When I was a junior high school student, I was charmed by the periodic table. I have never lost interest in it because of its beauty. I needed to understand the nature of all atoms. Now, there is a big Japanese poster of "A periodic table for a family" produced by the Japan Foundation of Public Communication on Science and Technology in my office, so I can always see it.

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

A painter or a farmer. One of my grandfathers was a painter. He painted beautiful pictures of plants or animals on Japanese traditional cloth. My other grandfather was a rice farmer. He grew Koshihikari, the very popular and most expensive variety of rice in Japan. My family considered me to be the most likely successor in either event.

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

Education. People tend to keep chemistry at a distance. A product that originates from natural resources is highly thought of by people, in other words, they tend to be afraid of "a chemically synthesized compound". For example, vanilline extracted from vanilla beans and chemically synthesized vanilline are virtually the same compound, but they will choose the former even if it’s three hundred times more expensive than the synthetic one. It's crazy! I think the goal of chemists is to produce people who have high scientific or chemical literacy by using our chemical knowledge.

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

Prof. Adolf Butenandt, Nobel Prize winner, and also the person to discover the first insect pheromone, bombykol. I am interested in bio-regulators such as insect or microbe pheromones and hormones. I would like to hear his private lecture about his historical work on the isolation of bombykol.

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

Yesterday. I am active in our lab. My teacher and master, Professor Kenji Mori (now 73 years old), is still active in his lab! So I can't retire.

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

I like movies, especially Science Fiction movies. So, I would take the soundtrack of Star Wars and explore the island with the music in the background during the day. And I will go on reading Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky at night.

Arata Yajima is in the Department of Fermentation Science at the Tokyo University of Agriculture and works on the synthesis of natural products and biosynthetic intermediates interest at the interface of chemistry with biology particularly the microbe pheromones and rice phytoalexins.

Back in the 80s when artificial intelligence (AI) was going to make humans obsolete, LISP was the programming language of choice for AI. As a neurologist I was interested in intelligence in any form (machine or otherwise) so I tried to learn it. Most programs looked like gibberish. There was a great quote in a book "Let's Talk LISP" after a particularly convoluted piece of code — "Relax you, never understand anything, you just get used to it".

I think the same thing has happened with our understanding of biologically relevant proteins. We've just become used to the fact that biological proteins have a dominant shape. However, we also know that other polymers don't. DNA and RNA certainly don't have a single shape.

So why do biologically meaningful proteins have one? Consider enzymes. The amino acid side chains comprising the active site are found all over the protein rather than next to each other in the sequence. Chymotrypsin, one of the best studied enzymes, has a catalytic triad made from histidine #57, aspartic acid #102 and serine #195. To function, they must be brought near to each other and held there fixed (and in the proper orientation to boot). The same holds for structural proteins that make up muscle and the cytoskeleton.

Yet only 10 kcal/mole — 2 hydrogen bonds — is enough to denature them. Not much of an activation energy — not even close to a covalent bond. Once denatured, Anfinsen showed that ribonuclease found its way back to the original shape, implying that there were no other conformations of similarly low energy available to it.

It is remarkable that we only have 20,000 or so protein coding genes when you consider just how large possible protein space is. In this regard, proteins are like English words. There are very few of them when you calculate how many there could be. Sonnet #18 — "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" contains 114 words of which 17 are 7 or more letters long. The Oxford English dictionary contains 600,000 or so words of all lengths. There are 8 x 10^9 strings of 7 letters. Few of them have meaning.

Words are a lot shorter than proteins. There are 8 times as many strings of 4 amino acids (20^4 = 160,000) than we have proteins. My guess is that this isn't an accident, because I doubt that most strings of amino acids have a dominant shape (e.g., biological meaning), and even if they did, they couldn't find it quickly enough (the Levinthal paradox again).

How would you prove me wrong? Is the question even meaningful scientifically? I (of course) think it is quite meaningful in a philosophic sense, since it bears on just how probable or improbable life is. The next post will discuss some gedanken experiments which could settle the question (or show that it is unanswerable).

I enjoyed chemistry in high school and continued to enjoy chemistry at MIT. When I made a polymer in an advanced organic chemistry lab, I was hooked and then pursued my PhD in polymer science and engineering at UMass, Amherst.

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

After graduating from MIT, I was accepted to both graduate school and medical school. If I wasn't a chemist, I would probably have been a medical doctor (not sure what type though).

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

We can advance knowledge. We can take advantage of these advancements in knowledge to influence policy and create better products for the future. I'm particularly interested in tissue engineering/regenerative medicine where we can design polymers for use in tissue regeneration and delivery of drugs/therapeutics.

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

Both Ralph Waldo Emerson and Abraham Lincoln are revered in our family (our sons are named after them, in part) - they were both great thinkers and great leaders. This would be an interesting experience.

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

When I was on sabbatical, I learned how to obtain primary neurons in Drs. Freda Miller and David Kaplan's labs - this was in 2003. The initial "sabbatical" became the basis for a PhD project, which Laura Yu completed (4 years later). I also recently did a demonstration for my son's grade one class last week (April 2008) on dissolving an egg shell in vinegar - but this probably doesn't count as an experiment!

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

I would take the book on "How to get off a desert island" and bring a solar-powered iPod.

Molly Shoichet is in the Department of Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry at the University of Toronto and works on tissue engineering strategies to promote regeneration after traumatic injury in the central nervous system and targeted delivery in cancer.

The lucky scientists are from Royal Holloway, University of London, and they're developing high-res XRD techniques to map crystal imperfections. Moreton Moore (who Google reveals is also a Councillor on Runymede Borough Council) has spent a large part of his career studying...diamonds. Not just a girl's best friend, industrial diamonds can contain tiny inclusions of metal that could cause failure. So being able to separate out the elements within the metal using the hard X-rays from Diamond could lead to better industrial diamonds.

The new test beamline's job is to allow researchers (academic and industrial) to test their optical components. Kawal Sawhney, Principal Beamline Scientist, said 'It enables us to push our capabilities and advance the technology that is available to users, without interrupting the schedule of the other beamlines, ultimately resulting in better, cutting-edge science.'

Having used the neutron source at ISIS (on GEM and HRPD) and the old synchrotron source at Daresbury (9.1) in my PhD, I tend to get a bit green-eyed over this sparkling new facility. Daresbury especially was a source of mild dread to us all, probably because of the prospect of running an experiment over 48 hours, in which you need to change the image plate every 20 minutes. This required two of us to stay up until 4am before the other two team members took over. The unfortunate thing is that the furnace broke at around 9am, thus slightly ruining everything. That's to say nothing of the rubber bands and sticky tape that seemed to be holding everything together – or the infamous canteen!

Neil

Neil Withers (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Today’s topic is inspired by a rather sad story...I found out around Christmas time that my first ever science teacher at my village middle school recently died at a fairly young age of motor neurone disease. So this post is dedicated to the memory of Mr Challinor – Gareth, I believe.

I vividly remember some of his first lessons back when I was a 9 year old, 20 years ago. The school buildings were quite new (10 or so years old at the time), so the little lab was pretty well kitted out. But he really instilled in us the fact that science wasn't about Bunsen burners or any of the other complicated apparatus we were all seeing for the first time. A scientist's most important tools, he said, were his or her eyes, to observe what was happening.

One of the first experiments I remember him showing us was incredibly simple, but also incredibly powerful. He'd told us about atoms, and how burning material was essentially just adding oxygen to it. To prove that things do get heavier once you’ve burned them, he carefully weighed some magnesium foil in a crucible, then set fire to it. After the bright white flame died away, he re-weighed the crucible and guess what? The weight had indeed increased.

As well as teaching us about atoms and combustion, something else he did in that experiment also stands out. He got one of the class (Jamie Preece, since you asked) to watch over his shoulder as he did the weighing (we couldn’t all fit around the balance). This was just to show that he wasn’t making it all up, that we shouldn’t believe him 'just because he said so', but to show what he said had happened actually did. That's a pretty important first lesson in science for anyone, but especially a 9 year old: don’t just take someone's word for it, see for yourself.

So, if anyone else would like to share their first ever experiment with the world, please let us know in the comments below!

Neil

Neil Withers (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Second of all (and the point of this post): The National Academy of Science has elected 72 new members and 18 foreign associates (which is the maximum that can be elected in any given year, apparently), of which a pleasantly surprising number are chemists (such as Frances Arnold, Steven Boxer, Steven Buchwald, Ken Dill, Michael Grunstein, Eric Jacobsen, and Tim Swager). Go chemists! It is perhaps worth noting, however, that only a small number of these folks have mustaches (which bodes well for Ken Dill; to be explained later).

The NAS site also tells us that 'election is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer'. What do you guys think? Are you more impressed by someone who is in the HHMI? Or someone who's won a Cope Award, the Priestley Medal, or the Nakanishi Prize? How do you think the Kavli Prize will stack up (to be awarded for the first time in May)? Do you think NAS membership (or, in fact, most of these awards) would be more or less impressive if the rationale for who was picked was more transparent? Or do you find that the people doing great work come to be well-known and well-respected regardless of these external trappings?

In any case, it's clear that chemists are doing some moving and shaking (and shaving) these days. Congratulations to the new NAS members.

Catherine (associate editor, Nature Chemical Biology)

You can find a report on his life on the Great Beyond blog.

Andy

Andrew Mitchinson (Associate Editor, Nature)

So what did you see? If you're anything like the chemist that wrote in to the New York Times to complain, you'll have spotted that some of the carbon atoms appear to have formed five bonds. Fair enough. But did you notice that the molecule is actually spelling out the word 'sex'?

Credit goes to the Newsmakers section of Science for telling this story of a chemist who was prepared to admit that he missed the point. I have to say, I think I'd have missed the point of the graphic too...

Andy

Andrew Mitchinson (Associate Editor, Nature)

My curiosity! Born with a strong dose of curiosity, I found early in life that this drive addicted me to chemistry. I found that no matter how many problems were solved, their solutions led to so many more new questions. That feature alone has made chemistry an insatiably exciting hobby, my “best friend”, and a lifetime career.

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

Probably a landscape architect. Firstly, I enjoy performing physical work. Secondly, I intuitively enjoy thinking about the unique function, dynamics and possible benefits that architecture contributes to structure at the pico-, nano- and micro-scale level. I believe one should expect to find similar issues at the macroscopic level. Undoubtedly, that is why I enjoy horticulture/gardening so much as a hobby.

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

Chemistry is so pervasive in life; the environment, our health, society and even our presence in the universe. As practitioners of such a ubiquitous discipline it is our responsibility to be certain that our efforts are positive and for the good of all these issues.

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

Undoubtedly, John Dalton, Manchester, England (1766- 1844). I have always admired his courage, vision and commitment that led to his “New System of Chemical Philosophy” (1808). His vision and efforts launched our traditional chemistry platform from which all chemists have enjoyed, enhanced and derived benefits. I toast to Dalton on each of my birthdays since we share the same birthday (September 5), however, 172 years apart.

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

I conducted a dendrimer synthesis and a photochemical experiment within the past six months. I was curiosity driven by why a particular nanoscale dendrimer we had synthesized exhibited extraordinary fluorescence properties yet possessed no traditional fluorescent chromophores. At this time, these fluorescent properties have been confirmed; however, I still do not have a complete answer as to why they exhibit fluorescence.

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

My favorite book is The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci. I never cease to be amazed by his extraordinary discipline, articulation and keen observations on all aspects of life. My favorite CD would contain all the compositions/works of Wolfgang Mozart. I always seem to find fresh inspirations, excitement, new ideas and fulfillment in the presence of his unique notes, scales, musical patterns and sounds.

Donald A. Tomalia is Director of The National Dendrimer & Nanotechnology Center and Distinguished Research Scientist/Professor at Central Michigan University. He is engaged in research with a focus on nanomaterial synthesis (i.e., dendrimers, metal nanoclusters, etc.), their nano-stoichiometries, nano-sterics and the identification of nanoperiodic reactivity and assembly patterns associated with these well defined nanomaterials to produce higher complexity.

Although a lot of screen time is given to mad scientists in movies, TV shows, and even the news (nothing says 'Watch the 11:00 news' like a scientist raving about time machines or cloning him/herself), I don't see a lot of true scientific content devoted to these beloved figures. For example, a friend of mine suggested there could be a journal just for research from mad scientists (plots to take over the world, new kinds of poisons, etc., which would have the side benefit of making it extremely easy to fight terrorism (by arresting all the corresponding authors)), but there could also be conference sessions or entire conferences devoted to 'Ways to create living matter using a corpse's brain' or 'How to accidentally change the size of your family members so that they get lost in your back yard and hilarity ensues'. What about special grants programs for people working on cloning dinosaurs into frog eggs, or switching faces back and forth? Really, I think this is a whole section of the science community we've been ignoring for too long. Unfortunately, most of these ideas don't really tie in to chemistry very well... perhaps we chemists are just too normal for all that silliness?

Anyway, I'm off to see if I can find some nice European chocolate. Hooray for globalization!

Catherine (associate editor, Nature Chemical Biology)