are more obvious than others, or can be more clearly traced to one group of people:

Ligand - pronounced 'lih-gand' by chemists and 'lie-gand' by biologists (in my experience, anyway)

Chromatography - my analytical professor in grad school took great delight in mocking the American pronunciation of 'chroma-TAW-graphy' as compared to his British version of 'chro-MA-TA-graphy'

but the origin of the differences between other pronunciations seem more subtle. For example:

Artemisinin - can be pronounced 'AR-temisinin' or 'arte-MIS-inin'

Sonogashira - I am more familiar with 'so-NAH-gashira' but recently heard 'so-NO-gashira'

For many of the words in this second group, it seems that the pronunciations used must be closely tied with where a scientist received their training on the topic. It makes me think that an ambitious linguist would be able to determine many people's scientific pedigree without prior knowledge of their training. Although, whether the end result would be of any interest is a separate question?? Perhaps it's better to call the whole thing off.

Catherine (associate editor, Nature Chemical Biology)

Posted by Catherine Goodman at 04:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

1. What made you want to be a chemist?

I wish I could answer with some inspiring tale of conducting clandestine experiments as a child, but that really was not the case. The British educational system imposed some serious constraints on 16-year olds when I was deciding on A-level subjects, and chemistry was one of the three I chose. By university I was pretty convinced that it was interesting, and by the end of my undergraduate days, with some research experiences under my belt, I was hooked. I still think it's quite a privilege to be able to make a living designing and building new molecules. A few of my students appear to agree.

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

In the US, where I've lived and worked for the past eight years, politicians are, in the main, an even more annoying breed than in the UK. Nothing seems to happen in Washington without the heavy involvement of lobbyists and their, principally corporate, backers. If I could dream up a job that I think is important, and while I'm at it dream up a new political structure that could support its existence, I'd delight in getting politicians to talk to real scientists about real science, and then act sensibly on what they've learned. The disdain in which science is held by the majority of politicians in this country, at least as revealed by their public pronouncements, is incredibly depressing and damaging. Politics and politicians are here to stay so a viable role in opening their minds, even a fraction, would be immensely rewarding.

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

I'll be deeply unoriginal, and go with sustainability. There seems to me to be no more pressing issue for the current generation of chemists than finding ways to make the materials we need in a sustainable manner. I'll go a step further and throw energy in too. The R&D budgets in these areas need to be orders of magnitude higher than at present. Chemists will be at the center of the required efforts to develop benign technologies for synthesis, and energy management.

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

I grew up not far from Stonehenge and I remain, like many, fascinated by the place. So, while I don't have an actual name, can I say "whomever it was who came up with the idea of erecting Stonehenge". The place must have been someone's idea, and they were able to initiate this astonishing construction project. Whomever this was could surely teach our current leaders some fascinating lessons, and I'd keep the information flowing by serving up hunks of my mother's bread and butter pudding.

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

Today. Call me a geek. I'm trying to prepare a relatively simple, symmetrical, diester. Results pending.

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

I'll assume I'll be there for a while, so I'd need a challenge. The most beautifully written, yet torturously plotted, book I've ever read is The Quincunx by Charles Palliser. The final line of the book made it clear to me that I hadn't made complete sense of the preceding 800-odd pages, nor the relationships connecting the huge cast of characters. It's an astonishing book, and would keep me busy for years. While I build a CD player. Or can I assume I have one already? Assuming I do have the requisite player, I'll go with something quite new, but in many ways utterly timeless" "Rabbit Songs" by Hem. Never heard of it, have you?

Darren Hamilton is in the Department of Chemistry at Mount Holyoke College (Massachusetts, USA) and works on a variety of problems in the area of molecular recognition and supramolecular chemistry.

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 04:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

In the interest of getting chemists involved in the current phenomenon of reality TV, I have a few ideas of new shows that some silly network can use (although, on the off chance that they do, I'm claiming rights...)

Idea #1: Along the lines of Iron Chef (or really any competition show), there should be a chemistry showdown. Each chemist would be given a lump of coal and all the reagents, catalysts, glassware, etc. they want. Then, the first person who can get an NMR of a target molecule wins a prize. (A postdoc fellowship? Travel reimbursement for that conference in Greece? The use of a grant writer for that next R01? An R01?? (Maybe that's the grand prize)) Of course, the molecule can't be too complicated, as otherwise the show would potentially never end. The show could feature theme weeks, where instead of having eel or artichoke as the ingredient you must include, the chemists would be given morpholine, or undecanoic acid, or julolidine hydrobromide and have to work those molecules into the final product somehow. Alternatively, again given a certain starting molecule, the chemists could create as many distinct molecules as possible within a given time limit.

I think this would allow returning chemists to develop a big following, as viewers would get to know the chemists and what their preferences are for reactions and reagents (such as 'oh, he's reaching again for the osmium tetroxide! He does love to oxidize things.' or 'It looks like... yes! She is doing a Michael addition. What a clever use of the double bond.' ...)

What do you guys think? Would you watch?

Catherine (associate editor, Nature Chemical Biology)

Posted by Catherine Goodman at 10:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

In the August issue of Nature Methods, which just came out on Monday, we have an exciting and decidedly chemistry-based paper from Werner Nau and colleagues at Jacobs University Bremen in Germany (and it even made the cover!). The authors describe a new concept for enzyme assays using a macrocycle as a receptor for a fluorescent dye and for an enzyme product. When the enzyme arrives on the scene and begins converting the substrate (which does not interact with the macrocycle) to product, the product starts displacing the fluorescent dye from the macrocycle, causing a switch-on in fluorescence. Of course, the macrocycle and dye need to be carefully chosen for each application such that the dye is out-competed by the enzyme product, but once a suitable pair is found, it provides a simple and convenient readout for enzyme activity.

Check it out!

Also of interest: a Review on caged compounds and their application in living cells and an Article describing a rapid method for detecting infectious scrapie prion protein.

Posted by Allison Doerr at 01:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)