« January 2008 | Main | March 2008 »
Just in case you hadn't spotted this (among other naturejob listings), Nature Chemical Biology is looking for a locum (temporary) editor. All the details are here - the most important one, perhaps, being the deadline of March 17th. The only down side is that you'd have to put up with my dumb jokes all day long...
Catherine (associate editor, Nature Chemical Biology)
1. What made you want to be a chemist?
When I was twelve years old, I reasoned that if I only knew what matter was made of, I would understand “Life, the Universe, and Everything”. Chemistry not only seemed to provide an answer to this big question but, luckily, the recipes to make fun explosives.
2. If you weren’t a chemist and could do any other job, what would it be - and why?
I guess being an artist would be an attractive alternative although I think I lack talent. Both the art that artists can create and the molecules that chemists can make, are truly novel.
3. How can chemists best contribute to the world at large?
Chemistry is different from biology and physics in that it creates new things. Chemistry has changed the world with the invention of new molecules and reactions. Just consider antibiotics, the discovery of nuclear fission, the polymerase chain reaction, cracking or the industrial synthesis of ammonia. All these achievements and many others had a profound impact on the world. The next big challenge for chemists is just around the corner: Solving the energy problem of our planet!
4. Which historical figure would you most like to have dinner with - and why?
Emil Fischer, a master of chemical intuition and an organic synthesis genius. I wonder why and how he was so much ahead of his time.
5. When was the last time you did an experiment in the lab - and what was it?
In 2004 I had a relatively small group, but was convinced a certain molecule would be a good catalyst. It was Easter Sunday; nobody was in the lab and so I made it myself. It involved a Grignard reaction and an acetalization. Unfortunately, the catalyst was pretty much inactive…
6. If exiled on a desert island, what one book and one CD would you take with you?
B.K.S. Iyengars’s “Light on Yoga” and Bach’s St. Matthew Passion.
Ben List is in the Department of Homogenous Catalysis at the Max-Planck-Institut für Kohlenforschung, Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany, and develops new concepts for catalysis.
Posted on behalf of the Prospective Professor
When I started the process of finding a job, I assumed that the most challenging aspect would be the endless grilling during the interviews. I imagined that during my individual meetings with faculty members they would challenge my basic chemistry and biology knowledge, test me on my familiarity with their work and just generally attempt to check the integrity of my fundamental scientific knowledge. I expected that the proposal defense seminar (or “chalk talk”) would be filled with impossible questions, many that could only warrant the answer, “That’s an interesting question, I will have to look into that” (read as, I have NO idea).
I’m happy to report that the experience was nothing like this. People were excited to meet me and tell me about their department. Most started the meeting by saying, “Do you have any questions about our department that I could answer for you?” It was in less than 50% of the cases that we actually got around to talking about science. And while I wouldn’t call the “chalk talks” easy, I can honestly say that it was only on the rare occasion when I didn’t have an answer to a question or that I felt that people were “testing” me instead of being genuinely curious about my ideas.
It turns out that despite the huge amount of concern I poured into the interviews, I hadn’t recognized what would be the most challenging aspect of the job hunt: Deciding which job to accept.
There are so many factors to consider ranging from the quality and number of grad students, to instrumentation availability and collegiality of the faculty. I have to take into account the start-up and salary offers, teaching requirements, fundability of the institution, space availability, and the mission of the department. Next, I must decide if a chemistry department, biochemistry department or medical school would best fulfill all of my needs. And this is before I start to ponder the more personal issues such as location, cost of living, and personal relationships. How do I weigh each of these issues so that they are represented adequately in my final choice?
...
If I knew the answer to this question, I would have already made my decision!
Posted on behalf of Retread
Much of the training of budding neurologists in the 60s was concerned with how to perform a good neurological exam and interpret the results. Various constellations of abnormalities pointed to different regions of the nervous system and the history often told us what sort of trouble was present there. Essentially we were inferring abnormalities of structure from abnormalities of function.
Why not just look? We had only two ways to do so back then (1) sticking a needle in an artery and injecting a dye which X-rays couldn't pass through (radio-opaque dyes – if you don't already know what they are, think of what you'd want to synthesize) – this had a 1–5 % stroke rate at the time (2) injecting air via a spinal tap and taking X-rays subsequently (I'm not kidding).
The advent of computerized axial tomography (CAT scans) and MRIs (magnetic resonance imaging) changed all that. We were able to directly look at structure without a decent exam. Not only that – problems could be picked up before they produced changes in function (e.g., earlier).
Naturally, neurologists were panicked, thinking that we would soon become the buggy whip manufacturers of medicine. Somehow, telling my colleagues that MRIs showed the essential correctness of quantum mechanics didn't help, producing only blank stares and decreased referrals.
Telling the man in the street that spectroscopy alone shows the correctness of quantum mechanics (sharp absorption and emission lines show that only certain energies of molecules and transitions between them are permissible) just doesn't cut it. But everybody knows what an MRI is.
Forget the wave nature of light (for today). Think of photons as baseballs travelling at various speeds (I know, light has but one speed and its frequency determines its energy just as the speed of a baseball determines its kinetic energy). Throw the baseball at a window. If you throw it fast enough (high kinetic energy) it goes through, if you throw it slowly it doesn't. Everybody knows that.
Not so with the light used for MRI. They are radiowaves and contain around one millionth of the energy of visible light, yet they go right through our skull and brain rather than bouncing back. Why? The only way we can get them absorbed by our brains is to place ourselves in a strong magnetic field in the scanner. The magnetic field essentially creates two new energy levels so close together in energy that the tiny energy difference between them matches the energy of the radiowave permitting it to be absorbed. Without absorption, no pictures. Certainly counterintuitive, but used every day all over the world. Quantum mechanics rules (but weirdly).
Retread
I'm sure that some of you may have noticed that the signature to my Friday post on 'Reactions' finally had a link in it to Nature Chemistry.
This is the first incarnation of the Nature Chemistry website and just covers the basics at this point. It will be fleshed out with a lot more details in a couple of months' time, but at least you can now see the colour...
Stuart
Stuart Cantrill (Chief Editor, Nature Chemistry)
Posted on behalf of the Rookie Rocky
I still remember most research institutions that I interviewed with told me that my job would be 40% teaching, 40% research, and 20% service. What they did not manage to convey though, is that actually another 200% of the job for a junior faculty member goes to grant writing. A perfect example is this, the second semester in my rookie year as an assistant professor: I am off teaching duty. However, if you think I have one more free minute than last year, think again. Actually, don’t think again - I don’t have time to wait, because another grant is due tomorrow!
The reason for my long absence from the Sceptical Chymist is purely because my time is almost all caught up by non-stop grant writing, revising, re-writing, and submitting in the never-ending grant application cycle. As most starting academics do not have large amounts of external support (this may have started changing, as some lucky ones do have a significant amount), junior faculty members tend to apply for everything they can find because (1) the competition is so keen, and you never know whether your proposal might wow a particular group of reviewers, and (2) the amount of such support usually is relatively small. Thus, even if you get some grants funded, each one does not help that much in paying your bills. This results in many short proposals built on similar ideas with only slightly twisted applications or directions. On the top of that, the effort to put together even one of these small grants is extensive. I’m not sure what people with larger groups do; in a public school like mine, I have to collect over twenty different forms and files for a small grant application, including a budget, justification, CVs, letters, research plans, approvals…etc., etc. You keep navigating among ten different offices on campus and talking with people who are in charge of contracts, IP, safety, budgets... Toward the end, getting the grant out of the door becomes the only goal. Is there anything else that makes you feel better than finally sending these 100-page paperweights that you have read and modified a hundred times to someone else and making it his/her burden?
…
Well, getting a phone call saying your effort actually paid off would definitely be better. Keeping my fingers crossed...
This is just a quick blog to mention a thought-provoking article that Peter Murray-Rust wrote for Nature recently, which discusses chemists' contributions to open-access data and software. The article is now available for free, for a limited period of a month - so if you haven't seen it, click here to have a look.
I'd love to hear your thoughts about this - do you agree with Peter that all chemistry data and software should be open access?
Andy
Andrew Mitchinson (Associate Editor, Nature)
As you will have noticed, today is Friday, and that brings with it a new Reactions piece to the Sceptical Chymist – but this one will be slightly different to the previous 52. That’s right, we’ve racked up a whole year’s worth, and so 'Reactions' is celebrating its first birthday!
Apart from finding out what people would want to be if not chemists, one of my favourite things is finding out who they would invite to dinner. A quick survey of the last year shows that the most popular dinner guest is Leonardo da Vinci (with 5 votes). Following on closely is Jesus (4 votes), then Feynman, Einstein, Darwin and Mozart were popular choices (each with 3 votes). Isaac Newton and Nelson Mandela were each picked twice and it’s worth noting that a few US presidents made the cut, John Adams and Abraham Lincoln – and although nobody thought to invite John F. Kennedy, his brother Robert was. Have a surf through the older entries – it’s quite interesting. I would suggest that the strangest choice was made by Mark Green...
So, at this point, I want to ask you – the readers – some questions. Please leave your responses as comments to this post, and I encourage all of you to join in.
Should the questions change?
'Reactions' will continue, but we wonder if some of the questions are wearing a bit thin at this point – our least favourite is probably number 3, ‘how can chemists best contribute to the world at large?’ because most people say the same sort of things... Of the other questions we currently use, are there some that you really like (or dislike) and if so, why? Do you have suggestions for other questions that you would like to see us asking?
Who would you like to see featured?
As has been commented on, it’s obvious that there are a lot more male than female chemists featured in the 'Reactions' series. I don’t know the total numbers of chemists that we’ve asked to participate, or the gender breakdown of those, but the only criterion we have in terms of who gets featured, is those that say ‘yes’. A very large number of 'Reactions' e-mails go unanswered, and a lot of people do say ‘no’. I would imagine we have asked more men than women, but not in the proportions ultimately featured on the blog.
If you have any suggestions of who you would like to see featured, either in terms of subject area, or specific chemists, we’ll see what we can do. Again, however, there is no guarantee someone will agree to be featured.
Normal service will be resumed next week, Ben List, who has just had a paper published in Nature, will be answering the current set of six questions.
Stuart
Stuart Cantrill (Chief Editor, Nature Chemistry)
If a picture is worth a thousand words, what's a journal cover worth?
Well, in 2007, when I was on a paper that was lucky enough to be featured on the inside cover of Angewandte Chemie, it was 1000 Euros (that's almost $1500). If our artwork had been judged to have been worthy for the real cover, i.e., the one on the outside, it would have cost 1800 Euros - I don't know how the prices have changed since then. It's a similar story at Chem. Commun. - one of my papers made it to the inside cover back in 2005, and I think a 'contribution' was made to the production costs - I don't recall how much that was.
There has been some debate on journal cover art - some journals do have it and some don't. Some charge for it and some don't. Most authors in my experience are quite eager to have their work featured on a journal cover - it's a big glossy colourful advert for their work - and occasionally they make for nice posters too!
When establishing a new journal, especially here at NPG, it's another part of the process that needs some careful thought. A 'pre-launch' cover can be used on sample issues and in marketing campaigns to raise awareness of the journal in the community - in this case, the cover is not only an advert for the work it depicts, but the journal itself.
The reason I bring this up is that we've just finalized our 'pre-launch' cover for Nature Chemistry. Just like the other Nature research journals, on the cover of each issue we will have artwork that is related to the content inside - usually one of the research papers. Obviously we have no inside content yet - and so we had to think of an image that says 'chemistry' - and be inclusive of as many of the sub-fields as possible... not easy, and unless you just slap a stereotypical periodic table or a cheesy line-up of glassware containing pretty coloured liquids on it, there's a bit of thought involved. And you also want something that is visually striking.
I think we've checked a lot of the boxes and have a very good cover - you'll start seeing it on the web and at some conferences in the near future (and I'll fill you in on the details of exactly what the image is and where it came from when it goes public...).
Stuart
Stuart Cantrill (Chief Editor, Nature Chemistry)
Posted on behalf of Retread
An incredible article appeared last month in the journal Science. If it can be verified and if it applies generally, our conception of just how genes coding for protein are turned on will be radically changed (yes, there are many other kinds of genes other than those coding for proteins). If DNA compaction, nucleosomes, histones, lysine methylation and demethylation, the histone code, nuclear hormone receptors (particularly the estrogen receptor), DNA glycosylase and topoisomerase aren't old friends have a look at the first comment on this post for the background you need. Don't worry, there is plenty of chemistry to follow.
Some histone code modifications are reversible, particularly acetylation of the epsilon amino group of lysine. Enzymes acetylating histone lysines are called histone acetylases, those removing it are called histone deacetylatases (HDACs). However, lysine methylation was thought to be permanent until '04 when several enzymes able to demethylate lysine were found. One such enzyme is called LSD1 (it has nothing to do with the hallucinogen). It removes the two methyl groups from lysine #9 of histone #3 (H3K9me2). If this modification is present on a nucleosome near a gene, the gene is silenced, so the methyls must be removed so the protein it codes for can be made.
The estrogen receptor + estrogen complex bound to the ERE (the estrogen response element – a 15 nucleotide DNA sequence) triggers H3K9me2 removal. The process of demethylation is oxidative (how else would you split a nitrogen to hydrocarbon bond?). Hydrogen peroxide is produced, a loose cannon which oxidizes the juicy electron-rich bases of DNA nearby, forming in particular 8 oxo-guanine, as guanine is the most easily oxidized DNA base. Since 21% of the DNA bases in our genome are guanine, H2O2 doesn't have far to look. This calls in some fairly heavy artillery (DNA glycosylase to remove the 8 oxo-guanine, topoisomerase IIbeta to unwind the DNA so it can be repaired, the repair enzymes, etc, etc...). Naturally this opens up the compacted DNA structure around the gene allowing RNA polymerase II to do its work transcribing the estrogen responsive gene into mRNA (once the damage is repaired).
So according to this paper, estrogen turns on gene transcription by damaging DNA. This is fantastic (if true). There's more. The estrogen receptor is but one member of a group of proteins called nuclear hormone receptors. The name comes from the fact that other hormones (progesterone, androgen, thyroid, glucocorticoids, mineralocorticoids) have their own proteins that turn on (or turn off) genes the same way. Subsequently it was found that some vitamin metabolites (vitamin D3, vitamin A) have similar receptors even though they aren't hormones. The human genome contains 48 such proteins. Less than half of them have known ligands. Those with known ligands have their finger in just about every metabolic pie in the cell.
One final point. It has been estimated that 8-oxoguanine is formed 100,000 times each day in every cell. Perhaps its formation is physiologic rather than pathologic. Where does that leave antioxidant therapy, which has been touted to do everything but cure hemorrhoids? Well, one such trial was done on 29,000 Finnish men at high risk for lung cancer (they were smokers) [New England J. Med. vol. 330 pp. 1029-1035 (1994)] Alpha tocopherol (one antioxidant used in the study) didn't decrease the incidence of lung cancer, and there was an 18% higher incidence of lung cancer among the men receiving beta carotene (another antioxidant). In medicine, theory is great but data trumps it every time.
Retread
Posted on behalf of Materials Girl
I don't know how it is for graduate students, but cheat sheets to me are an ironically great way to study. Over the course of several days, I review every inch of my notes and textbooks, then cover a sheet of paper with two or three columns of formulas and shorthand notes - all written with 0.5 mm lead in miniscule, typewriter-esque handwriting. However, after all that work and cramping of wrist, I essentially remember everything and hardly need the compacted notes.
Inevitably, 97% percent of whatever is on the page never shows up on the exam, and the 3% of material omitted or missed does. (In case it weren't apparent by the cynical undertone, I've lately had back-to-back midterms and have more in the next two weeks. Nothing gets the blood rushing like finishing an exam at 12:57 pm, then sprinting across campus to the next at 1 pm...) On the bright side, nothing beats really knowing that you have a strong grasp of material, even without the chance to prove it on exams. A few years down the road, an undergraduate GPA won’t be worth as much as knowledge. Ideally.
As for previous topics, I've decided to go for an internship, given the chance. From what I’ve gathered, extra time on a degree wouldn’t make a great difference, while experience would. Also, a few years in the workforce should take care of the extra debt relatively painlessly... It’d be a nice change from the previous summers of all classes and work, as well as an exciting opportunity to learn – especially because lately my assigned “labwork” has consisted of researching and editing proposals. (As much as more funding for our lab would be nice, I’d prefer to save that aspect of the “real world” for later.) So, I'm crossing my fingers and hoping someone wants me
Well, it seems only appropriate that I announce our March issue - a Focus on Metals - on National Battery Day. In case you haven't already seen the new content (alas, it actually went live on Friday, so this post is slightly old news), there are some great pieces inside. In particular, you can ponder the irony of iron being so good for you but tetanus being so bad for you as you read this commentary and this review, which discuss the biological and chemical roles of iron enzymes. Alternatively, you can check out the progress that synthetic chemists are making in designing fluorescent metal sensors in this review. There's other good stuff as well, but too much to mention in one blog, so you'll have to check it out yourself.
As a side note (still considering the overlap of metals in biology and batteries), I wonder if anyone is trying to evolve those nanowire-making bacteria to make batteries directly instead? I also spotted this semi-recent paper where the authors are using virus templates to deposit metals for battery electrodes. Seems like the crossover between metals and biology is getting charged up in all kinds of directions...
Catherine (associate editor, Nature Chemical Biology)
Objective: To write an informative and perhaps somewhat humorous blog entry for the Sceptical Chymist about ‘Objective’ statements that appear at the top of CVs and resumes – without sounding like I’m ranting too much.
As I discussed last week, the habit of including on your CV the fact that you have a driving licence seems a little redundant for certain jobs – such as scientific editors. Sure, if you’re applying to become the next Lewis Hamilton, however, go right ahead, you may even want to put it near the top of your CV – and in bold.
Another observation I would now like to make is that, depending upon the circumstances of your job search, putting an objective statement at the top of your CV could be, for want of a better word, pointless.
First however, here are the situations in which an objective statement is a good and possibly useful feature: (1) you are posting your CV to an online careers site where it may be viewed by all manner of different potential employers, or (2) you are attending a career fair and handing out your CV to a number of different, but I assume related, companies. In these cases, having a generic objective statement that tells people what you are looking for is a good thing, i.e., something along the lines of, ‘...to obtain an R&D position in the pharmaceutical industry that...’.
Now, let’s consider the job applicant who is applying for a specific job – such as that of an associate editor at Nature Chemistry for example. I would assume that because the candidate is applying for that particular job, their objective would be, ‘to obtain a position as an associate editor of Nature Chemistry’. Now, if you ask me, putting that at the top of your CV is pointless, because I assume that if you didn’t want the job, you wouldn’t have applied. It could be argued that this enables the candidate to succinctly sum up their career aspirations – but I think the cover letter is the most appropriate place for that.
The other option is that an applicant sends in a standard CV that has an objective that is not even closely related to the job they’re applying for – such as mentioning something about R&D when applying for an editing job for example. This, to me at least, suggests a lack of attention to detail and hints that the application is somewhat speculative in nature.
So, the best you can hope for by including an objective statement on your CV when applying for a specific job, is that you’ve stated the obvious. The worst, is that the statement bears no relation to the job in question – which doesn’t look good.
In summary, I hope that my blog post meets with your approval and I will follow up with you in a couple of weeks to discuss it with you further.*
Yours sincerely
Stuart
*Every careers-related seminar I went to in the US told me to include a sentence like this at the end of my cover letter, but it just seems a little too earnest to me. If a company really wants to talk to you about your application, trust me, they’ll be in touch...
**I feel I should add a similar disclaimer to that I put in the driving licence post, in that no one will be denied — or indeed selected for — an interview for Nature Chemistry based on whether an objective statement was included on their CV or not.
Stuart Cantrill (Chief Editor, Nature Chemistry)
If you're living in the United States (or if you're following the race to the White House from another country/overseas), you've probably noticed that - while the presidential candidates have talked about a broad range of important issues - they haven't spent a great deal of time discussing scientific topics/science policy... You might be interested to learn that ScienceDebate2008.com, a grassroots organization, has been calling for - and has apparently now organized - a presidential debate on science and technology.
While it's not clear which presidential candidates will attend the debate (April 18th in Philadelphia), I think it could be pretty interesting: science/scientific policy is certainly not the most important issue for many Americans, but I'd personally like to learn more about the candidates' positions on funding, scientific education, and some of the other topics listed on the ScienceDebate2008.com website.
I've been thinking about this topic for a few days, and I've come up with a few questions I thought I'd throw out to our readers:
What scientific issue(s) could potentially swing your vote one way or another? For example, could you vote for someone who didn't 'believe' in evolution, or would that be an instant 'thumbs down'? What about a candidate who mandated that abstinence-only programs were the only kinds of sexual education allowed in public junior high/high schools? What 'hot button' issue is so important to you that it would cause you to re-think who will get your vote?
With that in mind, what question (or questions) do you think need(s) to be asked during this debate for it to be useful to the scientific community? Should a prominent scientist be asked to co-host the debate? If so, who has the intellect and the charisma to do it (well)?
Let's say you won the election and were going to be the next president. What big (science-related) changes/initiatives would you make/fund in your first year in office? For example, would you try to double the NIH and/or NSF budget(s) over the next five years? Maybe you would boost NASA's budget so that we can put a man/woman on Mars in our lifetime? Would you cut back on research related to bio-terrorism or spend more on this topic? (For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that you're so popular/persuasive that you could convince any relevant governmental bodies to do whatever you recommended...)
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
Joshua
Joshua Finkelstein (Senior Editor, Nature)
The new chemistry podcast from Nature is now live! - and can be found here.
In this show, we find out how DNA is helping researches build crystals out of nanoparticles, discover a clever chemical trick for manipulating uranium, explore the controversial field of DNA conductivity and talk to chemist Bruce Gibb about re-building life and lab after hurricane Katrina.
Enjoy!
Stuart
Stuart Cantrill (Chief Editor, Nature Chemistry)
1. What made you want to be a chemist?
Science was in the family, and I was encouraged by an excellent chemistry teacher. It seemed a good option after deciding I wasn’t going to follow music. Happily, chemistry turned out to be a very creative career and I haven’t looked back.
2. If you weren't a chemist and could do any other job, what would it be - and why?
A musician, touring worldwide and with a recording studio back home. I play guitar and studied as a teenager at the Royal Academy of Music. Music expresses the inexpressible, as they say. I’m also synaesthetic – I see musical sounds as shapes and colours – maybe that’s also why I’ve always been fascinated by it.
3. How can chemists best contribute to the world at large?
In at least two ways. On one hand we can help to address the technological challenges facing us – energy, health and cleaner processes – on the other we can provide inspirational, numerate, relevant, and problem-solving education.
4. Which historical figure would you most like to have dinner with – and why?
Mid-week, it would be Einstein. His insights are intellectually astounding and have utterly changed our view of nature. It would be fascinating to get a glimpse into how he got his insights. Weekend, Jimi Hendrix or Frank Zappa.
5. When was the last time you did an experiment in the lab - and what was it?
A couple of days ago, together with a PhD student. Very satisfyingly, we found an innovative way to purify a compound which had resisted all the usual methods.
6. If exiled on a desert island, what one book and one CD would you take with you?
The CD would be purely for enjoyment, Sheikh Yerbouti by Frank Zappa, which is a fantastic, hilarious, creative, masterpiece. The book would be something mind-expanding and very long which I haven’t read before, possibly Don Quixote in Spanish, which would probably keep me occupied for 20 years or so...
Stuart James is in the School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering at Queen’s University Belfast and works on self-assembly, porous liquids and solids, and solvent-free synthesis.
[Editor’s note – a new guest contributor, Retread, has joined the team, and should be familiar to some of our readers...]
Feb 13, 2008
"Everything in Chemistry turns blue or explodes". Only a philosophy major in full hubristic cry could say that to his pre-med chemistry-major ex-roommate. There was some reality to it as the teacher of Chem 101, Dr Hubert N. Alyea, was really a small boy trapped in a professor suit, and usually blew something up in every lecture. Chemistry is still the Rodney Dangerfield of the sciences, important when the demand for taxol for breast cancer threatened to destroy every yew tree in sight, yet largely ignored by its progeny, biochemistry and molecular biology and the press.
Probably every nascent chemist suffers through things like this, but I got more than most, rooming with two philosophy majors as an undergraduate (one of whom was later a Rhodes). It definitely gives you both a thick skin and a more abstract cast of mind.
For who I am and my background go to ChemBark, scroll down the Categories section until you get to Rip Van Winkle open it up and start reading. This where I would have stayed, happily posting now and then and reading and responding to comments. However Paul has other fish to fry (probably his thesis) and ChemBark has developed a definite funereal cast in the 3 months since Paul's last post. Anyway, Paul got me started and gave me a forum, encouragement and advice, so I owe him at least a good dinner. Thanks Paul.
If contact with budding philosophers didn't make me somewhat reflective, then following the development of molecular biology from '62 to the present with the eye and background of a Woodward grad student and medical practice as a neurologist from '67 to '00 certainly was enough to do so. This is why future posts will be on things like:
1. Is there really such a thing as causality in cellular biochemistry and physiology?
2. Is organic chemistry easy or hard?
2a. If it's hard, is math harder?
3. Are there important chemical experiments which we can't do because the earth isn't big enough?
4. Is there really such a thing as control in chemical systems with feedback on every component (including the elements providing the feedback)?
5. Does the complexity of cellular chemistry and biochemistry raise questions about the adequacy of chance to bring it about?
That's for the future. The next post (probably a very long one because of the background required) will be on a recent spectacular paper which, if replicated and generally applicable, will revolutionize the way we think of the control of gene transcription. Thomas Kuhn where are you when we need you?
Stay tuned
Retread
Recruitment for the associate editor positions at Nature Chemistry continues, and although I obviously can’t comment on specifics here, there are some general observations I want to share with you.
No interviews have been scheduled yet, but I want you to imagine a hypothetical scene in which a candidate is sitting across a desk from me and one of my colleagues in the Nature offices in London. We’re about half-way through the interview and the questions continue...
----------
Me: So, if you wouldn’t mind, could you briefly summarize your thoughts on this manuscript for us.
Candidate: Well, although the conceptual novelty is somewhat compromised by the work reported in reference 8, it’s certainly a comprehensive study and represents a significant advance over previous work in this area, so it probably should be sent out to referees to see what they think.
Me: Good, good. So, how’s your parallel parking?
Candidate: I’m sorry, my what?
Me: Parallel parking – oh, never mind. OK, minibuses, have you ever driven a minibus?
Candidate: What? A minibus? Erm, no... no I haven’t – why?
Me: Hmm. Oh dear, that could be a problem. Now, let me see, yes, you’re driving at 47 mph down a country lane and it rained heavily about 12 hours earlier, what’s the safe stopping distance?
Candidate: I beg your pardon.
----------
Let me just point out now, that exchanges of this kind will not feature in the interviews. No one will be asked about their driving skills or associated knowledge. And I can guarantee this in spite of the fact that most of the people in the UK (including some, but not all of the Nature Chemistry candidates), proudly include on their CVs that they have a driving licence.
To be fair, I used to put this invaluable nugget of information on my CV as well, until one day I suddenly realized that it really wasn’t all that important for the jobs I was applying for... i.e., if you can analyze the ins-and-outs of an asymmetric synthesis paper, I don’t really care if you can do a three-point-turn or not.
I think it’s just a hangover from what we were all told at school – I think that’s where I picked up the habit. Sure, it does no harm (and no one will be denied — or indeed selected for — an interview for Nature Chemistry based on whether this was included on their CV or not), but unless it is directly relevant to the job, I don’t see the point.
Please note, however, that I am not a recruitment specialist or hiring manager (or whatever you call those people) and perhaps I am missing something important – so I’m not offering professional advice here, leave this piece of information off your CV at your own peril. (Perhaps that was why the Royal Society of Chemistry turned me down?).
I don’t remember seeing driving qualifications on any of the non-UK CVs, but that’s not to say they don’t have their own problems. If I get a minute away from websites, podcasts, hiring and Nature Nanotechnology manuscripts, I’ll be back to tell you about them...
Stuart
Stuart Cantrill (Chief Editor, Nature Chemistry)
I just happened across this delightful science article, which discusses some of the advanced physics that would allow fairy tale things like people climbing each other's hair and stealing each other's voices to be true, or potentially true.
I always like a good science-is-stranger-than-fiction story, but what I found amusing about the article is that the 'not-true-to-life' aspect that the author chose to focus on, for example in the case of the little mermaid, is not that:
a) there is a mermaid living under the sea who
b) gets her body magically transformed (her fins turned to legs, but also her lungs changed to breathe air, and her head changed to a dino size in relation to her body (you know what I mean if you've seen the movie))
c) by a witch who
d) communicates with eels.
However, I don't mean to disparage the article - baby steps, right? And anyway, I'm excited about the prospect of my own flying carpet.
On a related note, there are many chemical mysteries to be solved in fairy tales: For example, what kind of poison did the Queen give to Snow White that put her into a sleep/coma but immediately reverses when she was kissed by a prince? What kind of pigmentation would make the Wicked Witch of the East's skin green (and, for a biological mystery, how did she get it?)? What was in the mushroom that made Alice shrink or grow? Any and all explanations (or additional mysteries) welcome!
Catherine (Associate Editor, Nature Chemical Biology)
As many, many studies and articles have told us, there are not enough women in science, and in chemistry in particular. Similarly, those who are in the field are not getting the awards, opportunities, or promotions that they deserve. While a discussion of the reasons why this is happening would probably be redundant, I'm not sure that I have seen a discussion of simple ways to move forward. So, I would like to suggest a meeting of the minds to put forward some very simple ideas that we could start doing right now, and don't require governmental funding or a revision of the tenure system, etc. I'll kick things off with a couple of thoughts:
1. Although we probably know a lot of great women doing science, I wonder how often we talk about them. For example, I was recently at a conference and asked a fellow scientist who she knew in a particular field that was doing great work. She (note: a woman) gave me the name of a man (note: a man).* In retrospect, there are also some women doing great work in that field. The point is: keep tabs on other great women and help to spread the word. Great!
*Of course many situations are more complicated than just "I have two scientists that are relevant in my head and I picked the man", but I think the general idea may hold.
1 (part 2). On a related point, the 'word' we should be spreading is not that they are really nice, or that they have a cute child, or that what is happening in their respective two-body problem, but that their scientific contributions are important, and that they have some profound insights into their field. Let's get away from talking about women's personal lives, as I can only hold so much information in my tiny brain, and it would be more useful to know about their professional interests and successes.
2. Nominate a woman for an award.
3. If you are a woman, ask questions at talks (and introduce yourself first).
4. In terms of getting opportunities to work with a journal (assuming that my experience holds true on a broader scale): if you are in a position where you might be expected to have a website, PLEASE put one together and keep it updated on a ~yearly basis (this actually holds for men too). While of course you can find out a lot about someone by their publications, having a clear, concise message about what you're interested in really makes a big difference. After all, these days it's not clear just by looking at a paper whether the topic is something near and dear to a particular scientists' heart or whether they were perhaps just helping out with a technique, etc. Knowing what really drives someone makes it much easier for me to feel confident that you are the right person to ask to write a Review article, or to referee a paper, etc.
What else can we do?
Catherine (Associate Editor, Nature Chemical Biology)
I just got back from my holiday in Thailand, which was very nice apart from an unfortunate bout of food poisoning. Anyway, I thought you might be interested in seeing this article from the Bangkok Post, which highlights just how crucial chemicals are in the real world (not that you’ll need much convincing). In particular, it demonstrates the importance of fertilizers.
Thailand is the world’s leading exporter of rubber, but crop yields are expected to be lower this year. The reason? It seems that a lot of the fertilizers being supplied to Thai rubber plantations are fake or sub-standard, despite the fact that the costs of fertilizers have doubled over the past year. This is causing much hardship for Thai rubber farmers, and presumably could have a knock-on effect for global rubber supplies and prices.
Everyone is aware of the consequences of fake drugs flooding the pharmaceutical market, but I hadn’t realized that a similar situation existed for fertilizers. The implications for the rubber industry and for farmers in particular are made clear in the Bangkok Post article, but if the problem extends to food-crop farming in developing countries, then the effects could be even more dire. Has anyone else heard of this problem?
Andy
Andrew Mitchinson (Associate Editor, Nature)
1. What made you want to be a chemist?
I was always fascinated by nature as a child. I studied lake water and plants with a microscope, spent a lot of nights outside watching stars, built small electric circuits and, of course, I had a small chemistry lab in our cellar. I enjoyed all these experiments and what they told me about nature. Later in school I had a very good chemistry teacher who encouraged me to take part in the International Chemistry Olympiad (an international competition for high school kids). The first time I totally failed in our national selection rounds. But I guess that finally tipped the balance towards chemistry. I got ambitious and the more I got involved with chemistry, the more I loved it.
2. If you weren't a chemist and could do any other job, what would it be - and why?
Most likely a medical doctor. As a teenager I started to work as a voluntary paramedic and I still do it from time to time. Being able to help people is a very gratifying job, even though it is a very tough job with a lot of responsibility. So I guess if chemistry or natural sciences were not my profession I would have ended up in medicine. Although as a child, to become a cook was also tempting for me. I still love to cook, even though I am probably not as skilled in the kitchen as I am in the chemistry lab.
3. How can chemists best contribute to the world at large?
First, as Ronald Breslow once put it, chemistry is the central science. Everything that goes on around us is somehow linked to chemistry. The more and more we learn about the molecular basis of life itself, the development of diseases or the function of drugs on a molecular level or how material properties depend on their molecular composition, the better we will be able to improve our life and deal with the upcoming challenges threatening our planet. Second, chemistry is the only natural science that not only tries to understand what is going on around us but also is capable to create. We can make new molecules, that never existed before; new molecules with new and much desired properties. Chemists create new drugs in order to improve our life and health. Chemists create new materials with improved properties for thousands of applications in our modern world. Chemistry can help to solve so many problems we are facing today: energy crisis, food and water supply, health issues or environmental challenges just to name a few.
4. Which historical figure would you most like to have dinner with – and why?
Leonardo da Vinci. He was probably the most fascinating scientist that ever lived on our planet. It is amazing how much this one person accomplished and in how many different disciplines and fields: arts and sciences, chemistry and physics, medicine and biology, architecture and engineering and many more. He invented so many things that we still use today, even though in a modified and improved version, but still essentially going back to his ideas. And he achieved all this under really challenging and also sometimes life-threatening political circumstances.
5. When was the last time you did an experiment in the lab - and what was it?
Well, that was quite some time ago at least in terms of real scientific research. It was about six years ago when I just started my own academic career and when I had only three coworkers who just started to work with me for their diploma. It was a five-step synthesis of one of the building blocks, a guanidiniocarbonyl pyrrole derivative, we need for our research. Unfortunately, I do not have any time for lab research myself any more. And I guess by now my coworkers are much more skilled in the lab than I am due to lack of practice. However, I organize a chemistry day for high school students once a year. And on that day I also present some experiments like the classical nylon synthesis or gun cotton. It is always a “big show” also for my coworkers to see me in lab coat again and doing experiments.
6. If exiled on a desert island, what one book and one CD would you take with you?
Is there a book, how to make coffee from coconuts? That would be my first choice. Otherwise, perhaps the New York City telephone directory. That has so many pages which are good for making fire. As for a CD, does a CD player run on coconut oil? To be more serious, I could read the Lord of the Rings again and again, and a CD with music from Andrew Lloyd Webber would be nice.
Carsten Schmuck is in the Institute of Organic Chemistry at the University of Würzburg and works on supramolecular chemistry and its application in bioorganic chemistry (e.g., development of drugs and sensors) and material sciences (e.g., self-assembled nanostructures).
This will be brief, but it's Day 1, and I couldn't let it pass without a quick post...
The deadline for applications for the associate editor positions has now passed - and there's an awful lot of paper strewn around my desk... and the floor around it... now, time to shortlist and get the right mix of expertise in the right locations.
Here's a challenge for you - imagine you're setting up a general chemistry journal and you have a total editorial team of four - how do you break down the areas of expertise? Along traditional lines, or something different? Anyway - now I have a data set to work with, I'll be trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together...
Stuart
Stuart Cantrill (Chief Editor, Nature Chemistry)
1. What made you want to be a chemist?
I see this as a two phase process, first why I chose chemistry and secondly why I decided an academic career was for me. The first one is straightforward, I decided to take chemistry at university because my teacher (Abraham Darby School) went that extra mile to make studying chemistry enjoyable. The reason I decided to become an academic is more diffuse, but does include being inspired by wonderful lectures by the late Donald J Cram (Pacifichem 1987), who sent a CPK model of a carcerand around the audience, and Sir J Fraser Stoddart (1990 Halifax, Canada) who used language and colours to convey difficult concepts. Special thanks also go to Professor Seiji Shinkai who polished my skills as a chemist and taught me that "even monkeys fall from trees"!
2. If you weren't a chemist and could do any other job, what would it be - and why?
An artist – art has always been one of my greatest passions. I am particularly inspired by sculptures and 3D art. You could say the love of sculpture is why I am a chemist – since in chemistry we create art in the form of molecular sculptures.
3. How can chemists best contribute to the world at large?
I believe that what we do as scientists should be for the greater good. I also believe that it is your chemistry that should contribute and not you the chemist. In science, it is what has been achieved and not the individual which is important.
4. Which historical figure would you most like to have dinner with – and why?
Richard Feynman – who was one of the most inspiring scientists of the 20th century. In particular his Horizon Interview in 1981 – “the pleasure of finding things out” sums up the way a scientist should live their life. One problem may be that during the meal he may have to be stopped from dropping O rings into everyone’s iced water. However, he could make this up by providing post dinner entertainment on the bongos.
5. When was the last time you did an experiment in the lab - and what was it?
I like to be involved in experiments as much as possible. This summer I helped a visiting Japanese student who is part of a Royal Society International Joint Project collect fluorescence data. This was a rewarding experience and resulted in a paper for the student (Jusaku Minari) and the academics involved (Kazuo Sakurai, John S Fossey, Steven D Bull and Tony D James). Finding time to do experiments can be difficult – but thanks to the JSPS, I will get 60 days (Short Term Fellowship) from the end of January as a visiting Professor in Kyushu University to spend time experimenting to my heart’s content.
6. If exiled on a desert island, what one book and one CD would you take with you?
I prefer listening to music than reading books, since I can listen to music while doing other things. Therefore, I would choose two CDs which contain songs that remind me of my time spent in Canada as a PhD student and one that reminds me of my postdoctoral research in Japan. The first is by Pink Floyd (The Dark Side of the Moon) containing the track ‘Time’ and the second is by The Boom containing the track ‘Shima Uta’. The one reminds me of camping on Galliano Island and the other of humid summers spent cycling around Japan
Tony James is in the Department of Chemistry at the University of Bath and works in the area of supramolecular chemistry and in particular on the development of sensor molecules for saccharides.
Subscribe to this blog's feeds: