1. What made you want to be a chemist?

Nothing that exciting! I was good at it at school and my chemistry teacher - Mr Colvin - was a truly inspirational (and ever so slightly mad) person. He instilled in me the beauty of the subject.

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

My dream job (apart from what I do now) would be running a bike shop / coffee shop. Two of my passions in life.

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

We can contribute so many levels, but energy, new functional materials and healthcare are the three areas that chemists have made, and will continue to make, major contributions that fundamentally change peoples' lives. Being a chemist is very exciting. Enthusing the next generation of scientists to the joy of discovery and knowledge.

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

Neil Armstrong. Talking to the first man to walk on the moon would be inspirational.

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

It has been a long time since I did anything really serious (2002), but I did get a paper out of it. I am in and out of the lab almost hourly sometimes and I still get a massive kick out of my (very talented) co-workers "nailing" that important new structure or isolating a very sensitive complex.

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

Book: I am going to cheat: I would take Lord of the Rings, but smuggle in between the pages Dawkin's Blind Watchmaker. Both books had a profound impact on me: the first just blew me away with its scale and vision; the second simply changed forever the way I viewed the world.
CD: Difficult. From Elvis in Memphis - he was the king and this is him at his best, or the best of Johnny Cash. I would cheat (again) and burn a CD with both of these on.

Andrew Weller is in the Department of Chemistry at the University of Oxford, and works on the synthesis, characterisation and reactivity of low coordinate late transition metal organometallics. This work has impact of catalysis, structure and bonding and new energy vectors.

Posted by Neil Withers at 06:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Just a quickie post to let you know that the latest edition of ChemPod is now live! Here's the all important description of what's in it:

This show features the very first paper from our brand new journal Nature Chemistry; listen in to discover how to pair nucleotides in a cage. Plus, a new form of the element boron, how to make a nasty seafood toxin in the lab, and eccentric English chemist Martyn Poliakoff tells us about his Periodic Table of Videos on YouTube.

You can find it by going to our chemistry portal and navigating to the ChemPod page.

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Chief Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 05:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As you may have noticed, it's been quite sometime since I've blogged... there's been a small matter of launching a journal that has kept me somewhat busy. Well, the fruits of many, many people's labour is now out there for all to see - our first advance online publications went live yesterday: a research article from Makoto Fujita and colleagues and an associated News & Views article by Jim Thomas. I won't go into details about those articles here; I encourage you to go and check them out on our website...

What I would like to point you to, however, is the write up in C&EN about the launch of Nature Chemistry. Obviously Sophie only had a limited number of words for her story and so I would just like to show you the complete Q&A I sent to her. Here it is:

---------

1. Why is Nature launching Nature Chemistry?

Nature Publishing Group (NPG) has launched a small number of journals in the physical sciences (such as Nature Materials, Nature Physics and Nature Nanotechnology) and each of them have very quickly established themselves as recognised venues for the publication of high-impact research in their respective fields. Following on from the success of these other titles and their positive reception within the scientific community, we we are now determined to bring the authority and reputation of the Nature name to the subject of chemistry. Nature Chemistry continues NPG’s policy of only launching new journal titles where we will add genuine value to the literature. Moreover, NPG's commitment to innovation in online publishing means we are well placed to offer new opportunities for chemistry publishing on the web, such as the display of chemical compound pages and 3D structures — which have already been implemented by our sister journal Nature Chemical Biology.

2. How might the launch of Nature Chemistry affect the chemistry publishing community?

The launch of Nature Chemistry offers authors from all of the sub-fields within chemistry a choice for where they wish their most significant work to be considered for publication. There are actually a surprisingly small number of what can be described as general-chemistry journals — and a high-quality journal alternative, from Nature Publishing Group, that fits this description can only be good for the community. Competition helps invigorate the market, so if the launch of Nature Chemistry spurs other chemistry publishers to look at what they do and try to improve themselves — it is the researchers who publish in and read these journals who will benefit.

3. What is your vision for the journal?

There is a trend to carve up chemistry (and science in general) into smaller and smaller niche subjects and launch very narrowly focused journals that are only of interest to those within that particular sub-field. It is our aim that Nature Chemistry will, as much as it can, transcend the boundaries within the subject of chemistry and its content will appeal to a broad audience in the community. Nature Chemistry will be a place where readers know they can find high-quality research as well as insightful comment and analysis about other aspects of chemistry, such as education, policy, safety, funding and other related issues.

4. What sets Nature Chemistry apart from existing journals?

There are a number of ways. Our team of professional PhD-educated editors play a significant role not only in overseeing the peer-review process, but also in the presentation of the papers we publish. The text of each paper is carefully edited (in collaboration with the authors) to ensure that it is as broadly accessible as possible to the wider chemistry community. Moreover, the editors offer detailed feedback on the graphical material in each manuscript and suggest ways in which it can be improved where appropriate. The editors' expertise is also invaluable in identifying and commissioning review articles that will serve as authoritative reference works in their areas.

In addition to the research papers, Nature Chemistry will also publish other materials to complement this content, such as editorials, commentaries, research highlights, meeting reports, News & Views, features and regular columns from a small stable of writers.

We are also planning to provide interactive 3D displays of molecules and other compound specific information for substances that are described in the research papers. Links to PubChem will be provided and we are exploring the possibility of including links to other databases. Shortly after launch we also expect to be able to provide text-mined content, where relevant terms are marked-up and linked to databases if appropriate.

Beginning with the publication of the first issue, readers will be able to comment on journal content — in a similar fashion to which one is able to comment on a blog post — including the research papers as well as in other sections of the journal.

5. Librarians often say there are already too many journals on the market. What is your response to that statement?

I agree, there are. There are too many high-cost low-impact narrow-scope journals that divide chemistry into ever-decreasing slices. Nature Chemistry will offer value for money in that the content will be of the highest quality and will be relevant to the vast majority of chemists, rather than just a few members in any given department.

6. What other journals is Nature considering publishing?

I don't know what other journals NPG are planning to launch, you'd have to ask someone far more important than me! What I do know is that NPG are conscious that budgets are tight for everyone at the moment, so we won’t be launching new journals without thinking really carefully about whether there is a genuine need for them.

7. Anything else you’d like to add?

Readers and authors can also keep up with what Nature Chemistry is doing by checking out NPG’s chemistry blog, the Sceptical Chymist (http://blogs.nature.com/thescepticalchymist/) and also our Facebook page!

---------

If you made it this far, well done! And now go and check out those AOP articles...

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Chief Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 11:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)

Did you know you can get an RSS feed of our Research Highlights?

Carbon nanotubes can do anything, it seems. And now vertical arrays of nitrogen-doped CNTs have been found to be effective oxygen reduction electrodes, for use in fuel cells. Another cheaper alternative to platinum, which is the usual material used.

According to valence shell electron pair repulsion rules (VSEPR - remember learning those in long-ago undergrad days?), what structure would you expect a compound with 10 Ge atoms around 1 Co? Distribute all those bonds equally and you'd get a bicapped square antiprism. But instead you get a nearly geometrically perfect pentagonal prism — even the Ge–Ge distances BETWEEN the pentagonal faces are nearly the same as those WITHIN the faces.

Platinum and corrosion are two words I don't normally associate with each other — especially because during my PhD we had a (terrifyingly expensive) Pt crucible that could withstand anything, at any temperature. But it looks like chlorine can do it, and exposing certain Pt surfaces to chlorine gas results in PtCl₄ clusters forming as part of a highly ordered Cl-PtCl₄ layer.

And finally...watch this space for more from Stu later today!

Neil

Neil Withers (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Posted by Neil Withers at 05:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

1. What made you want to be a chemist?

After realizing at an early age the problems I'd have becoming pope, pilot or ambassador (that is the chronological order in which I remember my aspirations), I must, around the age of 8–9, have become hooked on science (I distinctly remember trying to keep cutting my piece of cheese to get to an "atom" of cheese and this was before I started classical Greek...). In my first year of chemistry (10th grade) at a small provincial school I had a great teacher, Niels Wiedenhof, and out of the 8–10 science-oriented pupils that were taught by Wiedenhof that year, two became chemistry professors (the other is Theo van de Ven at McGill). Wiedenhof went on to work for Philips in public relations and then did the first ever Dutch Ph.D. on public understanding of science.

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

Geology and/or climatology, but I hope I would not work as hard as I do now so as to have plenty of time for my great second love, history, something I always was fascinated with (and it apparently runs in the family as my brother became a historian and nowadays directs the Jewish Historical Museum in Amsterdam).

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

I can only reply looking through my alternative sustainable energy spectacles: Chemistry is at the centre of humankind's largest ever challenge, securing a sustainable future for the world with humans, humans that can have a lifestyle that allows them to keep their great achievements in health, mobility and communication, that the past centuries have brought. Apart from what chemists do in the lab, they should teach and explain, to help educate as large a part of the population in terms of basic scientific concepts, to minimize the fear of science and optimize realism of expectations, leaving Doctor Who-like escapades to sci-fi.

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

Baruch de Spinoza. From what I have read (by others, like my nephew who wrote a Ph.D. dissertation on him) I very much identify with his view of the world and god, but whenever I try to read the original, I get stuck. I want to ask him to explain his philosophy in his words, where I can stop him every time I get lost.

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

I pass thorugh the lab on my way to the office but, probably to the relief of students rarely intervene (interfere?) hands-on. Still, in 2003/4 when in Princeton working with my colleague Antoine Kahn, I prepared our samples for electron spectroscopy, to understand the electron energetic effects of molecular modifications of GaAs and, even if I say so myself, did pretty well. On a much smaller scale, a month or so ago, just passing through the lab, I figured out with a simple experiment why our low temperature electronic transport set-up was not functioning.

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

This is clearly an outdated formulation of the question. For the second part I assume that I will have a solar panel or small windmill to power my electronic device. Also, CD is out and it will be an MP3 player. Now, having an MP3 player, I can put books on it, can't I?
Book: Mr. Mani, of A. B. Yehoshua; it has a strong historical aspect AND, much of it is written as half of a dialogue, which leaves the reader to make up the other half, something that can be done time and again, and never has to (and will be) the same.
CD; Orpheus and Euridice of Gluck, not only because it is divine music, but also because Gluck gave it a happy, rather than the mythological tragic, ending and I love happy endings (my family and students may claim, though, that it must be one of Tom Lehrer's (remember his periodic table..)).

David Cahen is in the Department of Materials & Interfaces in the Faculty of Chemistry at the Weizmann Institute, and does research on understanding how molecules can control electronic transport, figure out basic limitations of this control, and search where are the possibilities for fundamentally novel science here, All this is done with special emphasis on the relevance for alternative, sustainable energy and, especially for new (and old) solar cells.

Posted by Neil Withers at 06:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Many moons ago, I had a few thoughts about how scientific words are pronounced, and particularly wondered if different pronunciations might reflect where scientists were trained, either in a certain field or a specific country. The precursor to this question, though, is where do the words originate?

One obvious possibility is that once a new word or definition appears in print, scientists across the world can see the article and use the new term going forward. This would explain how groups of people use the same word but pronounce it differently, as there isn't anyone flying around to different universities to give speech lessons (although that would be awesome. Count me in!). That's also the rationale behind our recent Commentary on GPCR nomenclature (in our new March issue). However, what happens before the first paper gets published? Are pockets of researchers discovering new phenomena and weird effects, and just calling them all different things? Are some of these discoveries so obvious in their terminology that everyone just happens upon the same name? I imagine that it's a bit like getting glasses, with similar yet subtly different words being thrown around until everyone focuses on a single term.

In contrast to the 'first publication defines a new name' idea, what happens if two competing sets of terminology are published at the same time? I think a related problem happens a lot in biology, where the same proteins (or genes) from different species get different names, and then papers have to spend a lot of time explaining that this protein is equivalent to that protein but not that other protein, etc.. But with two terms for the exact same thing, which one wins out? And is there a way to prevent this kind of silliness, or is that just one of the perverse joys of being in science?

Finally, what about more elusive ideas, like how to develop standards for a new field? How do researchers arrive at a meeting of the minds when each scientist may have a different idea of what is appropriate and/or different abilities to meet those standards? This has been a particular difficulty for scientists working on small-molecule screening, as discussed in our March editorial. What other fields are encountering this problem, and how are you/they dealing with it? In the editorial, we suggest a couple of remedies; if those don't work, I'd suggest you take two aspirin and call me in the morning.

Catherine (associate editor, Nature Chemical Biology)

Posted by Catherine Goodman at 10:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

We’ve done it again — only this time it’s bigger than before. Following on from an experiment a couple of months ago, in which we made a News & Views article on organic synthesis freely available for a week, we’re now bringing you an entire collection of News & Views pieces, covering a diverse range of chemistry. You can find everything here, and once again the content is as free as the birds (at least, it will be for two months).

The articles were originally published in Nature over the last year or so, and provide you with expert commentary on some of the top chemistry papers from recent times. So, if you’d like to hear Stuart Schreiber’s thoughts about a recent development in diversity-oriented synthesis, Chaitan Khosla discussing the relevance of dynamics in enzyme function, or perhaps Craig Hill waxing lyrical about one of the latest discoveries in late transition metal oxo complexes, why not go and have a look? And we haven’t forgotten all the physical chemists and materials scientists out there, there’s something for everyone.

So what are you waiting for? It’s free!

Andy

Andrew Mitchinson (Senior Editor, Nature)

Posted by amitchinson at 05:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Action stations at Nature Chemistry HQ today...it's the deadline day for all the News and Views, Feature and other articles that make up the 'front-half' — the non-research articles — of the FIRST ISSUE. Exciting times.

This week, Steve gets to grips with more stereochemically odd natural products — not literally, as it might poison him — polychlorinated and 'stereochemically dense' chlorosulpholipids, a seafood toxin. The key step, an epoxide ring-opening, resulted in the wrong stereochemistry, suggesting an unusual intermediate.

You might have already seen the new form of boron that's been reported — after all, it's been in big Nature, the New York Times, the Conan O'Brien show and quite a swathe of blogs! But here's my take on the new form, including how it could be the first element with ionic bonding.

Being able to detect and identify proteins could help in diagnosing certain diseases, and many people are working towards sensor arrays that mimic how mammalian noses work (not sure I could smell the difference between too many proteins...). A new system has been developed that used quadruplexes of DNA arranged in a square. Each DNA strand has a fluorophore that gives off a different colour depending on which protein it's interacting with.

And finally...it's your last chance to enter our fabulous lab-coat picture competition! You can check out some of the entries (and our tea-pot cosy) on our Facebook group page.

Neil

Neil Withers (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Posted by Neil Withers at 06:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

1. What made you want to be a chemist?

Probably a number of reasons: (i) wanting to learn about colour — understanding of how it arises and how it can be harnessed and utilised; (ii) wanting to make compounds — especially if they were smelly, exploded or changed properties; (iii) and having a truly inspirational schoolteacher — Mr. Ken Jones.

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

An architect. I love the shapes and topology of (inorganic) compounds and often find myself doodling boxes, and 3D shapes. Add some numbers and angles, along with imagination, and it would be fun to design amazing structures.

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

Firstly by education — training and inspiring the next generation of scientists, but also by teaching the general public that chemistry is such a central and indispensable science with many, many facets. Secondly, by harnessing these talented chemists to tackle the major problems and issues that the world faces — climate change, sustainable energy/resources, medical/biological diagnosis and treatment.

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

Linus Pauling – anyone who wins two (unshared) Nobel prizes (one for Chemistry and the other Peace) must have some interesting views and dinner conversation would not be dull.

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

It’s been a long time since I was able to get stuck into some serious synthetic chemistry — these days I am mainly limited to helping my research students purify compounds via various crystallisation techniques — there is such a thrill when you see a set of beautiful crystals at the bottom of a Schlenk tube after an overnight re-crystallisation.

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

The book would be Papillon by Henri Charriere – a great, mainly true autobiographical story about the adventures of a French convict and fugitive, and one of the few books I have read twice. One CD is tricky and would depend on my mood. If classical – Rachmaninov; If jazz – Chet Baker; but for rock/blues, a Van Morrison compilation would probably capture the ups and downs of being on a desert island, along with some great tunes and a bit of a singalong.

Nick Long is in the Department of Chemistry at Imperial College London and works on applied synthetic chemistry, particularly aimed at ligand design/catalysis and the synthesis of biomedical (PET, MRI and optical) imaging probes.

Posted by Neil Withers at 06:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Graham Richards, former head of chemistry at Oxford ('the largest chemistry department in the western world', don't forget), has a new book out, and is interviewed in the Guardian here.

He's a computational chemist - and has been since computers were the size of rooms - and has spun out two pretty succesful companies, Isis Innovation and Oxford Molecular (now part of Accelrys). The interview is an interesting read, and touches on the trouble with funding bodies, venture capitalists and the higher education boom in the UK in the 1960s.

On my travels last year I particuarly enjoyed talking to academics about how different universities exploit their research. The Weizmann Institute impressed me the most: the head of chemistry, Yehiam Prior told me that about 1/3 of their funding comes from exploiting their intellectual property - and they've been doing it for about 30 years. And I think the academics themselves get to keep about 50% of the cash, with the remaining 50% going straight to the department - the Institute overall doesn't see a shekel.

Spotters badge to Dan Cressey at The Great Beyond.

Neil

Neil Withers (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

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

Posted on behalf of Sugar Daddy

With the changing of the guard in Washington, late-night night television hasn't quite been the same. I guess the new guy in charge is a harder target for comics. Anyway, to a certain extent, the late-night hosts have been turning their attention elsewhere, and eventually chemistry was bound to make it. In this clip, Conan O'Brien draws attention to, among other things, the discovery of a fourth form of pure elemental boron.

The humor in the clip originates from a recent New York Times article that had mistakenly counted the number of pure forms of boron, and Conan was mocking them for not being able to correctly count to four. The surprise for me was that Conan whipped out a big poster board with crystal structures of the various forms of boron and then started to describe them in rather gory scientific detail. I don't think this will help the public understand chemistry any better, but it's better than nothing, I guess. Plus, he's funny.

Posted by Catherine Goodman at 02:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Let's dive straight in: Catalysts' performances can be tuned by including other metals - for example, a CuPt alloy. You might expect that, for an effective catalyst, the surface would feature more of the reactive metal - in this case, Pt. But no! The less reactive Cu atoms migrate to the surface, where they create islands of Pt atoms to do the biz with the CO molecules.

Catenanes are molecules of interlocked rings and are normally made by interlocking rings containing either pi-donor or -acceptor groups. What Jeremy Sanders and colleagues have done is put pi-donors AND -acceptors into both rings. The building blocks link together with a donor-acceptor-donor-acceptor pi-section.

One day, we'll all be using quantum computers. But to get to that exciting future, we need quantum binary digits - or qubits as they are handily abbreviated to - and to control their entanglement. Now, two Cr7Ni rings have been linked together through a Cu-containing ligand system. This provides three qubits, and their entanglement could be controlled by microwave pulses.

And finally...Gav caught physical chemistry textbook guru Peter Atkins on TV yesterday morning. You may be able to watch on the BBC's iPlayer here. Not a vast amount of chemistry, admittedly, but most definitely a chemist!

Neil

Neil Withers (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Posted by Neil Withers at 09:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted on behalf of Retread

Remember noncoding DNA? For protein that is. That's 98% of our genome. It now appears that at least half of our genome is transcribed into RNA. Is this a case of transcription machinery gone wild? One type of RNA made from the 98% is called microRNA (after it is cut from a larger precursor). MicroRNAs are only 21-23 nucleotides long. They aren't used to make proteins (which would be at most 7 amino acids long anyway). Instead they bind to complementary sequences in messenger RNA by classic Watson-Crick base pairing, and inhibit the translation of the mRNA into protein by the ribosome. So although microRNAs don't code for proteins, they help determine how much of them are made.

Until recently, microRNA binding to mRNA was thought to occur at the tail end (which does not code for protein). Two recent papers show that microRNAs also bind to the amino acid coding sequences of some proteins [Nature vol. 455 pp. 1124-1128, 2008 and PNAS vol. 105 pp. 20297-20302, 2008]. Change one synonymous codon to another, and the microRNA no longer binds and the level of the protein changes. So this is the third code written into our DNA.

What's so remarkable about that? Pop a DVD of a movie into a player. You are given choices of subtitles, language, etc... All these modalities are coded on separate tracks and blended together by the player after you choose. DNA is just one track and is coding for subtitles, sound and pictures by the same sequence of nucleotides. A given DNA sequence is capable of being read at least 3 ways — amino acid, exonic splicing enhancers and inhibitors, and microRNA — (and who's to say that these are the only ways DNA can be read).

The examples in the Nature paper are far from trivial as they involve Nanog, Sox2 and Oct4. So what? These three genes are crucial for stem cell function, and with a fourth have been used to transform normal cells into 'stemlike' cells (induced pluripotent cells — iPSs). What could be sexier than that? MicroRNA-control of these proteins has to be important.

There has recently been a good deal of interest in diversity oriented synthesis of small molecules — see [Nature vol. 457 pp. 153-154, 2009] and the ‘In the Pipeline’ blog post of 20 Jan, along with the more than 40 comments it brought forth. The hope is to create a wider variety of small molecules which can interact with proteins than we've been used to — and which might be useful drugs.

Turn the problem on its head and give it a twist. How could you use an RNA sequence to make a polynucleotide which interacts with the small molecule of your choice? RNA isn't a very promising starting material. It's highly negatively charged because of the phosphates, so to bind to anything anionic, positive counterions would be needed. Not much functionality either, a vicinal diol on the ribose, some pi-electron systems, the phosphodiester, an amine, a ketone (and the tautomers), some nitrogens and oxygens here and there. No carboxylic acids, not even a methyl group.

How would you find an RNA sequence specific enough to bind just to a single small molecule, say thiamine, or B12 and nothing else in the complicated chemical soup of the cell. A tough problem, definitely. Not to worry — nature has solved it, and uses the solution (called a riboswitch) to control protein expression in the cell. Most riboswitches have been found in bacteria, but some have been found in fungi and plants. Riboswitches are found in mRNA before the part which codes for protein. The RNA of the riboswitch undergoes a huge conformational change on binding the small molecule, controling whether a protein is made or not. So this is a fourth type of code in DNA — reversible RNA conformation on ligand binding. Unlike the other 3 codes, it probably is only read in the context of itself (unlike the synonymous codons which can be read 3 ways).

Well, if RNA sequences can be arranged so they change conformation on binding a small molecule, then it is at least possible that small molecules (which get into cells much more easily than anything else) can be found which alter the conformation of RNAs — such as microRNAs. This is basically an entirely unexplored field of chemistry. In contast, we've been throwing small molecules at proteins, proteins at polynucleotides and studying the results for decades.

Why would you want to throw a small molecule at a microRNA? It's early times, but it seems clear most microRNAs control the levels of many proteins. Moreover, the proteins controlled usually have related functions in the cell. In this sense the microRNA can be considered the cellular analogue of the bacterial operon, which usually controls many of the enzymes in a given biosynthetic pathway. Our genome codes for at least 500 different microRNAs, and the physiologic effects of knocking different ones out (or overexpressing them) are quite different, just as mutations in different genes produce radically different effects.

MicroRNAs are drugable targets, largely unexplored, and sure to be a field day for the organic chemist, physical chemist and biochemist. I wouldn't have thought it possible to even consider this possibility, if nature hadn't shown us that it can be done with the riboswitch. Sorry Einstein, 'the old one' wasn't a mathematician or a physicist, he was a chemist.

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 07:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

1. What made you want to be a chemist?

I’m still a chemist wanna-be! I’m a chemical engineer by training and I work closely with several chemistry collaborators. The precision of chemistry amazes me. I am always in awe how my collaborators can derivatize and functionalize organic compounds as prescribed with such ease.

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

I would like to be a science show/documentary host with PBS or the equivalent. I was always told that I connect with my audience. I think I would really enjoy engaging the public with what we do.

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

Given the interdisciplinary nature of research today, I believe that we have to reach to work with scientists and engineers in other disciplines to really contribute to the world at large. Underlying the energy challenge today, for example, is the need for the development of new materials as renewable energy sources. Chemists are uniquely equipped to tackle this task. But to really contribute towards solving the world’s energy challenge, we will have to engage researchers in other disciplines, be it to scale up production, or to incorporate these new materials into functional devices.

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

He’s by no means a historical figure but, if granted the opportunity, I would love to have dinner with Bill Nye, the science guy. His love and curiosity for science is infectious! And he inspired me as a child.

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

Yesterday! I was running some near-edge X-ray absorption fine structure spectroscopy experiments at a soft X-ray beamline at the National Synchrotron Light Source at Brookhaven National Labs. Long hours – but I really enjoy being involved in the experiments.

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

Book – Maria Shriver’s Ten Things I Wish I’d Known Before I Went into the Real World. This book grounds me and provides perspective whenever I am stressed out. I think I would be quite stressed out stranded on an island!

CD – Carla Bruni’s Quelqu'un m'a dit

Lynn Loo is in the Department of Chemical Engineering at Princeton University, and works on the development of plastic transistors and organic solar cells

Posted by Neil Withers at 06:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

With most of the UK enduring or enjoying a couple of inches of snow, normal Research Highlight service is resumed.

As we've known since The Graduate, polymers are the future - especially ones that conduct. But the way that electrons (or excitons to be a bit more accurate) move along polymer chains has always been assumed to be by 'hopping' between excited areas. It turns out that they might move more smoothly [the Perspective even says 'surfing'] and even retain some 'coherence'.

Metals from the d- and f-blocks are generally pretty different: directional bonding vs diffuse, a range of oxidation states vs stick-in-the-mud 3+, and so on. Compounds that have a metal from both families, therefore, can be pretty interesting - especially magnetically. And that's just the case for some copper-lanthanide complexes that are (sort of) a trimer of dimers.

Apparently, there was some sort of big sports game thing on Sunday, and it meant Steve could get away with using the word 'suprabowl' in his headline. Topical. Anyway, back to the science. The bowls in question are tris(spiroborate)s that form supramolecular polymers with iridium complexes - at room temperature.

And finally...two links that could help improve the way publishing works. One is hosted by the RSC on behalf of a UK funding body (JISC) to understand how you communicate and use information. The other one is to help categorize the comments on PLoS ONE papers. Do your bit for Science 2.0!

Neil

Neil Withers (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Posted by Neil Withers at 03:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)