Now I’m cookin’

It’s often said that chemistry is much like cooking, but with a tastier product, and perhaps often argued that a good chemist, like a good cook, knows just how much a ‘pinch’ of salt, chili powder, or BuLi is required in order to get a good result.

I certainly think this is true, and am always pleasantly surprised that the actual skills I learned in graduate school come in handy in the kitchen. For example, I am a master of pouring just the right amount of solvent… although now the solvent is almost always water. So boring.

One scenario for which I didn’t necessarily expect the similarity to carry over is in the trepidation of using new reagents. In the lab, this was a bit more rational of a response – perhaps the compound is explosive, or smelly, or has gone bad? In the kitchen, however, it feels a bit silly to be worried about using somewhat exotic plants or spices for the first time. Yet I think the consequences of misusing foods are pretty real as well – aside from the obvious lack of dinner if you’ve added too much of a particular spice or too little of a thickener, there’s the frustration of wasting the rest of the ingredients, and having to clean up the whole mess. If you’re really venturing into the unknown, the results can become more serious (as with chemicals) – the improperly cooked vegetable may acquire a terrible smell, or there’s always the possibility that you could give yourself food poisoning if you’ve really botched the job.

What tips and tricks do you chefs use when attempting a new dish? Would we perhaps feel more comfortable if recipes were written as synthetic methods? And while there are obvious reasons to try a failed reaction again in the lab, do you all give failed meals a second try?

Catherine (associate editor, Nature Chemical Biology)

3 thoughts on “Now I’m cookin’

  1. Good cooking unites disparate elements into a pleasurable and surprising whole.

    27-30 December two differential scanning calorimeters at 45.04° latitude melt left- vs. right-handed benzil single crystals into identical achiral fluid. Isotropic achiral vacuum gives identical enthalpies of fusion, a minor waste of two stoves.

    Mass sector chiral anisotropic vacuum gives reproducible different numbers within experimental error. That menu empirically falsifies General Relativity, string theory, and conservation of angular momentum (Noether’s theorem). “Mama mia, ’atsa some spicy meatball!” (re Doyle Dane Bernbach)

    Will it be Alka Seltzer for physics? Stick around for just desserts.

  2. Most chemists I know tend to be either fantastic and enthusiastic chefs, or else completely terrible. Me, I’m just enthusiastically terrible.

    Also, while we’re on the topic of chemistry and food, the Khymos blog (https://blog.khymos.org/) is amazing! It’s the adventures of an organometallic chemist in the kitchen, matching foods together based on their similarities in chemical profiles. Cauliflower and cocoa, anyone?

Leave a Reply

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