Ion awe

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)

Degraded by the light

Today I have a chemical conundrum for you: My cat was recently prescribed Clavamox (consisting of amoxicillin trihydrate and clavulanate potassium), and the vet warned me to keep the pills in their opaque packaging until their use because they turn brown and disgusting (and presumably become less effective) when exposed to light. I have of course heard of light-sensitive drugs in the form of photodynamic therapy, or in regards to the idea that milk should be protected from light, but I hadn’t run across light-sensitive antibiotics (not sure whether that’s a testament to my poor chemical knowledge or my good health). From a very speedy search, it seems that amoxicillin, and not clavulanate, is the delicate compound in the mix.

So, the question for you all, as I am too lazy (I mean busy. Busy!) to figure it out myself, is: why is amoxicillin light-sensitive?

Catherine (associate editor, Nature Chemical Biology)

War… what is it good for?

I was searched by the police again this morning. Not that this happens all the time, but I’ve been searched at Kings Cross station three times over the last two years, as part of some recently introduced anti-terrorism scheme. I don’t really mind, although given that there are 77.5 million passengers passing through Kings Cross every year, I can’t help but feel I’m bucking the statistical average (for more mind-boggling London Transport facts, click here)

This got me thinking about how the situation in the Middle East ripples out to affect everyone, and in particular, how it affects chemists. For example, the Department of Homeland Security in the USA recently announced a list of 300 chemicals that require regulation to deter terrorism. The list includes several commonly used chemicals, such as ammonia and chlorine. US universities and other research sites will now be required to make inventories of these chemicals if they have more than the DHS-approved quantities. This may be something of a logistical nightmare, but it could have been worse – acetone was originally proposed to be on the list. How many chemistry departments are there that don’t use acetone?

Perhaps more worrying is the effect of the war on funding. Several US academics that I’ve spoken to have said that government funding for research has been squeezed, because money is being diverted in other directions. But then again, this might depend on the area you work in; biosensors for detecting toxins such as ricin are a hot topic nowadays, with interest not just from government funding bodies, but also from business. But as David Russell (a UK chemist who works in this area) pointed out in a recent interview in Chemistry World, it’s a shame that more people aren’t interested in biosensors for cholera. Subscribers to Science might be interested in reading the following open letter to the NIH on the theme of funding for security-related research, and the NIH’s response.

And then there are more personal cases, such as the recent example in the UK where a man labelled as a potential terrorist has been prevented from taking basic-level chemistry classes (Nature subscribers can read our news report about this here.)

So has the war against terror affected your working life? Has security at chemistry departments increased in recent years? Or are you seeing any trends in areas of research that attract funding? I’d be interested to know.

Andy

Andrew Mitchinson (Associate Editor, Nature)

The old ones are always the best

A couple of papers about some N-containing annulenes have been retracted and/or corrected after it was pointed out to the authors that the reaction they claimed made these exotic rings was actually 103 years old, and that they were much more likely to have made a pyridinium salt. There is a news story about it here

Does anyone know of this kind of any famous examples of a literature-search oversight leading to an erroneous claim like this?