I just got back from my holiday in Thailand, which was very nice apart from an unfortunate bout of food poisoning. Anyway, I thought you might be interested in seeing this article from the Bangkok Post, which highlights just how crucial chemicals are in the real world (not that you’ll need much convincing). In particular, it demonstrates the importance of fertilizers.

Thailand is the world’s leading exporter of rubber, but crop yields are expected to be lower this year. The reason? It seems that a lot of the fertilizers being supplied to Thai rubber plantations are fake or sub-standard, despite the fact that the costs of fertilizers have doubled over the past year. This is causing much hardship for Thai rubber farmers, and presumably could have a knock-on effect for global rubber supplies and prices.

Everyone is aware of the consequences of fake drugs flooding the pharmaceutical market, but I hadn’t realized that a similar situation existed for fertilizers. The implications for the rubber industry and for farmers in particular are made clear in the Bangkok Post article, but if the problem extends to food-crop farming in developing countries, then the effects could be even more dire. Has anyone else heard of this problem?

Andy

Andrew Mitchinson (Associate Editor, Nature)

Posted by amitchinson at 06:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The London offices of Nature are blighted by viruses at the moment – I’ve currently got the worst cold that I’ve had in years, and several other scourges are also rampant, including the notorious norovirus (otherwise known as the ‘winter vomiting bug’). With the recent news that avian flu has apparently now been brought to the UK by migrating birds, I decided to see how chemists have been dabbling in the world of viruses.

So let’s start with avian flu. A fascinating paper in Nature Biotechnology uncovers what would need to happen at a molecular level for the virus to become transmissible between humans (subscribers can see the paper here, but there's also a C & EN article about it here). Infection is mediated by the binding of hemagglutinin (HA) proteins on the virus to sugars on HA receptors in the host. Ram Sasisekharan and his team have found that the shape formed by the carbohydrates is all important: the sugars on avian HA receptors form a cone-shape, but human sugars are arranged more like umbrellas. So, if the virus can mutate to bind to our ‘umbrellas’, we could be in trouble. Sasisekharan’s discovery might provide a way of checking whether new mutants of the virus could cause a human pandemic. None of this research would have been possible without recent advances in carbohydrate synthesis and mass spectrometry.

Those of you interested in nanotechnology may be interested to hear of a report in ACS Nano, which describes how quantum dots can be attached to cowpea mosaic virus to construct a minuscule memory device (click here for the paper). Mihri Ozkan and her group show that the resulting hybrid particles demonstrate reversible, bistable electrical behaviour, suitable for repeated write-read-erase cycles. Mind boggling stuff. I like the idea of making cyborg viruses, as long as they don’t give me a cold.

Meanwhile, John Robinson and his group report in Angewandte Chemie on the use of synthetic virus-like particles (subcribers can read the paper here). These star-like structures self-assemble from lipopeptides, and the authors have attached synthetic antigens to them. When injected into rabbits, the antigen-carrying particles trigger an immune response – the rabbits generate antibodies to the antigens. The authors hope that their particles have a bright future in the design of synthetic vaccines. I hope so too. Perhaps they can find a vaccine for the common cold. For now, I’ll just have to keep taking the paracetamol.

Andy

Andrew Mitchinson (Associate Editor, Nature)

Posted by amitchinson at 05:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

As regular readers may know, I occasionally come across chemistry-related newspaper articles on my commute to and from work - and this morning I found another one that I wanted to share.

Flipping through yesterday's edition of The Times on the way in today, I found an interesting little story about how one section of the population is perhaps not doing all they can in the war on climate change (if we can have a war on terror, surely we can have one on climate change?). Anyway, it turns out that the deceased could be doing more to reduce their carbon footprint...

In the article, 'Dearly departed encouraged to do their bit on global warming', a local council in Greater Manchester has suggested that the heat generated when those who have recently shuffled off this mortal coil are cremated, should be used to power the boilers and lights of crematoria. The council officials are treading carefully, however, with one of them admitting that, "If you look at it in black and white, some people might sit there thinking 'my relative is being cremated to heat the chapel'."

Much consultation is planned, however, and one local vicar has already given the plan his blessing, "As a final act of generosity, it's a lovely way for the dead to provide comfort for the living at a difficult time. I think it's a great idea," said Reverend Vernon Marshall.

Perhaps the most interesting fact I discovered as I read the article with a certain amount of morbid fascination, however, is that by the year 2020, it is expected that the biggest source of mercury emissions in Britain will be from crematoria. Mercury in tooth fillings vaporises during the process and is released into the atmosphere. Possible solutions include installing filters in crematorium chimneys... or perhaps a little post mortem dentistry, removing the dearly-departed's teeth before cremation (see this article from the LA Times).

One of my colleagues this morning asked if burial was any better - does the mercury eventually leech back into the soil and water, it may not be returned to the environment as quickly, but does anyone know if that is a potential problem?

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Senior Editor, Nature Nanotechnology)

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 05:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Happy new year to everyone! I hope you were all able to take off a few days from lab-work/school-work/work and catch up on sleep, read a few good books, and decompress a bit...

It's been a long time since I've blogged, but I just wanted to tell you some great news - I'm very happy to announce that Stuart Cantrill will be the chief editor of Nature Chemistry (set to launch in early 2009)...

Some of you may have noticed that NPG is now searching for editors to join Stuart at Nature Chemistry, as well as a chemistry editor to take his place at Nature Nanotechnology...

If you have any questions about what life is like as an editor, please feel free to post it here and one (or more) of us will let you know our thoughts...

Hope you all had a great break!

Joshua

Joshua Finkelstein (Senior Editor, Nature)

Posted by Joshua Finkelstein at 11:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBacks (0)

Just every now and then, my train ride home in the evening is brightened up by some story I find in the (generally inane) free newspaper that I pick up from King's Cross.

Today it was a brief note about a story printed earlier in the day by another newspaper (one you actually have to pay for - in fact, most things in the free papers can be considered to be recycled news, however, I digress) - something along the lines of 'negative ions improve the performance of footballers'...!

So, I duly follow up when I get home and check out the original story, that can be found here.

It basically goes like this: negatively charged ions in the football shirts kick off a sequence of events in the body that ultimately leads to increased blood flow and speedier removal of lactic acid and an overall 2.7% increase in 'mean power'... and that means you could score more goals, perhaps.

On this matter I'm somewhat of a skeptical chemist - what about you?

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Senior Editor, Nature Nanotechnology)

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 02:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Time to put your fancy new iPod/iPhone through its paces and download the new chemistry podcast from Nature, which can be found here.

In this show, find out about an exciting new approach to mass spectrometry, how tiny graphite particles replace biological membranes to couple redox enzymes and we speak to Nobel prize winner Richard Schrock about metathesis.

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Senior Editor, Nature Nanotechnology)

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 04:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Best house-warming gift.

Ever.

Period.

Well, periodic, really...

Along with the fantastic wine, flowers and chocolates, we now have a fabulous periodic table shower curtain (Thanks Tom)! OK, we've all seen periodic table mugs and T-shirts, but a shower curtain of the elements - I didn't know such things existed...

What other periodic table paraphernalia have you come across - and can anybody beat a shower curtain!?

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Senior Editor, Nature Nanotechnology)

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 09:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

As you may have noticed (and some of you have commented on), The Sceptical Chymist has recruited a range of guest bloggers. Although NPG editors will continue to contribute, we wanted to add some new voices that can offer different perspectives on chemistry and describe their experiences from within (or beyond) the chemistry community. The team is as follows:

Materials Girl: In her own words, 'a wide-eyed undergraduate student who rambles on about anything university and [ultimately] chemistry-related that strikes her fancy'.

Sugar Daddy: A fourth year graduate student working in a chemical biology lab doing research that involves a 'little bit of synthesis, little bit of biology'.

Prospective Professor: A postdoc on the hunt for an academic position.

Rookie Rocky: Hubert is a brand new assistant professor facing up to the challenges of the job, including what it means to sit in the front row at seminars!

10 Miles from Academia: Jeff Johannes - a medicinal chemist at a major pharmaceutical company in the Boston area - offers us a different perspective on breakthroughs in chemistry.

Confessions of a former chemist: Even further away from academia, Mushy is a PhD-chemist who left it all behind to go and work in IT in the City of London, but still has a soft spot for all things chemistry.

So, there you go, an undergrad, a grad, a postdoc, an assistant prof, an industrial chemist and an ex-chemist - we hope you enjoy reading.

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Senior Editor, Nature Nanotechnology)

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 07:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I only have time for a quick post, as I'm about to run off to a meeting - but I was in a baby gear/toy store yesterday, and I'm sorry to report that the children's chemistry sets were in the "Science & Magic" section.

That pairing really threw me for a loop - I guess any sufficiently advanced technology really is indistinguishable from magic...

Joshua

Joshua Finkelstein (Senior Editor, Nature)

Posted by Joshua Finkelstein at 10:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

Are chemists anally retentive when it comes to chemical structures? Making sure that structures are error-free is certainly vital for a chemistry paper (and for an editor, one of the biggest headaches of the job). Just one wedge bond displayed as a hash could completely confuse the take-home message of a paper.

So imagine how annoying it would be if you saw a structure being repeatedly published with errors in it, and in lots of different places. This is just what has happened to Ian Fleming.

Back in 1967, he published a paper in Nature that finally nailed the absolute configuration of the structure of chlorophyll (Nature subscribers can see the paper here – it’s well worth a look). Yet he reckons that since then, whenever he has seen the structure reproduced, there is a 50:50 chance that the stereochemistry will be wrong.

Over the years, he’s tried to correct this where possible, including, on one occasion, an incorrect structure on a book cover. But it still happens. Out of curiosity, I had a look at the structure on Wikipedia - and sure enough, it was wrong (see for yourself, but be quick; I’ll contact them shortly to get it corrected). The actual structure can be found here at PubChem.

Who knows how often this happens? But then again, if a structure appears somewhere that isn’t necessarily directed at chemists (such as in the Wikipedia entry), does it really matter? Is it just the chemist’s equivalent of getting upset about the incorrect use of an apostrophe? I think it does matter - especially in sources on the web, which are increasingly being mined for technical information. But if you think I should just take a cold shower and calm down, by all means let me know.

Andy

Andrew Mitchinson (Associate editor, Nature).

Posted by amitchinson at 09:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

As they do every year, Thomson ISI have made their predictions about who will win this year's Nobel Prizes - chemistry included.

They seem to think that the Chemistry Prize will have an organic flavour this year... Do you think they're on to something? Will Trost, Danishefsky or Seebach be walking off with the big one any time soon - or indeed ever?

Another point of note is that Sumio Iijima is listed amongst the potential winners of the Physics Prize for his discovery of carbon nanotubes - this comes hot on the heels of being awarded the 2007 Balzan Prize for his nanoscience research.

Also, the one-million-dollar Kavli Prizes have recently been announced as well, the first batch of which will be given out in 2008. There are three of these, covering the fields of astrophysics, neuroscience and, last but not least, nanoscience - it could be quite a 12 months for Iijima.

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Associate Editor, Nature Nanotechnology)

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 11:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Which chemical sends a shiver down your spine? Every chemist has their own personal least-favourite - in fact, I know some chemists that flatly refuse to use certain chemicals.

Much of this comes from personal experience – for example, I’ve seen two cases of diazonium salts blowing up, which was enough to put me off them. And I’m not keen on anything pyrophoric; one of my most stressful days in the lab involved 100 grams of diethyl zinc, which instantly ignites into bright blue flames upon contact with air.

Other compounds intimidate by reputation alone. Cyanide is a good example, although toxic chemicals never scared me much. I was surprised when an industrial student working for me didn’t want to use carbon monoxide, but this was because she’d heard tales of people dying after inhaling fumes from defective gas fires.

So what’s my all time worst fear? Hydrofluoric acid – the zombie flesh-eater of the chemical world. I only ever had to use this once, but without a doubt it was the experiment that brought me out in the coldest sweat. But with the recent news that the US Environmental Protection Agency are being presented with evidence that tetrahydrofuran may be carcinogenic (C&E News subscribers can click here for a brief report), perhaps the chemicals we should really be scared of are the solvents.

So what are your least-favourite reagents?

Andy

Andrew Mitchinson (Associate Editor, Nature)

Posted by amitchinson at 05:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBacks (0)

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

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

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

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

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

Joshua

Joshua Finkelstein (Senior Editor, Nature)

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

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

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

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

Joshua

Joshua Finkelstein (Senior Editor, Nature)

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

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

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

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

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

Joshua

Joshua Finkelstein (Senior Editor, Nature)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joshua

Joshua Finkelstein (Senior Editor, Nature)

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

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

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

Obviously, Chicago is his kind of town...

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Associate Editor, Nature Nanotechnology)

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

It's now official.

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

The press release can be found here.

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Associate Editor, Nature Nanotechnology)

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

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

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

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

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

Joshua

Joshua Finkelstein (Senior Editor, Nature)

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

One thing that really irritates me is badly drawn ChemDraw structures (maybe I should get out more...).

Anyway, there is no excuse for a benzene ring not being a perfect hexagon - unless of course you’re showing perspective or drawing a fullerene or nanotube. Double and triple bonds should be well separated so that they don’t just look like thick bonds. And as for angles... unless there’s a really good reason for it not to be 120 or 180 degrees (depending on the hybridisation flavour of your [carbon] atoms), then there is likely something wrong; in flatland, even your sp3 centres should be 120 degrees unless you're showing the stereochemistry and need to draw all four bonds. Atom labels should be in a consistent font (preferably Helvetica) and should be of a size that does not require one to use some kind of electron microscope to read them.

Simple really... so why do a lot of ChemDraw structures that appear in papers or on slides at conferences look like a six-year old has drawn them with a crayon (and I mean a particularly untalented six-year old at that - one that probably wouldn't even win a Blue Peter drawing competition)? I think it’s just people being lazy...

I’ve been to a couple of conferences in the last month and gasped in horror (that may be a slight exaggeration) at some of the representations of C60 I’ve seen. Somewhat annoying is when the double bonds are drawn inside the pentagonal rings - please, can everyone just agree from now on to put them in the six-membered rings (surely it makes more sense that way?) . When I confronted one speaker about the ChemDraw crimes they had perpetrated, I was told that they’d just used the template... - and yes, it turns out that some of the C60 structures in the template library have dubious patterns of bonding...

Even worse, I see the occasional 5- and 6-bonded carbon atoms in fullerenes (and pyrene seems to fall into that trap as well). Maybe it shouldn’t get under my skin as much as it does, but this is how organic chemists communicate - and wrong is wrong. You wouldn’t use ‘2’ in an equation if it called for the square root of 2, so let’s be a bit more careful about our structures.

Right, soap-box carefully stowed away now for another day...

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Associate Editor, Nature Nanotechnology)

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 06:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)

On Wednesday night (June 27th), Nature Network Boston will be hosting their first 'pub night' at Tavern in the Square (in Central Square, Cambridge). Corie Lok, the editor of Nature Network Boston, recently blogged about this event, which will be "your chance to meet other scientists from the Boston area, including other members of and bloggers on Nature Network Boston and a few people from Nature’s Cambridge office..."

The pub night officially starts at 6:30 PM, and I'll be there for an hour or so; I think Catherine said that she's planning on being there for a little while too. So if you're in Cambridge that night, please swing by and say 'hello.' Make sure you come early, as Corie's buying the first 30 people a free drink...

Hope to see you on Wednesday night!

Joshua

Joshua Finkelstein (Senior Editor, Nature)

Posted by Joshua Finkelstein at 05:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Apologies to our international readers for the U.S.-centric post, but the National Institutes of Health announced earlier today that PAR-07-353, a grant involving Cheminformatics Research Centers, has been canceled for "programmatic reasons." For those of you who haven't heard of the Cheminformatics Research Centers, they are part of the Molecular Libraries Roadmap Program (MLP), which is

an integrated set of initiatives aimed at developing and using selective and potent chemical probes for basic research ... [The MLP] was proposed to introduce high-throughput screening approaches to small molecule discovery, formerly limited to the pharmaceutical research industry, into the public sector... [and] is made up of the following major components: (1) access to a library of compounds (Molecular Libraries Small Molecule Repository); (2) access to bioassays provided by the larger research community; (3) support for the development of breakthrough instrumentation technologies; (4) access to a network of screening and chemical probe generation centers (MLPCN) where assays are screened and probe development is undertaken; (5) Pubchem, the primary portal through which the screening results of the MLPCN are made public and (6) the Cheminformatics Research Centers (CRCs) with multiple roles focused on high-level data analysis and dissemination with a focus on developing new understanding of the cellular processes (genes and pathways).

One reason why this is so surprising is because the grants were due next week (June 28th). I imagine the timing of this decision (and the decision itself) is bound to upset a number of people in this community, especially since many applicants were probably working around the clock to get their grant submitted before the (now non-existent) deadline...

Does anyone know more about this story or why the grant was canceled?

Joshua

Joshua Finkelstein (Senior Editor, Nature)

Posted by Joshua Finkelstein at 02:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

[Editor's note: over the next few months we will feature guest bloggers from a range of backgrounds and hopefully some of these posts will turn into regular series... first up is Mushy, a former chemist who has left it all behind for the bright lights of the City!]

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

Posted on behalf of Mushy:

My name is Mushy, and I am a recovering chemist - it's been over 6 years since I ran my last chromatography column. I have been asked to write on the Sceptical Chymist every now and then to give the views of an ex-chemist.

After completing a PhD in supramolecular chemistry in the US, and following a rather meandering job path, the undisputed highlight of which was months of unemployment, I now work in IT in the City of London.

After finishing Uni, I was certain that I didn't want to work in chemistry. I had something of a long job search, most of which was spent mired in a Catch-22 where I was not qualified for the jobs which I wanted, and the only jobs for which I was qualified, I didn't want. In spite of a few negative experiences with - sour grapes notwithstanding - short-sighted companies which only wanted people with very specific degrees, nothing could be further from the truth. The skills I learned as a chemist - the methodical approach, the empiricism, the confidence, the flawless proff-reading - have served me well in an industry in which I had no experience at the outset.

I suppose that that's where I'll start summing up my inaugural post.

At work, I've never been asked to explain a [4+2] cycloaddition. The astrophysicists have never been asked their opinions on the Hubble constant. The chemical engineers have never become embroiled in heated debates about theoretical plates. The molecular biologists have never orated on the pros and cons of gel electrophoresis. The people who studied golf course management - well - they didn't get the job. What we all do use every day of our working lives, though, is the thought process that got us into science in the first place, and the excitement of finding out new facts and methods. That's the most transferable of all skills.

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 04:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Love 'em, hate 'em? It's hard to ignore them - 2006 journal impact factors were released by Thomson yesterday.

Expect to be bombarded with publishers telling you how much better their journals are than in previous years. I feel a little left out, Nature Nanotechnology won't get it's first impact factor until this time next year, until then you'll just have to take my word that we're good!

If you care (and have access), check out your favourite journals and how they did at Thomson's ISI Web of Knowledge, under Journal Citation Reports...

More generally - how important is a journal's impact factor to you (or your advisor)? Does it influence where you publish, or do only publishers care about these metrics?

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Associate Editor, Nature Nanotechnology)

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 05:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

I was privileged to find myself having dinner with chemistry's newest Knight Bachelor (Sir Fraser Stoddart) at the Ritz Hotel last night, where we chatted about his visit to Buckingham Palace the day before - the bit where Her Majesty the Queen taps him on the shoulders with a sword. He recalled the sequence of events and the brief conversation he had with Her Majesty and has kindly agreed to share them with the readers of the Sceptical Chymist:

It all begins with Fraser being presented to Her Majesty by the Lord Chamberlain:

Lord Chamberlain: "May I present to Your Majesty, Professor Sir Fraser Stoddart, for services to chemistry and nanotology" (No, that last word is not misspelled!)

THE CEREMONY (the kneeling and sword bit)

Her Majesty: "He got that wrong, didn't he?"

Sir Fraser: "He certainly did, Your Majesty."

Her Majesty: "What should it be then, nanotechnology?"

Sir Fraser: "You've got it right, Ma'am"

Her Majesty: "It's about very small things, isn't it?

Sir Fraser: "Indeed, it's about tiny things that are 100,000 times smaller than the diameter of a human hair, Ma'am"

Her Majesty: "That's exceedingly small. You work in America now, I'm told."

Sir Fraser: "That's so, Ma'am"

After approximately 18 seconds, apparently the average amount of time each person receiving an honour spends with Her Majesty, Fraser recalled that, "At this point, she extends her right hand, and I mine for she leaves me with no choice. A strong handshake is followed by a big approving smile from Her Majesty, and I am on my merry way."

I normally try to end these posts with a witty comment, but this one speaks for itself..!

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Associate Editor, Nature Nanotechnology)

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 04:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here I am having a whale of a time at the Fraser Stoddart 65th birthday celebrations. Celebrating a birthday with science; I like it. I like it a lot. The line up of speakers is incredibly impressive. These are all people I would want to hear talk at, say, a huge meeting like the ACS. But the beauty of this conference is that you don't have to wade through 15000 abstracts to find the best speakers. They're all here, undiluted.

I wrote a news story about the festivities, but was just too late to include one of the highlights of the conference - Chad Mirkin has used his dip-pen nanolithography technique to draw Fraser's portrait in a one-molecule high layer of 16-mercaptohexadecanoic acid on a gold surface. Unfortunately I can't post pictures here, but I will update later with a link to the pic. It's well worth seeing.

UPDATE: The portrait is here

Posted by Katharine Sanderson at 08:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

There's an interesting news piece over at news@nature.com that caught my eye - a team led by Helge Riemann at the Institute of Crystal Growth is trying to generate a 'pure' sample of crystalline silicon-28:

The new barbell-shaped crystal, which weighs 5 kilograms and was completed on 23 May by Riemann's team ... is nearly isotopically pure. It was made from Russian source material, whose silicon was 99.994% pure silicon-28.

A standard kilogram is currently calibrated using the "international prototype," which "was manufactured in the 1880s [from] an alloy of 90% platinum-10% iridium" and is housed in the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures in France. Over time, the loss and/or gain of atoms from the international prototype may have altered its weight - the news story suggests that it might be off by 0.1 milligrams/0.01% (but I couldn't find any additional information to verify that statement...)

Making this (two-million euro/2.7-million USD) piece of silicon was no easy task:

The researchers spent six months eliminating contaminating elements by repeatedly melting the silicon in an apparatus that does not touch the material. The resulting crystal is thought to contain one foreign atom to every 10 million atoms of silicon.

Talk about a pure sample...

Joshua

Joshua Finkelstein (Senior Editor, Nature)

Posted by Joshua Finkelstein at 12:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

In a couple of weeks I'm off to The Young(-ish!) Giants of Chemistry, a conference - and related fancy dinners - to celebrate the 65th birthday of Sir Fraser Stoddart. There's a pretty good line up of speakers - it's a combination of former students and postdocs, colleagues both past and present, as well as a selection of prominent researchers who are at least a generation younger than Fraser. There will also be a couple of poster sessions.

It's short notice, but Edinburgh in June is quite nice (so I am told), and there is some space left, so if you would like to come, check out the contact page on the conference website. For those of you who won't be able to make it, I'll probably find some time to blog from the meeting - with perhaps a few guest entries, and our next chemistry podcast will also include some content from the event.

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Associate Editor, Nature Nanotechnology)

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 05:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Thanks to one of my colleagues for bringing to my attention an article in the education supplement of today's Guardian in which chemistry Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto expresses grave concerns about the future of British science. The piece contains some strong stuff, and here are some quotes I wanted to share with you:

About how the numbers of young people choosing a scientific training are in decline across the developed world, not just the UK, but some countries find other ways to cope:

"...over decades, the US has been spectacularly successful in making up its own homegrown science and technology shortfall by draining first western European scientists, and now eastern European and Asian scientists."

About the consequences of university vice chancellors - "who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing" - dispensing with science departments in favour of other courses:

"Just as cheap fast food has resulted in unprecedented levels of obesity, so this McDonald's approach to cheap, trendy, seductively soft courses designed for mass consumption in tertiary education has resulted in a plethora of students trained for non-existent jobs."

About the teaching of 'intelligent design' in some British schools:

"State funds are also being used to support some schools that abuse impressionable young people by brainwashing them into believing that non-believers will burn for all eternity in the fires of hell."

About the future of British science:

"Do panic!"

So, what do you think - is he right?

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Associate Editor, Nature Nanotechnology)

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 07:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

I was just browsing through The Times over lunch and found this story about students trying to cheat in an economics exam at the University of York.

It reminds me of my teaching days at UCLA, where, in my experience, cheating was rife (in the Chemistry Department at least - but I suspect elsewhere too). Sure, we'd check IDs, but also I'd often have two versions of an exam and alternate them along the rows of students. For multiple choice quizzes, all of the questions were the same, but the possible A thru E answers (yes, five options, not four) were re-ordered in one of the scripts. It was amazing how many times an exam was handed in, in which every single letter answer was wrong, but corresponded 100% with the letter answers on the alternate quiz.

The fundamental flaw that most cheats do not appreciate (or understand) is that they cheat because they are generally less intelligent than other students, which makes them a lot easier to catch... (as pointed out in The Times article above).

Anyway, at UCLA, unless you had videotape evidence and a signed confession, most students (not all, but most) got off with a slap on the wrist. So, it was nice to see how it was dealt with in this incident at York, as reported in the last line of the article in The Times: Each was sentenced to 100 hours of community service and ordered to pay £35 costs.

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Associate Editor, Nature Nanotechnology)

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 08:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

I was out at the pub last night with a few other editors, and one of my colleagues mentioned that an editor from Nature Materials is leaving the company (and the country) - while she'll be definitely be missed by all, this means that Nature Materials is searching for a new associate editor to join their team:

We are particularly interested in applicants with expertise in bio-inspired, biomedical and biomolecular materials, but we would welcome applications from outstanding candidates in any area of materials science.

The ideal candidate should have a PhD and preferably postdoctoral experience with a strong research record. The successful candidate will play an important role in determining the representation of their field in the journal, and will work closely with the other editors on all aspects of the editorial process, including manuscript selection, commissioning and editing of Reviews and News & Views, and writing for the journal. A key aspect of the job is liaising with the scientific community through laboratory visits and international conferences.

If you're interested in the position (which will be based in the London office - with Stuart and Andy), you'll need to apply soon - applications need to be in by June 4th...

Joshua

Joshua Finkelstein (Senior Editor, Nature)

Posted by Joshua Finkelstein at 06:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Every six months or so, I pop over to England to catch up with my colleagues in our London office (NPG's largest office). I love visiting this city, and it's not just because I get to use words like 'skint' and eat fantastic Indian food every night...

But I was thinking about how difficult it must be for people who move to a new country to start their Ph.D.s/post-docs/jobs - in addition to adjusting to a new lab/co-workers (which can be difficult even if you're working in a familiar city/country), you have to learn how things are done/how things work in your new environment. As trite as it sounds, so many things can be so different.

For example, I lived in London for two months when I started at Nature, and I'm embarrassed to say that I had to dig out the manual for my combo washer/dryer to figure out how to operate it. (I thought I was doing something wrong because my clothes never came out 100% dry - it turns out that the machine in my apartment didn't use heat to dry the clothes, just an extended spin cycle...) Even going to the pub can be problematic: we had a German post-doc in our lab who frequently forgot to bring his passport when we went out for drinks. Despite the fact that he was in his mid-30s (and clearly looked old enough to drink in the U.S.), he had a difficult time convincing waiters/waitresses to serve him without ID...

For those of you who changed countries when starting your Ph.D./post-doc/job, I was wondering what little differences were the most frustrating for you? And for those of you who are living in a city/country you know well, how do you help your new co-workers adjust to their new environment? (For example, I've heard that some schools/labs distriubte packets that contain local information, FAQs, etc. - are these useful/helpful?)

Joshua

Joshua Finkelstein (Senior Editor, Nature)

Posted by Joshua Finkelstein at 11:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

The office coffee machine broke down this morning, so I've been using Coca-Cola to fight off the postprandial dip. I rarely drink soda (aside from the occasional Cuba Libre), so I'm usually the last to know about (crazy) new kinds of soda. But there's a case of Diet Coke Plus in our office refrigerator - you might not have seen it in your local supermarket, but it's a new version of Diet Coke that contains several vitamins and minerals:

Each eight-ounce serving of Diet Coke Plus provides a good source of Niacin (vitamin B3), vitamins B6 and B12, zinc and magnesium (15% Daily Value [DV] for Niacin, B6 and B12, 10% DV for zinc and magnesium).

Great news, no? Now you don't have to take that pesky multi-vitamin every day. Just have a few cans of Diet Coke Plus and you'll be all set...

Not a fan of Diet Coke? Not a problem: PepsiCo is responding with the launch of Tava this fall, which will contain "vitamins B3, B6 and E, and chromium." (Chromium?)

I'm just waiting for them to combine soft drinks with OTC medication: "have a hangover and can't stay awake at your morning meeting? Try new Coke NSAID - it comes in two flavors: cherry aspirin and vanilla ibuprofen..." Yum...

Joshua

Joshua Finkelstein (Senior Editor, Nature)

Posted by Joshua Finkelstein at 02:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

My fellow Cambridge-London commuters; did you work it out? Once you know that it depicts a gene, it’s annoyingly obvious. But despite travelling past it by train about three days per week, I failed to identify the thousands of brightly coloured bars painted on the cycle path next to the rail track near Cambridge’s Addenbrooke’s hospital as a nucleotide sequence. It should have been a clue that only four colours are used.

It probably comes from generally not being very biochemistry minded, as a straight-physics editor. Nevertheless, a friend of mine mentioned he had heard about the biology-inspired cycle path artwork and after some quick Googling, the rumour was confirmed; the colour