Safety first

[This post is based on the editorial in the April issue – read here for the full text, available for free to all registed users. We’re going to post more editorials on the blog in the hope of getting feedback from you all.]

Is any experiment worth your health — or your life?

Over a year has passed since the tragic death of Sheri Sangji, a 23-year-old research assistant at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Almost exactly a year later, the pages of C&EN reported another laboratory accident at a university chemistry department, this time Texas Tech. The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), an independent federal agency, are investigating the accident and will now start gathering information on incidents in academic laboratories in ‘a more detailed way’.

These accidents — and lower-profile ones in UK university chemistry departments in December — serve to remind us that chemistry can be a hazardous pursuit. Most people would agree that the risk is lower now than it was in the past, thanks to an increased culture of safety no longer tolerating such ill-advised laboratory behaviour as smoking or mouth-pipetting. Nevertheless, recent accidents clearly illustrate that there is still much room for improvement and that safety must never be taken for granted or become an afterthought.

Although it is not just academic laboratories in which accidents can happen, there is a commonly held belief that standards of safety are much higher in industrial laboratories than they are in their academic counterparts. There could be several reasons for this. Perhaps it is simply that industry has a stronger and deeper culture of safety than academia, or maybe the nature of academic research means it involves greater unknowns than some industrial research. Other factors could include working alone out of normal working hours and a relative lack of experience among the young researchers in academia.

Although legislation can put policies and procedures in place to try to minimize the safety risks in chemical laboratories, accidents will still happen and no law will prevent them. Only a wholesale acceptance of responsibility from top to bottom will do. From the top, academic departments must do more to ensure that safety comes first for all staff and students. Faculty members should instil their groups with a strong culture of safety and be prepared for work to go a little more slowly for it to go more safely.

Post-doctoral workers must realize that their habits will be imitated by more junior members in the laboratory and so they should act accordingly and be prepared to mentor their co-workers. Finally, undergraduate and postgraduate students should exercise their right to express concern over their colleagues’ practices. It must be acknowledged that safe practices are not there to make lives more difficult, but to save those lives — it is only through actively using those safety measures that accidents will be reduced to as low a level as possible.

Materials Girl: ACS: Misconstruing misconceptions

[This post was written on Wednesday morning by Materials Girl]

Today, I deviated from the myriad of technical talks and attended some on education (while sadly sacrificing those regarding nanotechnology and food). Teaching — as with food and chocolate — also seems to be a topic with a majority of female attendees. Hmm.

We were there to consider “Students’ misconceptions about periodic table properties and its implications to learning chemistry.” Professor Salame used a classic example of memorization without understanding: atomic radius, where students commonly “learn” by memorizing the up-down/left-right trends. But we all knew that – a probing exam will require, say, a short explanation as to why chlorine or fluorine is bigger. The speaker said as much, showing statistics from his classes and giving various quotes of students’ incorrect answers. It’s reminiscent of the DON’T PUT FIVE BONDS ON CARBON days from o-chem. Hilarious, although terribly tragic.

At the end of the talk, several audience members ardently discussed how to mark a particular answer; having painfully graded many exams, I know the difficulties of evaluating a student’s understanding based on an incorrect response. However, none of the audience members addressed the issue that THEY might be part of the problem. If these concepts are so simple, why haven’t they been able to communicate them? Or is it a question of students’ innate [in]ability to understand chemistry? Maybe this student didn’t care about the subject, or that one happened to miss some details in his notes, or another was sick during the exam. Or maybe their professors failed to effectively teach their students.

This brings up an issue I had as an undergrad, studying at a large, well-respected research university. My professors were brilliant researchers, but they were often mediocre educators. Most of the best teachers I had were not tenured professors; I suspect that deep down, many of those with tenure only cared about their research. The topics they taught were “simple” or “easy”, so skipping details and skimming over new material once was sufficient teaching – for them. Those brilliant professors didn’t understand why the wretched undergrads (and even grad students!) had such low test scores…

Ultimately, who is to blame for a student’s failure to comprehend concepts or to perform well on exams? Teaching is difficult, we get it. (I’m currently on both ends of the student-teacher spectrum, and each position comes with its own challenges and rewards.) Still, passion for any subject can shine through teaching, promoting curiosity in those who hear it. Success boils down to effort. If professors care more to teach properly, then students might also invest more time in learning properly.

Back to the talk. Bottom line: don’t just require simple answers to exam questions. Ask for some reasoning – but only after you’ve taught your students well enough.

ACS San Francisco 2010: Questions time

The meeting is winding down a little and although the week has been good, I’m pleased because I’m ready to come home. These meetings are usually tiring but this one in particular seems to have really taken it out of me. Maybe the jetlag and the 11 hour flight play a role but mostly it’s the long days and that you never really switch off during the week.

This ACS meeting I’ve really struggled to find the time to go to that many presentations so I’ve not really got much to say about the science that has been presented. The ones I have seen have been on the whole good, but people don’t tend to present their latest findings at ACS meetings – unlike in more closed meetings such as the Gordon conferences. So the best way to get the latest info is to just talk to people outside of the presentations. That’s why before I came I organized to catch up with a handful of chemists who I wanted to chat to about various things, like what they were up to in the lab at the minute, their opinion on our first 12 issues (everyone I spoke to likes what we doing – Yay!), what they’ve seen in the literature that’s exciting them etc.

And they always have a load of questions for me too. A few have cropped up in pretty much every conversation this week. Everyone wants to talk about impact factors. I can understand why, because they have (quite ridiculously) become, it seems, the most important metric to measure a journal and therefore a way to measure an academic by noting where they publish. To answer the questions that I keep being asked – we don’t really think about it, we haven’t got one yet, it comes in 2011 and it’s far too early to predict (I jokingly tried to predict it in earlier in the year, extrapolating using 2 (!) weeks of citation data and came up with an impact factor of 140,000! I think I was a little out).

Another question that comes up all the time: do you sit near the editors of the other physical science journals (Materials, Nano, Physics, etc…) and do you discuss papers? Yes, I sit just close enough to Peter Rodgers of Nature Nanotechnology to remind him that the pretty football Arsenal play isn’t going to win them the Premier League, but no, we don’t discuss papers that have been submitted. The journals based in London share the same office and we go for lunch and beers together (not at the same time!) but we are completely editorially independent and, in fact, rivals for certain papers that could fit the scope of several NPG journals.

There are other questions that get asked about our editorial processes and I think we’ll try to answer a few of them over the coming weeks and months on the blog.

I have a few more meetings so I’ll keep track of what I’m asked and keep you posted.

Gavin (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

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)

Materials Girl: ACS gives theobroma (food of the gods)

[Posted on behalf of Materials Girl]

On Sunday, I mentioned via Twitter that the longest lines exist for free food. (I could start a blog on how to feed yourself at conferences without spending a dime, give or take a lack of proper nutrition.) In second place are the booths dishing out non-academic freebies, as if oversized t-shirts and logo-covered canvas bags are the key to happiness. On a similar note, the most crowded talk seems to be here, at the Everything You Want to Know About Chocolate program. The organizers knew what they were doing – aside from the obvious appeal of the topic, they will be raffling off at least two massive, 10 lb chunks of bittersweet chocolate [4.5 kg – NW]. “To encourage you to stay until the bittersweet end [of the talk].” Ah, the sneaky wisdom.

Amusingly, the male—female ratio in here has shifted in favor of the ladies. Personally, I’ve never been afflicted by the female mania for chocolate – but nonetheless, lectures on chemistry+food/processing are more compelling than others. This reflects a choice I’ve made for the meeting: I’m going to have fun. Few of the talks relate to my current research and my PI isn’t paying for the trip, so I might as well kick back and learn about completely new topics.

Coming back to the original thought, the close quarters in this room are a bit disconcerting – partially because moving an elbow makes you bump the adjacent person. However, it’s definitely fun to see such relaxed enthusiasm at a technical talk. The studies’ details are interesting, although in the end the message is the same: yes, cocoa-based chocolate is good for you, but no, not in unlimited quantities.

All of us dieters should already know that moderation is the key to success. (Unless you’re one of those scrawny grad students who never eats real meals.) As the saying goes, Il faut souffrir pour etre belle. We must suffer for beauty! Rather like how we must suffer through long hours in the lab for academic survival – if only my research involved food…

Materials Girl: At the ACS

[Posted on behalf of Materials Girl]

According to the flight attendant on intercom, we arrived in “the beautiful tropical paradise” of San Francisco. Hah! Compared to the freezing weather elsewhere, 50-60 °F [10-15.55555 °C – NW] probably is a true paradise, but the joke also felt like a jab towards those of us not running wild on spring break (I never was one of those undergrads). Really, though, this is another sort of paradise – or at least a nice vacation. Winter finals are over, traveling is a rare luxury for me, and, most importantly, I have a valid excuse to be away from the lab. It’s my first ACS meeting!

Conventions are all about connections, and before they start it’s a good idea to check out the digital landscape. For example, if you kept up with The Sceptical Chymist (and Twitter) you would know that some Nature editors might be heading to SF. I hadn’t, actually, hence Gavin’s post was fresh news when I took an internet break at 8pm. Aside from helpful tips for a first-timer, it was revealed that Nature Publishing Group had a stand in Moscone Center…

And so, near the end of the first day exposition, a lone student limped over to booth #1000 on a mission to find Gavin. “Hi, I’m Materials Girl! How’s life in London?” That was me – cheerful, but bleary eyed and ruing the invention of the 3” stiletto heel [76.2 mm – NW] (wisdom dictates that I dress down tomorrow). Despite fatigue, it was the highlight of my day. Meeting people means so much more when you have a tangible connection and a host of topics to discuss. My only complaints are that Neil and Stu are far away – only existing as email addresses and Twitter feeds!

This week will be madness, but I look forward to it. In the meantime, I’ll try to choose which talks to attend, get some sleep, and start following @gav33. It’s already Monday.

ACS San Francisco 2010: The week ahead

I’ve arrived safe and sound in sunny San Francisco for the ACS meeting. The journey here was trouble-free and actually quite pleasant. I managed to watch a film, read four manuscripts and see the stunning scenery of Greenland, the Rockies and San Francisco.

The meeting is underway and I spent the morning in a session dedicated to Bob Madix (hopefully I’ll blog more about it later) but no amount of coffee is letting me break through the jetlag wall that I’ve just hit. So I thought I’d skip the afternoon sessions and retire to my hotel room to send some emails and write a quick blog entry.

This is my third ACS meeting in as many years and I think that I’m learning how to cope with them. They’re crazy meetings in that there are thousands of people here, tens of parallel sessions and just a phenomenal amount of chemistry being fired at you from all directions. I do enjoy them but I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t a tough week. My plan for this meeting is to catch up with a few people over lunch and dinner, chat to whoever swings by the Nature stand (booth #1000 – come say hi!) and maybe take in fewer sessions than I usually do i.e. I might miss a session here and there unlike in previous years when I’ve been to all sessions possible. It does feel a little like cutting class though!

I’ve got a very loose plan for which sessions I’m going to attend but the actual planning of where to go is a bit of a nightmare. To help out those of you who are unsure about who you should see speak, I thought I’d mention a few sessions that I think are worth a visit. Firstly, there is a great line-up of speakers in a session on Tuesday that has been organised by a group of students (The Graduate Student Symposium Planning Committee – GSSPC). They’ve organized a symposium called ‘Chemistry and the developing world’ and have some top chemists giving presentations (Angela Belcher, Paul O’Brien and Sean Cutler for example). For more info see here.

Secondly, one of our very recent authors, Randy Goldsmith, is giving a presentation tomorrow and he has the unenviable task of speaking at the same time as the Presidential event. The research he’ll be talking about was published in, and is in fact on the cover of, our current issue and it is very cool (single molecule spectroscopy of a fluorescent protein) so do go along and see him talk.

I’ll also be in the Physical Chemistry Awards Symposium which is always great. This year’s eclectic bunch of presentations sees, amongst other topics, some atmospheric chemistry from Kim Prather, some computational nanoscience from George Schatz and a presentation on the dynamics of electronic excited states from Peter Rossky.

And also don’t miss Nature’s very own Jason Wilde (he’s the boss of my boss!) speaking on Tuesday in a session on the Future of Scholarly Communication.

Make sure you follow our tweets from @naturechemistry and also the Twitter tag #acs_sf during the week!

Gavin (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

APS Meeting: Quasicrystal adventures

To all those who think being a scientist is not very exciting, Paul Steinhardt today at the American Physical Society meeting in Portland, OR, gave some reasons to think again.

Steinhardt has done lots of work leading to the discovery and characterization of quasicrystals, solids which are ordered but nonperiodic. Created in the lab in the mid ’80s, they have proven to be very hard to spot in nature. About 10 years ago, Steinhardt and his students started analyzing systematically large catalogs of powder diffraction spectra of naturally occurring minerals to search for the presence of quasicrystals. They would ask for samples of the possible candidates, so they could analyze them in more detail, but unfortunately not all were available, so they made an appeal in their paper to people who possessed these samples to make them available.

For a few years nothing happened. Then they were contacted by a curator of the Museum of Natural History in Florence, Italy, who had a sample called Khatyrkite, which had been found in 1978 in extreme northeastern Siberia. This sample, a complex mixture of aluminum-containing minerals, also comprised a quasicrystalline area, the first natural quasicrystal ever found, of composition Al63Cu24Fe13, similar to a known stable artificial quasicrystal.

Understanding more about this sample required finding out precisely where it was found in the first place, and at this point the scientists had to work like Da Vinci code characters, reconstructing the path of the sample through the notes of a dead private collector in Amsterdam, to a smuggler in Romania, then on to a museum in St. Petersburg and finally to the banks of the Kathyrkha river in northeast Siberia, and getting in touch with the person who physically found the mineral. They are now thinking of organizing an expedition to find out whether there are more quasicrystals in the area.

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)