Chemistry’s year

[This post is based on the editorial in the January 2011 issue — the full text can be accessed here, available for free to all registered users. We welcome feedback on our editorials in the comments section below.]

The United Nations has proclaimed 2011 to be the International Year of Chemistry. Under this banner, chemists should seize the opportunity to highlight the rich history and successes of our subject to a much broader audience — and explain how it can help to solve the global challenges we face today and in the future.

Many subjects have been the basis of ‘International Year’ designations by the United Nations and 2011 is chemistry’s year. This provides chemists the opportunity to not only celebrate specific past glories, but also to champion its role in addressing critical challenges in modern society. These global issues include sustainable energy, climate change, and the provision of clean food and water — as prominently featured in the United Nations’ Resolution and also on the International Year of Chemistry (IYC) website.

One historical aspect being brought to the fore is that 2011 is the one-hundredth anniversary of the award of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry to Marie Curie for the discovery and study of polonium and radium. Her scientific achievements are all the more extraordinary because they are set in the context of a very male-dominated era.

Undoubtedly there are now fewer barriers and less bias faced by women in science compared with Curie’s day, but nevertheless, since the inception of the Nobel Prizes in 1901, only one other woman has been awarded the physics prize and only three other women have received the chemistry prize (one of whom is Marie Curie’s daughter, Irène Joliot-Curie). So although Marie Curie’s contributions to chemistry should be celebrated in their own right, it is also a chance to reflect on how far gender equality has come in science — and how much further it needs to go to ensure a level playing field for women and men.

In addition to marking this significant anniversary, two other stated goals of the IYC are to get young people more interested in chemistry and generate more enthusiasm for its creative aspects. Both of these aims are obviously tied up with the future of our subject — chemistry is far from finished as an intellectual discipline (despite what may be written about it elsewhere). There are undoubtedly many discoveries yet to be made and new generations of enquiring young minds will be required to make them.

Two important areas of chemical research highlighted by the IYC prospectus are molecular medicine and advanced materials. Developments in these areas are crucial to modern life and yet they are not always recognized as being fundamentally chemical at their core. Here is an opportunity for chemists to clearly articulate to a wider audience just how much of contemporary science, medicine and technology is underpinned by chemistry.

Take materials as just one example; we need to get the message across that many of the materials intrinsic to our everyday lives would not exist without advances in chemistry — consider how many synthetic organic polymers or designer inorganic ceramics you rely on in a typical day, and imagine what life would be like without them.

The IYC provides a focal point for the past successes of our subject to be celebrated and its future potential to be emphasized — but we should be wary of simply preaching to the choir. As chemists, we have a pretty good grasp of how important our subject is and where it sits in the grand scheme of science itself. The biggest impact of the IYC should not be on chemists, but those who are not (or not yet) chemists.

The IYC provides a framework through which chemistry should be clearly and enthusiastically communicated with the wider public, highlighting how crucial it is in everyday life and why it is vital for our future.

It’s that time of the year again…

So, it’s Nobel season once more and I thought I’d share with you what that means in the Nature Chemistry office.

As many readers of this blog might know, we publish two research highlights each Friday. These are short 200-250 word pieces about chemistry papers published elsewhere that caught our attention. Last week we covered an article in Science about electron transfer and a total synthesis paper that appeared in JACS.

Our production workflow means that the research highlights we publish on any given Friday were actually chosen on the Tuesday or Wednesday of the preceding week – a full 9 or 10 days before they go live. As a monthly title, that’s as close as we get to ‘news’ on Nature Chemistry.

Nobel day is different though. For one day, the editorial team, the production team and the web team scrabble around to publish a research highlight based on the Nobel Prize in Chemistry just a few hours after the announcement is made. Tight deadlines are something the NatureNews team deal with every day, but it’s different at the research journals. Sure, we have deadlines, lots of ‘em, but none quite so short!

So, next Wednesday, the Nature Chemistry editors based in London (myself, Gavin and Neil) will be eagerly watching the Nobel announcement. The agreement is as follows: if the prize goes in the general area of physical chemistry, then Gavin writes the highlight; if it’s inorganic, then Neil is on the hook; should it be organic, then it’s me. If the prize is not in one of those three general areas, then the lucky writer is… yes, me – as it has been for the last two years. Steve (based in Boston) and Anne (based in Tokyo) are spared because of the time differences…

And of course, in the run up to the Nobel Prize announcements, we have the usual slew of predictions. Now that ChemBark is back, we have an extensive list of odds starting with Zare and Moerner as favourites, and Stoddart and Tour bringing up the rear at 399-1. Thomson Reuters also released their annual predictions, which prompted a colourful response from ChemBark, to which David Pendlebury replied in the comment thread.

Others have weighed in with predictions, including Sam at Everyday Scientist (and take a look at the comment thread too), Wavefunction, and the NNNS chemistry blog. And last but not least, America’s first family have weighed in with their opinions. No, not them, the Simpsons of course! (Thanks to Everyday Scientist for sharing that with everyone).

As for the Nature Chemistry team… well, we’re remaining impartial and not picking anyone! (We’d almost certainly end up being wrong anyway!). If we’ve missed predictions elsewhere, please let us know in the comment thread.

[EDIT: Derek at In the Pipeline has now added his thoughts]

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Chief Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Lindau Nobel Laureates Meeting 2010

Posted on behalf of Lou Woodley

What question would you ask a Nobel Laureate in science if you could? This is one of the competitions that forms part of the social media aggregation site for this year’s Lindau Nobel Laureates Meeting which takes place from 27th June to July 2nd. The annual Meeting on Lake Constance is celebrating its 60th anniversary this year and will bring together 61 Nobel Laureates across the sciences with almost 700 young researchers for a week of lectures and networking.

To follow what happens at the event, the aggregation site brings together an official blog in English and German with Twitter, Flickr and videos from the event. There are also two competitions: in the first you can submit and vote for potential questions to ask the Laureates. The most popular questions will be answered and featured in a special Nature Outlook supplement in the autumn. The second competition invites you to submit and tag photos of Nobel Laureates for a chance to win a Flip HD camera. More details can be found here. You can also find additional content on Facebook or meet other attendees in the Nature Network forum.

Happy birthday to… us!!

It seems like only yesterday that Nature Chemistry was nothing more that a glint in a publisher’s eye – and here we are now, celebrating our first birthday! Our April issue went live today (more on that in a blog post later this week) and so it has been a whole year since the very first issue (April 2009) was unleashed into the wild.

The year seems to have flown by and we’re now well into volume 2. It’s no longer so much of a shock that we have to put one of these things together every month – unlike the beginning where we had 12 months or so to put issue 1 together, and then just over five or so weeks to get number 2 ready, and then number 3, and so on…

To mark our first year, the team has gone back and picked out some of our favourites from the last 12 months, and we’re making them available for free until the end of June. If you haven’t been keeping up with us, take a look and find out what you’ve been missing. And don’t forget that the whole of our very first issue remains free to access.

And if you’ve got any comments on how we’re doing, or what you might like to see us do differently as we plough on, feel free to leave a comment on this post.

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Chief Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Elemental etymology

“Name ten elements that have English names that don’t start with the same letter as their symbol”

This question was posed to one of the Nature Chemistry team over dinner this weekend, and then relayed to the rest of us over tea this morning. We all got them eventually (and without cheating by looking at the lovely Visual Elements Periodic Table – smuggled out of the RSC by someone who shall remain nameless – that adorns the wall behind us).

This puzzle was then set loose in the Twittersphere (surely it’s just a matter of time before that word’s in the OED!). I won’t give away the answers just in case you want to play the game for yourself – and it’s not exactly difficult to look them up anyway. As a side note, you can find us on Twitter as @naturechemistry.

As the ball was well and truly rolling, we then decided to ask our followers to name the 12 (or 13) elements named after people. It was a team effort, but LeighJKBoerner</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/premjg">premjg, SmallCasserole</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/zatytom">zatytom, and @Fifi_T combined to get them all (sorry if I missed anyone out).

Again, I’ll not give away the answers here, but if you don’t want to play, you can look on Wikipedia for them. And more information on whether it is 12 or 13 elements named after individuals can be found here.

This whole exercise got us thinking about who does not have an element named for them – and who perhaps should in the future. There was some musings on this topic in the blogosphere when the name of element 112 was being proposed and finalised – and we wonder what Sceptical Chymist readers think.

There are lots of very famous scientists without an element to their name, and quite a few of them are chemists. Should Pauling have an element named in his honour? How about Boyle or Dalton? Let us know what you think – and whether it’s all just physics anyway!

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Chief Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Elemental etymology

“Name ten elements that have English names that don’t start with the same letter as their symbol”

This question was posed to one of the Nature Chemistry team over dinner this weekend, and then relayed to the rest of us over tea this morning. We all got them eventually (and without cheating by looking at the lovely Visual Elements Periodic Table – smuggled out of the RSC by someone who shall remain nameless – that adorns the wall behind us).

This puzzle was then set loose in the Twittersphere (surely it’s just a matter of time before that word’s in the OED!). I won’t give away the answers just in case you want to play the game for yourself – and it’s not exactly difficult to look them up anyway. As a side note, you can find us on Twitter as @naturechemistry.

As the ball was well and truly rolling, we then decided to ask our followers to name the 12 (or 13) elements named after people. It was a team effort, but @LeighJKBoerner, @premjg, @SmallCasserole, @zatytom, and @Fifi_T combined to get them all (sorry if I missed anyone out).

Again, I’ll not give away the answers here, but if you don’t want to play, you can look on Wikipedia for them. And more information on whether it is 12 or 13 elements named after individuals can be found here.

This whole exercise got us thinking about who does not have an element named for them – and who perhaps should in the future. There was some musings on this topic in the blogosphere when the name of element 112 was being proposed and finalised – and we wonder what Sceptical Chymist readers think.

There are lots of very famous scientists without an element to their name, and quite a few of them are chemists. Should Pauling have an element named in his honour? How about Boyle or Dalton? Let us know what you think – and whether it’s all just physics anyway!

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Chief Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Nobel reflections

Early October saw the announcement of this year’s suite of Nobel Prize recipients and, as has been the case on quite a few occasions in recent years, there was some consternation when it came to the Chemistry prize. Many thoughts were expressed in the blogosphere and twittersphere and Carmen’s post over at C&ENtral Science has a few handy links that you can use as a starting point.

Now that the dust has settled somewhat, we’ve taken a look at the issue in our December editorial. The first paragraph is repeated below as a teaser:


Chemistry is often referred to as ‘the central science’ and its associations to all fields are clearly there to behold, but to some these links may stretch too far. Some purists have had their chemical noses put of joint with the recent awarding of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for ‘studies of the structure and function of the ribosome’ — apparently a topic that, for some, is not chemistry but biology. The arguments over the undeniable biological bent of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry are not new, but they seem to have reached a new level of intensity (or at least visibility) this year with various blogs and tweets doubting its current relevance to chemists. The award certainly leads to questions over the definition of chemistry and whether such ‘structural biology’ can indeed be classified as chemistry.


The rest of the article is available for free on our website to anyone with a nature.com account (and if you don’t have one, it’s easy to sign up for one).

There is also an ‘Editor’s Letter’ (an Editorial?) in the November issue of ACS Chemical Biology that considers the same topic, including whether we need new Nobel Prizes.

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Chief Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Volume 1 – done!

Today the December issue of Nature Chemistry went live (yes, I know it’s still November and Thanksgiving has not yet arrived for our American cousins, but hey, all the Christmas stuff is already in the shops…!).

Anyway, this represents a fairly significant milestone because it closes out Volume 1 of the journal. Nine issues, lots of pretty covers and some great science to boot! (I guess I’m biased, but you’ll just have to live with that). For those who are fans of metrics, it is these nine issues that will contribute to our first immediacy index (due out in the summer of 2010) and our first impact factor – due one year after that.

But we’re not resting on our laurels, not al all! So begins Volume 2, and the January 2010 issue is not too far from being put to bed as well (short deadlines because of the festive season…). Indeed, two papers from this issue have already been published online in advance of print – with two more following next Sunday.

We will endeavour to continue bringing you the best chemistry from labs around the world in 2010 and hope you enjoy what we have to offer. But now that we can draw a line under Volume 1, for those of you brave enough to leave comments on this post, we’d be keen to hear what you think we’ve got right, what we’ve got wrong – and what your favourite bits were…

Let us know – we’re always looking to improve.

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Chief Editor, Nature Chemistry)

The role of referees

One of the most fundamental aspects of our job here at the Nature research journals is overseeing the peer-review process. In making our decisions on whether to accept a manuscript for publication, the advice given to us by experts on the topic in question is absolutely crucial. And we get a wide range of responses from referees – sometimes we get very lengthy and detailed reports (some of which even rival the word count of the original manuscript being evaluated – yes, really), and sometimes we get very short reports of just a sentence or two.

What do we want? Well, Nature Physics have written a wonderfully lucid editorial explaining just that. If you referee for any journal, but especially those in the Nature stable, this is required reading. You can find the editorial here – it is freely available, but you do need to have a nature.com account.

I’ll leave you with one of the most important sentences from the editorial to whet your appetite and encourage you to go and read it – Whatever you think about a paper, it is vital to explain to us exactly why you think it.

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Chief Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Nobel Laureate – Venki Ramakrishnan


This is cross-posted from The Great Beyond*

After Venkatraman Ramakrishnan learnt he’d shared the 2009 Nobel Prize in Chemistry (with Ada Yonath and Thomas Steitz), NatureNews went to meet him at the UK Medical Research Council’s Laboratory of Molecular Biology, in Cambridge. Here he is, describing the thrill of seeing atomic-resolution structures of the ribosome – and his surprise at sharing the chemistry Nobel: a subject in which, he admits, he’d flunk an undergraduate degree.