Editor’s note: As we continue to invite bloggers out there in the wild to compose our monthly Blogroll column, Matthew Partridge penned the September 2015 column.

———-

Pictures taken in a lab and pictures of far-away worlds underpin great examples of scientific communication.

As scientists, we all strive to be better at communicating our work. Paige Jarreau at From the Lab Bench explains this very succinctly in her post about a talk she attended on scientific story telling. The Picture it… Chemistry blog goes into more detail with a step-by-step guide on how to write a science blog post. This fits with Laboratory News‘ newly launched Shout It Out service which aims to encourage scientists to start shouting about their science — even if they don’t have their own blog.

But science communication is not always about sharing your own work — sometimes it’s about discussing and better communicating other popular science. Nowhere was this more important than the recent flyby of Pluto, as eloquently explained by Phil Plait at Bad Astronomy. And to help fill in some of the details for non-astrophysicists, C. C. Petersen at TheSpacewriter’s Ramblings prepared a great primer on planetary geology to help explain Pluto’s apparent geological activity.

Finally, there are some excellent examples of communicating science via YouTube. Maren Hunsberger‘s superb video series at Lunchbox Science has recently tackled ‘How fire works’. The very popular Vsauce3 takes time to try and explain the real physical implications of being Ant-Man. And Tom Scott teams up with Robert Llewellyn to try and answer ‘Are batteries heavier when they’re full?’. Even if we might already know the answers, these videos show how we can make science more engaging.

Written by Matthew Partridge, who blogs at https://errantscience.com/ and tweets as @MCeeP.

———-

[As mentioned in this post, we’re posting the monthly blogroll column here on the Sceptical Chymist. This is the September 2015 article]

Editor’s note: As we continue to invite bloggers out there in the wild to compose our monthly Blogroll column, Michael Seery penned the August 2015 column.

———-

Embedding scholarship into the teaching of chemistry.

With teaching quality high on the agenda, chemistry education research is beginning to emerge as a discipline within some chemistry departments. Tina Overton writes on the RSC’s Education in Chemistry blog of the need to support staff who wish to carry out pedagogic research in chemistry departments, including supporting the development of expertise and creating a community of practice. In the case of the latter, chemists in the Twitterverse might like to follow and contribute to #chemed.

Lots of expertise is available on the Staff and Educational Development Association blog, currently running a series called #53ideas by Graham Gibbs. These are short posts on various thoughts and ideas that “teachers should know about” underpinned by substantial literature. Some of Gibbs’s own work was with the chemistry department at Oxford. In a recent post, he advocated a more pragmatic framework for programme design in lieu of distinct educational objectives.

Greg Ashman keeps a well-written blog on cognitive science (and educational research generally). His post on ‘cognitive load theory’ challenges some widely held assumptions about what ‘guided instruction’ is, raising the bar for all of us interested in improving student learning. Ashman’s blog is one of the many compiled by the aggregating website The Echo Chamber which is well worth a perusal to find decent blogs about education.

Back to chemistry: while the Compound Interest posters are deservedly well known, lots of use could be made of the This Week in Chemistry series. I’d love to see student-generated examples shared with #TWIChem.

Written by Michael Seery, who blogs at https://www.michaelseery.com/ and tweets as @seerymk.

———-

[As mentioned in this post, we’re posting the monthly blogroll column here on the Sceptical Chymist. This is the August 2015 article]

Editor’s note: As we continue to invite bloggers out there in the wild to compose our monthly Blogroll column, Luke Gamon penned the July 2015 column.

———-

Toxicology, the odds of discovering a drug and creativity in design.

Spurred on by a tweet from C&EN’s Lisa Jarvis, an active discussion has developed on Twitter and in the blogosphere about the odds of a chemist discovering a drug over an entire career. Some number crunching by Derek Lowe, writing at In The Pipeline, produced a figure around 1%. Ash Jogalekar at The Curious Wavefunction argues that the question is more complicated and wonders whether “the patent system has become biased toward chemists”. In the protracted, multidisciplinary development of a drug, who is truly responsible for its invention?

Over at The Dose Makes the Poison, ForensicToxGuy writes of the more illicit innovations in synthetic cannabinoids and what can be considered to be the ‘wild west’ of drug design. The creativity of these outlaw medicinal chemists in developing chemical diversity never ceases to amaze and is creating a “public health nightmare” of substances with unknown pharmacological and toxicological effects. Meanwhile, writing at amphoteros, Andrei Yudin talks of chemical aesthetics and the merit of elongated molecules in drug design, however ugly they may be.

While the chemical sciences continue to innovate, Vittorio Saggiomo delves into the history of Parafilm — another ugly, yet incredibly handy invention — on his blog Labsolutely. Many would shudder to think of a laboratory without that greasy, stretchy film. Finally, the ever-present Kristof Hegedüs at Pictures from an Organic Chemistry Laboratory tells a cautionary tale of a nitration gone wrong and the importance of a good lab coat. Even the most commonplace of innovations may well be the most vital.

Written by Luke Gamon, who blogs at https://lukegamon.wordpress.com/ and tweets as @lgamon.

———-

[As mentioned in this post, we’re posting the monthly blogroll column here on the Sceptical Chymist. This is the July 2015 article]

Editor’s note: As we continue to invite bloggers out there in the wild to compose our monthly Blogroll column, Brandon Findlay returns to pen the June 2015 column.

———-

What happens to students who leave graduate school without defending?

Continuing a conversation from years past, Vinylogous and Chemjobber have revisited the strain that graduate school can place on mental health. Now further into graduate school, Vinylogous has had some dark days — with a multi-month project in ashes and friends outside of academia doing better with less effort, he even prepared a farewell speech. Rather than deliver it, he stepped back and examined the future benefits of a PhD, and the opportunity costs. Working with his supervisor, he then made changes to foster sustained health and productivity.

Some readers may have found themselves in a similar situation, and know the solution is not always the same. Chemjobber requested feedback and posted the responses under the label ‘I quit grad school in chemistry‘. For some it took years for their love of science to return, but many have found fulfilling outlets for their skills, whether as adjuncts in smaller centres or from lucrative careers in industry that started earlier than expected. One, LB, even returned to graduate school, finding more success in economics than chemistry.

The factors behind each respondent’s departure vary in details, but often stem from either a mismatch in interest or skill-set, or a toxic work environment. Each entered graduate school as an adult, responsible for their own decisions, but the effects of PIs not experienced in — or poorly suited to — management are obvious. With new reports from those who left continuing to be posted, Tehshik Yoon has called for experiences from successful graduates. If you have a story to tell, let the world know.

Written by Brandon Findlay, who blogs at https://chemtips.wordpress.com and tweets as @chemtips.

———-

[As mentioned in this post, we’re posting the monthly blogroll column here on the Sceptical Chymist. This is the June 2015 article]

Editor’s note: As we continue to invite bloggers out there in the wild to compose our monthly Blogroll column, François-Xavier Coudert penned the May 2015 column.

———-

Post-publication peer review is a reality, so what should the rules be?

Scientific discussions about published papers, which used to take place in lab meetings or over coffee at conferences, now also happen on blogs (especially in their comment sections), discussion boards and Twitter. Websites such as PubPeer and BioMed Central host or aggregate these discussions, but the standards and etiquette of modern post-publication peer review remain to be codified.

One question is that of anonymity. As Dave Fernig discusses at Ferniglab Blog, anonymous comments are typically associated with negativity, rather than constructive engagement. Nevertheless, Fernig argues the case for anonymity, stating that without it the academics with the least power (for example, early-career researchers) would not be able to speak their mind.

However, allowing anonymity or failing to verify identities can lead to dirty tactics. Julian Stirling shares on PhysicsFocus his first-hand experience of identity theft and sock-puppetry (multiple accounts used by a single person) from comments on his recent paper in PLoS ONE. This question of anonymity in post-publication peer review also has legal ramifications. Alison McCook, at Retraction Watch, reports that PubPeer was allowed by a US Circuit Court judge in Wayne County, Michigan to protect the anonymity of its commenters in relation to a lawsuit brought by a scientist aggrieved at the treatment of his papers on the site.

Finally, Philip Moriarty experimented, at the Winnower, with post-proposal peer review, posting online for discussion a freshly submitted grant proposal to the UK’s EPSRC. So far, the concept has attracted more comments than the proposal itself. Maybe this was fated, being the first of its kind?

Written by François-Xavier Coudert, who blogs at https://blog.coudert.name and tweets as @fxcoudert.

———-

[As mentioned in this post, we’re posting the monthly blogroll column here on the Sceptical Chymist. This is the May 2015 article]

Editor’s note: As we continue to invite bloggers out there in the wild to compose our monthly Blogroll column, Joseph Meany penned the April 2015 column.

———-

Chemistry usually conjures up images of sterile or hazardous environments, but there’s a mouth-watering side too.

Almost a quarter of the way through the year, the resolutions that many of us made just a few months ago are probably starting to lose their appeal. Food is almost certainly a focus for many of the promises that we made to ourselves, but we shouldn’t forsake all thoughts of delicious treats.

Esther Inglis-Arkell, writing at i09, describes how chemistry can fool our senses into tasting apple pie even when there is no fruit to be found in the recipe. With some cream of tartar, Ritz crackers and cinnamon, you can create an ‘almost real’ apple pie despite the fact that real apples are just budding in the orchard.

Over at Food Chem Blog, Emily Buehler covers how bread goes stale, including some tips on how to store your bread for maximum shelf-life. Importantly, she also highlights the Twitter hashtag #breadchat for all bread enthusiasts. At the same time, Compound Interest’s Andy Brunning published a handy graphic on the Maillard reaction showing how it affects the flavours, aromas and colours of food during cooking.

Getting out of the kitchen and into the fresh air, Justin Brower at Nature’s Poisons recounts his hijinks with growing horseradish and the chemistry behind why it smells so spicy. He ropes his unwitting father into his experiment and outlines some of the reactions that happen in the plant as it gets turned into a condiment.

Everyone is familiar with cooking and baking on some level and these posts demonstrate that the connection between cooking and chemistry can help to explain basic scientific concepts to a wider audience.

Written by Joseph Meany, who blogs at https://jsphmeany.blogspot.com.

———-

[As mentioned in this post, we’re posting the monthly blogroll column here on the Sceptical Chymist. This is the April 2015 article]

Editor’s note: As we continue to invite bloggers out there in the wild to compose our monthly Blogroll column, See Arr Oh returns to pen the March 2015 column.

———-

Why the rise of the machines is a good thing for chemistry.

No matter your research interests, I’ll bet you depend more on computers — databases, scripts, templates, macros, electronic laboratory notebooks, sketching tools, machine learning — than ever before. Luckily, the chemblogosphere has you covered.

First of all, Mark Wolf, blogging at Magic Acid, wants to help you build a grad-school dream machine — capable of mapping 3D changes in battery electrodes — for less than US$1,000. Need to learn a programming language? Then take a look at Chemistry Apprentice, who has laid out a nice (and free!) path to learn JavaScript and Python using online resources.

Next, Martin Stoermer, of the aptly-named Chemistry and Computers blog, opines on indexing open-access chemistry data. He desires a model similar to that set by physics (with arXiv) or biomedical research (with PubMed). Meanwhile, Egon Willighagen at Chem-bla-ics, makes budding programmers aware of the Royal Society of Chemistry’s efforts to promote open science. They are providing access to their databases in exchange for Wikipedia contributions.

Finally, there was a lively debate at In the Pipeline over some seemingly odd structures from a molecular dynamics paper published in Nature Chemistry. Derek took issue with an extra methylene group and a potentially unstable hemiaminal before the lead author of the study quickly confirmed in the comments that they were simply drawing errors. The discussion continued, however, with academic heavyweights Henry Rzepa and Peter Murray-Rust chiming in, calling for reforms against what they consider to be outmoded publishing customs in the Internet age.

Written by See Arr Oh, who blogs at https://justlikecooking.blogspot.com.

———-

[As mentioned in this post, we’re posting the monthly blogroll column here on the Sceptical Chymist. This is the March 2015 article]

Editor’s note: As we continue to invite bloggers out there in the wild to compose our monthly Blogroll column, Mitchell Antalek penned the February 2015 column.

———-

Misinformation abounds, but bloggers are setting the record straight.

Science is often misrepresented — in advertising, in popular culture, and even in the press — and sometimes the facts don’t come out right. Ben Goldacre, who writes at Bad Science, describes his frustration regarding misleading press releases about scientific research. Indeed, it appears that sensationalism transcends all reporting disciplines. In an editorial in The BMJ, Goldacre addresses the issue of improving accountability in academic press releases.

Meanwhile the ever-watchful eyes of See Arr Oh, the pseudonymous blogger behind Just Like Cooking, caught a more whimsical example of bad science. The popular TV show Always Sunny aired an episode featuring some structures that eschew typical understandings of chemical bonding. See Arr Oh posits that “perhaps these ‘scientists’ should win a Nobel,” while coining the term “Wyoming nitrogen.”

There’s been a fair amount of recent discussion about how science is portrayed in respect to advertising decisions. Are terms like ‘non-GMO’ and ‘all-natural’ inherently loaded? Chad Jones, blogging and podcasting at The Collapsed Wavefunction, argues that while the intent of health ‘fads’ may be noble prima facie, they often devolve into dangerous pseudoscience. When hard facts come up against public relations, the facts are all too frequently abandoned.

On a final note, See Arr Oh, along with the rest of the chemblogging community, bid a heartfelt farewell to long-time contributors Carmen Drahl of Chemical and Engineering News and Paul Docherty of Totally Synthetic. Both Drahl and Docherty, without a doubt, helped to shape the chemistry blogosphere for the better while it was still in its infancy.

Written by Mitchell Antalek, who blogs at https://unemployedchemist.com/.

———-

[As mentioned in this post, we’re posting the monthly blogroll column here on the Sceptical Chymist. This is the February 2015 article]

Editor’s note: As we continue to invite bloggers out there in the wild to compose our monthly Blogroll column, Justin Brower penned the January 2015 column.

———-

Battling pseudoscience and chemophobia with knowledge and education.

When there are concerns about chemicals and the foods we eat, chemophobia usually runs rampant. More information about what we eat is a good thing. Pushing an agenda using pseudoscience, dubious sources and a fear of chemicals is not. Fortunately, analytical chemist Yvette Guinevere, writing as Science Babe, has taken it upon herself to address a popular series of unscientific food claims by “using science to rip them to shreds”.

A more sensible way of looking at the chemicals in the foods that we eat would be to learn from those who actually understand and practice the science behind them. We call these people scientists, and a group of them from UCLA have banded together to write the blog Science & Food. Topics range from how proteins denature to achieve the perfect soft-boiled egg, to the chemicals and mechanisms responsible for the flavours of fresh, cooked and dried ginger.

Science isn’t all rainbows and unicorns, however, and any complete education should include the deleterious effects that may arise from ingesting certain chemicals. ForensicToxGuy — unsurprisingly a forensic toxicologist — blogs at The Dose Makes the Poison and tackles the chemistry and toxicology surrounding the newest waves of designer drugs. Of particular interest to him are synthetic cannabinoids, which thanks to their ‘alphabet-soup’ nomenclature, confound doctors, scientists and legislatures alike. If you’ve ever wondered what ADB-CHMINACA is, here’s your chance to find out.

Both friends and foes, chemicals simply exist. Everywhere. But discerning between the good and the bad requires education by those skilled in the field, and these blogs are not a bad place to start.

Written by Justin Brower, who blogs at https://naturespoisons.com/.

———-

[As mentioned in this post, we’re posting the monthly blogroll column here on the Sceptical Chymist. This is the January 2015 article]