I've been chatting with some friends these last couple of days, and we've developed a new* theory that could generally be applied to chemistry/chemists, so I thought I'd share. The idea is that there are two kinds of people in the world: those who know things and those who look things up. The first category also includes the subgroup 'people who don't know anything but pretend that they do' (which is a topic for another day).

It's obvious that, in the modern age, it's becoming increasingly easier to look things up. It used to be that you had to go to college or a library (or perhaps to someone's house who had a set of encyclopedias) to learn about the Diels-Alder reaction or the physical properties of mercury. But now you just use a book you have handy, or the internet, or even your phone to find out almost anything instantly. I assume this is why I've never been asked to memorize the periodic table (aaaaah! Chemistry sacrilege!!). Anyway, this inspires a few questions:

1. Given the extent of information that is now available, is it even possible to be a person who knows things anymore, or are we all just people who look things up, with some people looking up less things than others?
2. Does it matter if we don't know things, and just look things up? What information is worth knowing?
3. Do we specifically know less because it's easier to look things up? Meaning, do our minds subconsciously say "what's the point in really *learning* the preferred ionization state of Iridium if you can get the information in 3 seconds and instead use those neurons to remember what time your favorite TV show is on?" And if that's the case, can we reverse that? Do we want to?

I don't have the answers to these questions. It is obvious that it's hard to know where to look some things up if you never *learned* them in the first place, or at least how to use that information once you have it if you never had a place for it in your overall world view. ... Anyway, I'm curious to know what you guys think.

Catherine (associate editor, Nature Chemical Biology)

* OK, you probably have all already thought of this. But, that should mean that your comments are even more thoughtful and inspired??

Posted by Catherine Goodman at 05:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBacks (0)

It's getting to be that time of year again...

With no odds (or anything else for that matter) posted on ChemBark and Thomson seemingly not making any predictions this year, where do I go for my Nobel Prize gossip?

Well, it seems as though medGadget has come to the rescue, and is running a 'Guess-A-Nobel' contest' - just leave a comment on their blog post with your picks for who will win the Chemistry (or Physics or Physiology/Medicine) prize and you could win an iPod nano (or two or three).

Amongst the guesses for the chemistry prize, Whitesides is getting some attention, with two votes, and Tsien also has two votes (along with others for using fluorescent tags to monitor proteins). Ken Houk - one of my former UCLA colleagues - also gets a mention.

One of the suggested winners is a bit of a long shot if you ask me - not only has John Pople already won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his development of computational methods (and winning two Nobels is rare - Curie, Pauling, Sanger and Bardeen are the only individuals to achieve this feat), but he died in 2004, which is the bigger handicap, because Nobel Prizes aren't handed out posthumously.

So, go along to medGadget and leave your picks - and while you're at it, leave us a comment here to let us know who you think will win - no iPods up for grabs, but the respect of the Sceptical Chymist audience awaits...

UPDATE: Thomson must have put up their picks today... - they weren't there yesterday when I checked. They've gone for Lieber or Matyjaszewski or Tsien (doesn't seem fair that they get three picks).

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Chief Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 06:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted on behalf of Retread

Why would an ex-organic chemist, retired MD do that? The P-chem you need for organic chemistry is pretty simple. You can look at most reactions and figure the overall entropy and enthalpy, and we get pretty good at figuring out delta-deltaG and manipulating it to get reactions to go the way we want.

Well, the answer is because nearly all the really interesting questions in cellular biology involve physical chemistry. Look back at the post of 20 March where throwing a growth factor at a cell resulted in a two fold change in phosphorylation in 924 of 6,600 phosphorylatable sites in 2,244 different proteins. We have some 478 enzymes (called kinases) to accomplish this reaction. Why so many? Because most kinases have a limited number of substrates. Studying the phosphorylation reaction itself (e.g. the classic chemistry) tells you very little. What determines which kinase associates with which substrate? That's exactly where physical chemistry comes in. The association of one protein with another doesn't involve covalent (or even ionic) bonds. It's mostly van der Waals and hydrogen bonding, along with solvent effects. Pure P-Chem.

Non(classical chemical) bonding protein association is crucial in the normal life of the cell (and sometimes in its death). Consider the mediator complex. It is required for the molecular machines which transcribe DNA into RNA (the three RNA polymerases) to actually do their work. Depending on the organism, the mediator complex has between 20 and 30 proteins and a mass of 1-2 megaDaltons. Also, RNA polymerase II itself isn't just one protein, but 12 (in yeast) with a mass of 500 kiloDaltons — again held together by noncovalent interactions.

A personal reason for studying P-Chem is the protein folding problem, where nary a covalent bond is formed. I'd certainly like to get up to speed to read the literature and find out if the 'potential energy funnel' is more than a fancy way to say that (biologic) proteins fold into their final shape quickly. As docs, we do this all the time. Consider the diagnosis of idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura. Impressive, n'est-ce pas? However, all it means is that you are bleeding because you don't have enough platelets (a type of blood component) and we don't know why.

We've already been through the 3 laws of thermodynamics, the second introduced by Carnot's brilliant analysis of the changes in state of an ideal gas as it went around his cycle, and his discovery (better construction) of the concept of entropy. Even after nearly 200 years, the power of his thought is impressive. I doubt that most of you have the time, but you will be similarly impressed with the stunning power of Darwin's mind if you read "The Origin of Species". All of you have more background (just by inhaling the zeitgeist) than he did. If you really have a lot of time, read "Darwin's Ghost" by Steve Jones along with Darwin. Jones updates "The Origin .. " to 2000 chapter by chapter. Although Jones is an excellent writer, Darwin wins each chapter hands down.

Finally, the course is being given at the local state university. It's very gratifying to see that state universities continue to function as the giant engines of social mobility that they were for my parents' generation, educating immigrants and the children of immigrants. The present crop of students isn't predominantly from eastern and southern Europe as my father's class was at Rutgers 80 years ago. But immigrants they are, and 3 of the students I've spoken to were born in Nigeria, Haiti and Poland.

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 06:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

This week both Neil and Gavin are away, although this time they are both working! Neil is attending the 6th International conference on Inorganic Materials in Dresden, and Gav is yet to return from China, having been at TACC 2008 (computational chemistry) and is combining his trip with some visits to labs close by.

So down to business with this weeks research highlights - Tim is first up writing about the an energy storage device that utilizes the special properties of graphene.

Gav writes about computational investigations into a catalyst that cleaves the immensely strong triple bond in dinitrogen - very topical given the conference he has been attending.

And...me, I'm covering a total synthesis that provides a tough test for no less than three pieces of synthetic methodology.

Finally a mention has to go to the cover of this week's Nature, with its special feature on the US election (see the story in The Times). To get the full benefit of this cover though you'll need a print copy (open it right out so you can see the front and back covers side by side - a truly fantastic accident).

Steve

Stephen Davey (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Posted by Stephen Davey at 05:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

1. What made you want to be a chemist?

I remember when about 15 years old being excited about a project on growing crystals and also going to the Royal Institution (London) to hear an inspiring lecture on photochemistry given by the late Professor George (Lord) Porter. Until then I hadn’t realised that you could do chemistry as a full-time job.

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

Dream job: footballer (soccer player) down the left-wing. Other job: get more involved in politics (also on the left). Sadly the distribution of wealth/power in the world is still very unequal. Most positive democratic change in the 19th and 20th centuries would not have happened without people getting involved in progressive struggle.

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

(a) Probably most/all chemists already contribute by advancing knowledge. Chemistry underpins so much of current science. Some obvious wider contributions to be made are: sustainable energy, solutions to disease (e.g. HIV, malaria, cancer), clean water and reducing pollution. In my field, fundamental materials chemistry is key to future breakthroughs in clean energy conversion and storage.
(b) Engage with the public (and popular media), promoting the importance of evidence/reason over superstition. To some, the word ‘chemical’ has become synonymous with poison. But Joe (and Josephine) Public should know that all matter, animal, vegetable or mineral, is made up of chemicals. They should imagine what it would be like without chemicals: no food or medicines; no TV or computers; no plastics or sex hormones. The list is endless. Indeed, without chemicals there would be no life!

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

Charles Darwin - to find out how he got his big, powerful idea (of evolution by natural selection), and how he dealt with religious challengers. Outside science, Mahatma Gandhi – a remarkable man in the successful struggle against British imperial rule. Around the second world war, he was asked by a journalist what he thought of western civilisation. He replied: “I think it would be a good idea”.

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

Not sure if this counts, but since my research is largely computational chemistry, I still dabble in some simulations. I wasn’t very good at practical organic chemistry during my undergrad days at UCL (in the early 80’s). Last experiment in the lab: solid-state synthesis of spinel oxides (NiMn₂O₄) during my PhD.

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

Fiction: the rich, dazzling “One Hundred Years of Solitude” by Gabriel Garcia Marques. And a collection of 20th century poetry (W.B. Yeats, W.H. Auden, P. Neruda etc).
Non-fiction: “Unweaving the Rainbow” by Richard Dawkins; essential reading for conveying the beauty, wonder and excitement of science.
CD: The Smiths “The Queen is Dead” with the Morrissey/Marr classic track “There is a Light that Never Goes Out”. I can play it really loud and not disturb the neighbours! To make me laugh, I would also like the CD of Monty Python’s “Life of Brian”, which ends appropriately with the song “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”.

Saiful Islam is in the Department of Chemistry at the University of Bath, and works on aspects of solid-state materials chemistry with emphasis on atomic-scale modelling of new materials for fuel cells and lithium ion batteries.

Posted by Neil Withers at 05:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted on behalf of Materials Girl

The past summer was a highlight for me, not only because of the research I did during my internship at a Large Company, but also due to the people I met there. In addition to co-workers being friendly and helpful (and the building wonderfully air conditioned in the 100+ degree weather), my fellow interns were exceptionally bright, scientifically minded (not just intelligent), sociable and interesting. Rarely have I lived or worked with students who could just as easily and happily talk about synthesis and characterization as they could sports and movies.

While attempting to strain pasta without a sieve, one [male] intern bemoaned the difficulty of the task and called for a desiccator. Any nerdy shirt that I wore would be appreciated, as opposed to causing strange looks to be cast in my direction. We could tie-break a card game by whoever most quickly stated the atomic mass of element ‘X’… And despite all that, we could be considered normal by the general public – we were musicians, collegiate athletes, cooks, a frat boy, and presidents of clubs unrelated to science. We attended midnight showings of movies, showed up for work half-asleep and visited tourist traps on the weekends. One of the guys drove well over 2000 miles in a truck, just to bring his plasma TV and Xbox.

I like to think that we dispelled the stereotype of chemists being smelly, wild-haired nuts in stained lab coats, or under-fed nerds living in library study lounges. Brilliance is hiding under the guise of normalcy, between talking about the awesomeness of molecular imaging and of playing Halo.

It’s now nearing the beginning of my fall quarter. I am once again one of the 1000+ students living in my particular residence hall. My roommate is a second-year music major, and we get along splendidly; lately we’ve united in griping about how obnoxiously loud the freshmen have been late at night – do they really need to “party” in the dorm room next door? Soon I shall be balancing senior year coursework and deciding whether to apply to grad schools asap (and what to study), or to take a year off and work...

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 04:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It is with some sadness that I note the passing of Ernest Eliel - a stereochemistry giant in my eyes - and many others I presume. His book - Stereochemistry of Organic Compounds - (later editions written with Wilen and Mandel) was, along with March and Vogel, one of the essential chemical bibles to be found in the lab during my PhD work. My copy is, even now, sitting on the shelf behind me here in the Nature offices... and it still has the price tag on the back - £29.95 apparently, which is peanuts compared with today's prices!

I leave you with a quote about Eliel from Fraser Stoddart - whose only book (to date) is on the stereochemistry of carbohydrates - who shared the following sentiment with me in an e-mail late last night:

He was one of my heroes. At his best in the 70s, it was an awesome experience to listen to him in full flight. Above all, he was a very nice person unlike a lot of the insufferable barons who were around at that time.

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Chief Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 07:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As you're reading this, I bet you've also read some of our Reactions interviews. In amongst the 'Desert Island Discs'/lifestyle questions is number 3: How can chemists best contribute to the world at large? The answers to this weighty question are always fascinating and quite wide ranging.

Now, the Royal Society of Chemistry (the UK's professional body and learned society for chemists - yes, they did just try to rename the LHC) is trying to put together a roadmap to answer the question - or at least how they prioritise their output to help achieve such a goal. The process has been going on since March, and is now in its second online consultation period.

Anyone - not just RSC members, but any chemistry stakeholder - can register at the website and get their thoughts taken on board.

The thing that strikes me is that the level of detail is pretty impressive. Each of the seven main themes (such as energy, water, public engagement and trust) is further broken down into subthemes, which are then taken down to the nitty-gritty. For instance, picking the first option each time: Energy:Biofuels:Additives to maximise biofuel efficiency group.

After another round of online consultation in November, the final report will be submitted to the RSC General Assembly before the roadmap is launched in December and implementation begins. It looks as if the RSC is going to a serious amount of effort to make sure it's going in the right direction - I'll be interested to see what the outcomes are in December. (Although hopefully in a very condensed form - the 'summary report' of the first phase is 90 pages!)

Neil

Neil Withers (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Posted by Neil Withers at 08:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here are this week's pick of the (chemistry) pops: Research Highlights

In a smooth (and completely serendipitous) link to big Nature's insight on small molecule catalysis, we feature a new step in catalysis: merging the features of organocatalysis with photocatalysis. The paper's by David MacMillan, who also has a commentary in the insight here.

Next up, we all know that C₆₀ is a wonderfully symmetrical molecule, shaped like a football/soccer ball, right? Well, that's only one of 1812 possible isomers of C₆₀, and two of the less symmetrical ones have now been made. They're not as pretty as buckminsterfullerene, but you can functionalise them in more specific places.

Here in the northern hemisphere, leaves are starting to change colour, but it feels a long time until we'll need to dig out the anti-freeze. Some animals survive sub-zero temperature thanks to anti-freeze proteins, but how they work hasn't really been well understood. Now molecular dynamics simulations have shown that it's the ordering of the water molecules around the protein that disrupts the crystallisation.

And finally...want to build a space elevator? Carbon nanotubes to the rescue! Is there anything they can't do...?

Neil

Neil Withers (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Posted by Neil Withers at 06:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Reading my newspaper on the way to work this morning, I was surprised to discover that Jonny Wilkinson – England rugby hero for those that don’t know – likes a bit of quantum physics. Apparently, he was always full of self-doubt until he discovered Schrödinger’s cat!

I subscribe to the theory that if you claim to fully understand quantum physics then you’ve missed the point, so quite what he means by this you’ll have to find out in his new book, but it set me to thinking: does anyone take solace in chemistry? Personally, I like a good total synthesis, but it’s more likely to make me wonder if I could ever have come up with that particularly clever rearrangement or new methodology, than to solve any thoughts of inadequacy.

Do you have a favourite piece of chemistry to think about when you need a bit of reassurance? How about some chemical reaction dynamics (Gav?), or perhaps you enjoy a good crystallography table (Neil?). We’d love to hear from you.

Steve

Stephen Davey (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Posted by Stephen Davey at 08:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

1. What made you want to be a chemist?

It was the combination of scientific rigor and the creativity involved in chemistry that really appealed to me. We get to make new things and understand what they are and how they work which I really enjoy. Plus it turns out I’m not particularly good at maths which was the other area I was considering as I entered university.

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

If I had the talent and ideas, I’d have liked to have been a novelist.

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

By being good chemists and developing the science and looking at what it can be applied to and how we can engage with other disciplines.

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

It’d be interesting to talk with someone at the discovery edge when perceptions of the world were changing. Sir Joseph Banks comes to mind as he was faced with cataloguing such vastly different flora and fauna to what was hitherto know.

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

I still run samples on the single crystal diffractometer whenever called to. This is usually for project students and on group trips to synchrotron facilities. I try to keep away from doing any synthetic experiments which I’m sure everyone else in the lab appreciates.

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

The one book would probably be Mark Danielewski’s House of Leaves which is a sort of academic horror tale. If nothing else it would take me a stint on a desert island to fully absorb all the jokes in the footnotes. Music-wise it’d have to be a best-of Pixies compilation.

Michaele Hardie is in the School of Chemistry at the University of Leeds and works on metallo-supramolecular chemistry.

Posted by Neil Withers at 05:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

That's right, it's double issue time! Not because we actually published two issues at once, but because the ACS completely sucked away my ability to blog (but in a good way! More on that soon).

So: in case you didn't see it, our September issue is full of goodies. In addition to exciting executions of exiguamine elaborations, provoking pulldowns of papain-like peptide-pinching proteins, and amazing arrangements of alkaloid architectures, we featured a collection of commentaries and profiles on funding agencies and opportunities that may provide some new ideas about where to apply for funding, particularly for those people who can't seem to get any love from organizations that prefer traditional disciplines (see our editorial for more thoughts on that point).

To be even more timely, our October issue is now online. Since I have already entertained you with some alliterations (or tried, anyway!), I will tell you about this issue in the form of a limerick:

There once was some copper in a cell.
It was sequestered by MymT for a spell.
It got transferred around
(but it always was bound)
and that has nothing to do with potassium channels, folate metabolism, or terpene synthases. Oh well.

Until next time,
Catherine

Posted by Catherine Goodman at 06:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Neil's away this week - enjoying Strasbourg - which means that I get the opportunity to introduce this week's research highlights (and myself) on TSC.

First up is Gav, covering a Nature Letter that explains how photoelectron spectroscopy can tell us more about why hydroxide ion transport in water is so fast.

Neil (the absent one), writes about a couple of papers which report water-free f-block ionic liquids. The luminescence properties are much improved when you can avoid water, and those based on dysprosium are magnetic as well.

And, the way gold catalysts are prepared can have a marked effect on their activity. Jane writes about some high resolution microscopy that shows that small clusters of 10 gold atoms are responsible for most of the catalytic activity.

Finally, some readers of TSC will be old enough to recall being allowed to use copper sulfate to grow some nice blue crystals at school. It's poisonous though, so you don't get it in chemistry sets anymore, which makes me wonder who supplies Roger Hiorns? He creates artwork by filling everday objects with copper sulfate solution and letting the crystals grow where they will - his latest creation 'Seizure' makes use of a derelict flat in London. Check out the video on YouTube.

Actually, I wonder if he also has a return agreement with his supplier? - after all those recrystallisations it ought to be worth selling back....

Steve

Stephen Davey (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Posted by Stephen Davey at 09:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

1. What made you want to be a chemist?

I was always interested in history, languages, and philosophy, as well as natural science, especially biology, so it was a difficult decision. However, both my parents were chemists, and as a child I often accompanied them to work, and this got me interested in chemistry. In the end my parents put some pressure on me to choose something 'more useful' and more lucrative (they hoped) and so I ended up doing chemistry.

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

I have always been intrigued by Roman history, and would happily immerse myself in archaeological/historical studies. I am interested in finding out why such a sophisticated civilization eventually collapsed.

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

In the past humanist tradition, equal importance was attached to the education and exploration of arts and science in the education of a cultivated person. Since then, the famous 'Two Cultures' emerged, to the extent where science has started to be seen as something unnatural, placing human beings outside nature. Particularly in the context of the current energy and climate crisis, scientists need to contribute to bringing human beings back to their place in nature, with science (and chemistry) moving back in the direction of cooperating with nature further than just dealing with 'natural laws'.

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

Julius Caesar, to discover what such a reputably highly intelligent man was like (but not on the Ides of March, please).

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

1992, when I tried to synthesize a titanium catalyst precursor and failed.

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

The book would be Shakespeare's collected works - Shakespeare seemed to know just about everything about human nature, and presented it with wit and wisdom. Another choice would be Goethe's Faust or Thomas Mann's Magic Mountain (if German books are acceptable). If I were allowed, I would take the box of CDs of complete Mozart's piano concertos (or sonatas) - I'd have to think about the pianist, though (probably Alfred Brendel or Michiko Uchida).

Jun Okuda holds the Chair of Organometallic Chemistry in the Institute of Inorganic Chemistry at RWTH Aachen University, and works on organometallic chemistry of Lewis acidic metals and homogeneous catalysis, in particular polymerization catalysis and biomass conversion.

Posted by Neil Withers at 05:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It can't have escaped your notice that our marketing campaign is focussing on the periodic table - various elements are represented in a more graphical form. So far, we've had a flaming O, sparkly and blinging C, stripey toothpaste F, etc. We're not far from being able to make words out of the postcards on our office wall!

Which got us thinking...what's the longest word you can spell only using elements? Gav is very proud to have got his team's name: SUNdErLaNd, but less pleased when I countered with their great rivals NeWCAsTlEuNiTeD! OK, so D is for deuterium...

I'm struggling to spell my name at all and won't even attempt my football team (I can get as far as tungsten and oxygen). Steve says that he once used a compound database that tried to work out what UNKNOWN was - a complex oxynitride, no doubt.

I'd love to be able to offer a prize for the longest word, but I'll have to limit it to what my physics teacher used to award: self-esteem and the respect of your peers!

Neil

Neil Withers (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Posted by Neil Withers at 09:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Monday, Monday...time for your weekly dose of Research Highlights.

At the start of a packed programme this week, we feature a method to make prototypes for microfluidic devices out of paper. These 'lab on a chip' devices mean you can do reactions with tiny volumes of liquid in a tiny space and are hoped to be useful for things like medical diagnostics in future. Being able to make prototypes out of paper, using just a photocopier or black marker pen — besides just being damn cool — could make them available in places without photolithographic facilities.

How fast does it take your kettle to boil? It probably doesn't heat the water by ~10 °C in ~10 picoseconds, which is how fast Ahmed Zewail's laser heats samples in his ultrafast T-jump method. As the molecules are relaxing after their sudden excitement, you can find out new information. Such as the dynamics of a series of cobalt complexes, as in this case.

CFCs are bad for the ozone layer, but some of their replacements, hydrofluorocarbons, can be bad for your health — or act as "super" greenhouse gases. And those C–F bonds are just so strong that they hang around in the environment. So hooray for a catalyst that can convert them into more pleasant hydrocarbons. It's a silylium species (R₃Si+), stabilised by a very stable carborane anion.

I've occasionally wondered if chemists like coffee more than non-chemists, given the obsession shown by many of my past and present colleagues, and the twitching shown in the queues at break times at conferences. I've also wondered whether you could use proper lab equipment to make a REALLY good cup. It turns out you can, as this blog demonstrates! The Sceptical Chymist will hold no responsibility for the sleepless nights of readers who try this out...

Neil

Neil Withers (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Posted by Neil Withers at 04:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Are you sitting comfortably? To welcome in the weekend, there's a new Chempod! The July/August edition is available to download at the usual place. You can probably subscribe to it via iTunes, but I'm not trendy enough to know how.

This one features some reports from the recent ACS meeting in Philadelphia, where sustainability was on the agenda - hence the green theme in the show. New(ish) Nature Nanotechnology editor Owain Vaughan talks about his paper that recently appeared in Nature - on seriously small gold catalysts. Look out for a Reactions piece from him in the future...

Somewhat less impressively, I also make a slightly cringe-worthy appearance to promote our Facebook group, and the famous lab-coat photocompetition!

Thanks for listening,
Neil

Neil Withers (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Posted by Neil Withers at 12:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

1. What made you want to be a chemist?

An enthusiastic, old-fashioned chemistry teacher who didn’t care much about orbitals, but could get the class excited with vivid, thought-provoking experiments. Being intrigued, I tried some experiments on my own, which, surprisingly, worked. The love and dedication of the teacher to chemistry were inspirational.

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

A ship skipper. I love the sea, which can be both relaxing, very challenging, and unpredictable. Sometimes like chemistry.

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

By doing what they do best. Concentrate on issues that they believe can make a difference, rather than follow “low barrier” directions. Resist being influenced by fashions and buzzwords.

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

Haim Weizmann, the first president of Israel, who was also a visionary chemist. He represented a rare case in which mixing of science and politics (or statesmanship) was fruitful. His scientific contribution to the British WW1 effort paved the way to the Balfour Declaration in 1917 (“His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”).

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

Not exactly in the lab, I tried to entertain at my sons’ birthdays by showing chemical curiosities. That was stopped about 10 years ago (my sons didn’t turn out to be chemists after all).

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

A boat-builder’s manual would be nice. On a more serious note, Richard Willstatter’s “From my Life”. This is a thoughtful, revealing book by the 1915 Nobel Prize laureate. Beethoven’s 9 symphonies is my CD of choice.

David Milstein is in the Department of Organic Chemistry at the Weizmann Institute of Science, and works on organometallic chemistry and homogeneous catalysis.

Posted by Neil Withers at 05:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted on behalf of Materials Girl

Similar to a theme from last summer’s post while I was on vacation, it seems that chemistry never escapes notice. (No surprise there, considering that the world revolves around chemistry – or so we’d like to think. That point is argued here).

The view during take-off on a Boeing 737 rather strikes me as the opposite of studying chemistry. At least, certain aspects of it. Research in the field of chemistry tends to delve increasingly into the small scale, from materials, nanoparticles, and molecules down to atoms, electrons, etc. Chemists will keep zooming in until we find all the answers (and it’s not 42). On the other hand, watching the ground fade to 10,000 feet allows passengers to see massive structures and cities disappear – objects in macroscale are zoomed out until the ground resembles a 3D topographical map; I’m currently watching Silicon Valley disappear into a green and brown mountain range. Technology and science never cease to amaze me, no matter how large or small they go…

It seems that the mindset of any avid scientist boils down to a similar theme – a curiosity and amazement with little details and undiscovered subtleties of the world we exist in. Nowhere outside of the lab would I hear my fluorescent nanorod solution be described as “pretty” (people at home tend to just see some bright yellow liquid in a glass container). In few situations are TEMs, AFMs, and sometimes even NMRs described as “gorgeous” or “awesome”. It has been a wonderful summer for me as I’ve basked in the world of research and worked with great minds. In several weeks I shall return to school, bringing with me unique experience to apply towards continued labwork. Senior year should be interesting.

P.S.: Interestingly – in relation to Retread’s recent post, one of my fellow interns this summer attended the same intensive summer music academy that I did – one that does not accept students who are “soulless automatons producing mechanically perfect music”. It appears that being a decent chemist is compatible with being a decent pianist...

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 06:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted on behalf of Retread

Can you picture yourself spending a week with a group of people who can't tell an Angstrom from arugula, some of whom are wary of all "chemicals". Many highly analytic types (mathematicians, computer scientists, physicists, electrical engineers and even chemists) do just that and enjoy it immensely. I speak of adult amateur chamber music festivals (or 'band camp for adults' as one of my friend's grandkids calls them). After 35 years of them, I only met the 5th chemist this year. They are vastly outnumbered by the other analytics, particularly mathematicians and physicists.

Participants are highly educated for the most part, but the most talented cellist this year was a moving-company man who hauls furniture around for a living, and I still remember playing with a marvellous 300-pound violist years ago who was a jail matron.

If you were an aspiring organic chemist in the early 60s, the bible was "Mechanism and Structure in Organic Chemistry" by Edwin S. Gould, a physical chemist amazingly enough. He also happens to be an excellent violinist and I had the pleasure of playing with him a few years ago. He's still active in research although he received his PhD from UCLA in 1950. Who says chemicals are toxic!?

Occasionally the two cultures do clash, and a polymer chemist friend is driven to distraction by a gentle soul who is quite certain that "chemicals" are a very bad thing. For the most part, everyone gets along. Despite the very different mindsets, all of us became very interested in music early on, long before any academic or life choices were made.

So, are the analytic types soulless automatons producing mechanically perfect music which is emotionally dead? Are the touchy-feely types sloppy technically and histrionic musically? A double-blind study would be possible, but I think both groups play pretty much the same (less well than we'd all like, but with the same spirit and love of music).

I wonder why chemists are so outnumbered in this group? It's been downhill ever since Alexander Borodin. Perhaps a larger sample is needed. Any thoughts?

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 06:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

It's Research Highlight time!

First up, a method for creating patterns that works on different length scales at the same time AND doesn't need a time-consuming predefined pattern. It's called polymer pen lithography and relies on the 'squishiness' of the polymer to create patterns on different scales.

Next, metal-organic framework materials could be used to remove harmful gases from the air. Thanks to the fact that you can tune the size and functionality of their pores, they perform better than activated carbon.

What's your favourite ligand? Maybe in future it could be a cyclic vinylidenephosphorane, now that Guy Bertrand and colleagues have made a stable one. These have been proposed as alternatives to N-heterocyclic carbenes, but none has been found to exist at room temperature until now.

And finally, continuing our selfless quest to investigate beer so you don't have to, we were alarmed to read this story at New Scientist this morning: 'Gender bending' chemicals found in beer and wine.

Neil

Neil Withers (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Posted by Neil Withers at 04:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)