Monthly Archives: February 2010

IUPAC formally issues the final word on 112…

Posted on by
2

So, after literally some speculation and tongue-in-cheek outrage, IUPAC has officially definitely finally approved “the name copernicium, with symbol Cn, for the element of atomic number 112”.

Quoting again from the IUPAC press-release "The Recommendations will be published in the March issue of the IUPAC journal Pure and Applied Chemistry and is available online at Pure Appl. Chem., 2010, Vol. 82, No. 3, pp. pp 753-755 (doi: 10.1351/PAC–REC-09-08-20)."

So there it is. The final word on copernicium – without numbers down the side of the page (like the provisional report Mitch alerted us all to).

But it’s not the final word for new elements: IUPAC go on to tease us: “The Joint Working Party will issue a second report, dealing with claims for the discovery of elements with atomic numbers in the range 113 to 118, in the near future.” I can less-than-exclusively reveal that Wikipedia reports that the Riken team who are co-claiming discovery have suggested ‘japonium’ and ‘rikenium’ (original interview here).

Watch this space for more element-naming news…

Neil

Neil Withers

(Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

A bit of a fischy answer

Posted on by
2

Readers in the UK will probably be aware of the TV quiz show ‘University Challenge’. It’s a general knowledge quiz in which teams representing universities and colleges from the UK compete (there’s no monetary reward, only the honour of winning). The questions asked are all pretty challenging, and it’s clear from watching the show that the question master — Jeremy Paxman — is extremely knowledgeable about…some of them. This is a fact that Neil has mentioned here before.

In my experience, chemistry rarely gets a good representation in the questions – the ‘chemistry’ questions have been known to include things like: ‘Name three of the four elements whose names spelt in British English end in ‘um’ but not ‘ium’. With a good 5–10 minutes to mentally work my way through the periodic table I could have done this (although there would never be enough time to do this on the show) but more importantly it doesn’t strike me as being about chemistry.

And hence to the point of this post: Paxman sometimes accepts answers slightly different than those on the question card – if he feels that the contestants have demonstrated that they have the right idea. Last night there were quite a few chemistry questions. Of particular note was a question asking for the type of compounds formed by the Fischer–Tropsch process. The answer on the card was hydrocarbons. The contestants were stumped. They nearly had it, but I would argue that their answer of ‘hydrogen and carbon’ wasn’t quite close enough. These two elements are not hydrocarbons. Paxman, however, awarded the points.

If we as chemists want people to understand what we do and why our jobs are important, then the subject needs to be represented more accurately in the mainstream media. Most chemists don’t learn to recite the periodic table, and don’t really care about how many elements end in ‘um’ and not ‘ium’— it has, after all, little to do with similarities in the respective elements reactivity.

I’m also not arguing that Jeremy Paxman should have known that the answer to the Fischer–Tropsch question was wrong. And I for one would love to see more questions like this included, but there needs to be guidance about what is a suitable alternative answer and what isn’t. Would he have been willing to award the points had the contestants offered a few real hydrocarbons such as propane and butane? I think this would be a far more valid answer, but I’d wager that it wouldn’t have done the contestants any good.

So here is a challenge for all of you. Can we come up with some questions that are really about chemistry, and that are:

1) Difficult (but not so tough that you wouldn’t have a chance of understanding them without a PhD in the topic area).

2) About things that you’d like a reasonably rounded individual — not necessarily a scientist — to have some idea of.

If you want you could even provide possible alternative answers that you think really are ‘close enough’.

I think the Fischer–Tropsch question would be about the right level – I’d be hard pressed to name a reaction you could consider more industrially important (there are of course a few that are equal)…

Steve

Stephen Davey (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Reactions – Sébastien Perrier

Posted on by
Reply

Sébastien Perrier is in the School of Chemistry at the University of Sydney and works on the synthesis and characterisation of macromolecules with highly controlled and pre-determinable structures using controlled/living free radical polymerisation, to design new materials, or improve existing ones.

1. What made you want to be a chemist?

I have been fascinated by all aspects of science and mathematics from a young age. I chose to read chemistry as it is fundamentally a science that enables its students to understand the building blocks of life and the world around us. My research specialism is polymer and macromolecular chemistry which also requires knowledge of physics and biology. I very much enjoy the multi-disciplinary nature of this field and the collaborations it has enabled me to pursue!

2. If you weren’t a chemist and could do any other job, what would it be – and why?

I would probably be a historian! In my spare time I enjoy learning about different periods of history across the world, and understanding how we got to where we are.

3. What are you working on now, and where do you hope it will lead?

Since my move from the University of Leeds in the UK to the University of Sydney, my research has evolved from polymer synthesis to the wider field of soft matter. My team is currently developing new methodologies to combine synthetic polymers to natural molecules, such as peptides and cellulose, to design nanostructured materials. The results are two-fold: the exploitation of the properties of the natural molecules to lead to functional materials (e.g. we have developed structured polymeric nanomaterials based on the self assembly of peptide sequences); and the enhancement of the properties of natural, renewable, materials by conjugating them to synthetic polymers (e.g. we recently developed cellulose–polymer derivatives that show improved properties when compared to cellulose).

4. Which historical figure would you most like to have dinner with – and why?

I have always been impressed by how the early scientists studied all aspects of mathematics and science, combining chemistry, physics, biology, geology, etc and even philosophy. One scientific figure who stands out for me is Leonardo Da Vinci, who was also an engineer and an artist – I would love to spend hours listening to his observations on our modern world!

5. When was the last time you did an experiment in the lab – and what was it?

My last experiment was the synthesis of a polyamide, as a demo to my first year undergraduate students! I tend to do a lot of chemical experiments in my lectures, to show students what it is really all about! In terms of research, the last time I worked in the lab was to fix our size exclusion chromatography!

6. If exiled on a desert island, what one book and one music album would you take with you?

Could I cheat and take my iPod?! If I could only take one album, it would have to be The Joshua Tree by U2 – their best album so far in my opinion. Being able to take only one book is a difficult choice, as I enjoy reading very much! I recently read A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson, which combines my two passions, science and history, and is written in a simple, humorous and very informative way (I actually use this book in my undergraduate teaching!). If I were to select something from the canon of literature, it would have to be the complete works of Oscar Wilde.

7. Which chemist would you like to see interviewed on Reactions – and why?

This is a tough question! I can think of a few, but generally speaking it would be nice to hear from a mix of people at various stages in their career – e.g. researchers about to retire from the profession and new appointments.