ACS: Afternoon with the chain gang

I’m not sure why, but the polymer sessions at ACS meetings always seem to be in venues away from the main conference centre. What do polymer chemists make of this, I wonder? Do they feel that they’re being hived off for some reason? Or do they actually quite like having a venue more or less to themselves? If there are any polymer people out there that would like to comment on this, I’d love to know.

A sense of direction was never my strongest point, and so it was that I got lost on the way to the hotel where the polymer talks were being held (which was embarrassing, because the hotel is just around the corner from the Washington Conference Center). Arriving with seconds to spare, I found that someone had seriously miscalculated the size of the room needed for the afternoon session. As the chairperson, Craig Hawker, commented, “This is the smallest lecture room Bob Grubbs will ever lecture in.” People were spilling out into the corridor, the air-con couldn’t cope, and frankly I wasn’t sure I’d be able to stick it out for long.

Fortunately, a swap was arranged with another session, providing us with a room three times the size of the original one, which we instantly filled. More chairs were brought in, but by the end of the afternoon it was still standing room only.

So why all the interest? Because it was a stellar line-up. Not just the aforementioned Bob Grubbs, but also Krysztof Matyjaszewski, Dave Bergbreiter and Karen Wooley, to name but a few. There was too much good stuff to cover here, but I liked Rachel O’Reilly’s work making metal-lined nanocages (Soft Matter subscribers can read about this here); Craig Hawker’s description of reactive polymers that have ketenes in their side-chains, which can be used for cross-linking or functionalization (the polymers can be used for microcontact printing applications); and Karen Wooley’s tour de force about nanoparticles that carry DNA plasmids into cells (Biomaterials subscribers can see some of this work here). Karen is currently using nanostructures as building blocks for complex molecular assemblies, for example by decorating anionic nanocylinders with cationic nanospheres; the anionic cylinders won’t enter cells, but they can do when coated with the cationic spheres. She’s ultimately hoping that her nanostructures will be useful for therapies targeting lung injuries.

I have to say that this was my favourite session of the meeting so far – the science was great, but there was also a genuine sense of camaraderie among the people in the room, with lots of interest in each talk demonstrated by the number of questions asked. Which made up for the fact that I got lost again on the way back to my hotel…

Andy

Andrew Mitchinson (Senior Editor, Nature)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

IUPAC ’09: Nanofun and marvellous MOFs

I am, like Katharine, attending the 42nd IUPAC General Congress in Glasgow. Chemists from around the globe have descended to discuss chemistry in as broad a sense as possible – there are 20 parallel sessions, and the abstract book weighs 2.4 kg (nearly 5 lb 5 oz for any metricophobes out there). I’m facing a dilemma every session, having to sacrifice 2 or 3 talks that I really want to see! I might do a blog post at the end of the week about the interesting chemistry I DIDN’T have chance to see…

So what have I been doing? After the first plenary (read Phil from Chemistry World’s take on Sir Harry Kroto’s talk here), I went to a session on Adaptive Nanomaterials. It’s interesting to see that in not such a long time, work on nanomaterials has gone from ‘Look, it’s really small!’ to ‘Look, we can sense and discriminate proteins at 5 nanomolar level in a mix of other proteins that are in millimolar concentration!’ And that’s pretty cool. Vince Rotello’s gold nanoparticles need to be functionalised with polymers etc first.

I spent the afternoon hearing about MOFs (metal-organic frameworks). Or are they coordination polymers?? There seems to be a little bit of debate over the matter, but Lee Brammer of Sheffield offered a good distinction: they’re MOFs when they’re open and porous, whereas coordination polymers don’t necessarily have the pores. Anyway, whatever you call them, they were excellent talks about an interesting topic. All of which made me ponder on how the wonderful range of MOFs are all thanks to the quirky nature of transitional metal coordination bonds. Not just tetrahedral for those guys! Eat your heart out carbon [yes, I am inorganic chemist…].

It’s nearly time for day 2 to kick off, so I’m going to head over to the armadillo for Vivian Yam’s plenary.

Neil

Neil Withers (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *