Reactions: Muralee Murugesu

Muralee Murugesu is in the Department of Chemistry at the University of Ottawa, and works on lanthanide nanoscale magnets in the field of molecular magnetic materials.

1. What made you want to be a chemist?

I like to make things with my hands; I realized that I could make new molecules crystallize, study and understand them. That is what made me become a chemist.

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

I always said to myself if my chemistry career fails then I would go to an island start a bicycle shop near a beach and repair bicycles for people. Island lifestyle! That would be a change for sure.

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

I am working on molecular magnetic materials, more specifically lanthanide Single-Molecule Magnets. I hope it will lead to practical application of these molecules in technologies such as hard disk and/or quantum computers.

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

Gandhi, I would like to know how he was able to achieve great things for the human society in a peaceful way.

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

A little over a year ago, I wanted to crystallize a difficult compound. I wish I could spend more time working in the lab.

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

There are so many books I would like to read but if I have to choose one then it would be “Le Rouge et le Noir” by Stendhal in French. For music probably Thriller form Jackson, to bring back my early teenage years.

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

Naoto Ishikawa, who has done some beautiful work on lanthanide phthalocyanine-based magnets. I would like to read his perspective evoked in these few questions.

Your Monday answer

On Friday, I asked “What weight could you hang from a chemical bond before it broke? How many atoms [is that]?”

Paul from ChemBark suggested “~350 pN or ~400 nanograms or so” and Ali Moeed guessed “1000+ atoms”.

To be honest, I have no idea what the right answer is! But the fun with these kind of problems is working them out, so here are two methods I used and the answers they gave. Basically, I needed to know/calculate the mechanical force required to break a bond, seamlessly convert that into a force-due-to-gravity, and then work out what mass/how many atoms would give that force (on earth). If there are any mistakes in the following, please let me know in the comments! And if you have a better way to go about it, please do so.

First method (no research): The ball-park figure for the strength of a bond in my head is 100 kJ/mol, or 2 x 10-22 J per bond. Unfortunately, that’s an energy, not a force. But energy is just force x distance, right? So let’s say the bond is broken when you’ve moved one atom 10 Å further away. The force required to do this is (2 x 10-22 J/10 x 10-10 m) = 2 x 10-11 Newtons. A mass of 0.1 kg ‘weighs’ 1 N, so the weight required to break a bond is 2 x 10-12 kg. Which is pretty small in the human-sized world, but pretty massive in the atomic world – but how many atoms? I decided to think about gold atoms, as these make pretty nice nanoparticles. Gold has an atomic weight of ~200 g/mol, or 0.2 kg/mol, so that’s 2 x 10-12 kg / 0.2 kg/mol = 10-11 mol of gold. And finally, 6 x 1023 atoms of gold/mol x 10-11 mol = 6 x 1012 atoms of gold.

Second method: Gav used popular internet-based search engine ‘Google’ to find this paper from Matyjaszewski et al in Nature, the abstract of which says “[C-C bond] strength is evident in the hardness of diamonds [etc]; on the single-molecule level, it manifests itself in the need for forces of several nanonewtons to extend and mechanically rupture one bond.” So repeating the calculations from 10-9 Newtons gives 10-10 kg, or 3 x 1014 atoms of gold.

So my two answers aren’t exactly the same, but I think they’re close enough (what’s a factor of 50 when things are between 10-12 and 1023??) to indicate that it would take a LOT of atoms – one fat ‘nano’particle – to break a bond by their weight alone. I see Paul’s answer is in a similar range, and Ali is technically right with “1000+” but that leaves quite a lot of wiggle room!

What does this teach us? Well, apart from the fact that chemical bonds are strong, perhaps just that physicsgravity is weak, chemistryelectrostatics are strong!

NOTE: As I am just about to press publish, I see John at It’s the Rheothing has tacked the problem too, but (naturally) from a polymer perspective – how long a polymer could a bond support? I won’t spoil the surprise – go and read his post!

Neil

Neil Withers (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

NPG – is it for me?

[This is a guest post from Heather Powell, a second year undergraduate student at The University of York, who has spent the week seeing what we do in the Nature Chemistry office]

After starting my degree, it didn’t take me long to realise that being trussed up in a white coat and goggles for the rest of my scientific career was not for me. And so I began to wonder what other possibilities lay beyond the end of university, because as crazy as it seems right now, there will come a day when there won’t be lectures to attend, a tutorial to hand in, or a lab script to polish off. I had always had some interest in writing, and so a week with the Nature Chemistry team seemed like the ideal opportunity to discover the ins and outs of scientific publishing.

Having expected an office bustling with briefcase-carrying, tie-adorning, earpiece-wearing commuters, it came as a welcome surprise when I saw the periodic table fighting for space on the wall with the football match schedule and tea rota. Stuart – the editor of Nature Chemistry – introduced me to the London-based team, namely Neil and Gavin, and talked me through the entire process from submitted manuscripts to printed journal. Throughout the week I got to probe the people involved in selecting the manuscripts for publication, sending them out for peer review, professionalising the images and diagrams, formatting the pages to Nature Chemistry’s specific layout, and ultimately sending the journal to the printers.

Interesting and informative though it was to talk to the team in action, the best way to get a feel for something is by doing it. And that’s exactly what I got the chance to do! I discussed some manuscripts and their suitability for Nature Chemistry, as well as researching potential referees for peer review.

Furthermore, I will have the honour of seeing my name in print in an upcoming edition of Nature Chemistry. Research Highlights are 250 word summaries of some of the most exciting papers recently published, whether in Nature itself or elsewhere, and I wrote two of them this week. The idea is to bring across the benefits of the research and why it means so much to the scientific world – but it seems often the biggest challenge in this task is choosing an appropriately witty title!

Although thoroughly enjoyable, it felt a little strange editing a News and Views piece – a 1000-word article written about a recent paper by an expert in the appropriate field. What business did I have in effectively “marking” a piece of work by a qualified scientist? The purpose is to make a paper understandable to a non-specialist scientific audience, and allow the experts to give their opinion on the subject, so the trick, as far as editing goes, is to make the article clear and logical without detracting from the author’s content. And so I suppose being a mere undergraduate was actually an advantage here – not being a specialist, I had a pretty good idea of the level of detail to be understood!

But the story doesn’t stop there. As well as the journals, you’ll also find a press team within this warren of an office – these are the guys who organise press conferences and accumulate the press coverage that Nature receives from the papers and the web. Not to mention the Nature News team who report the latest scientific developments outside the world of manuscripts, and the floor of people who work on Scientific Reports, the open access online journal of research from all areas of science. I was lucky enough to spend some time with each of these groups, experiencing the vast range of elements associated with Nature Publishing Group.

So what did I get out of the week, besides the keepsake branded pens, and possibly a wider understanding of the company than even some of the employees here!? Well, I learnt how bench results can ultimately find their way to my computer screen upon a Google search, and more importantly, that a job in scientific publishing is a highly stimulating alternative to becoming one of the white-coated professors that front our science departments.

Massive thanks to everyone who made this such an enjoyable and certainly worthwhile week!

Your weekend problem…

A question struck me yesterday afternoon (editorial discretion prevents me revealing exactly why): what weight could you hang from a chemical bond before it broke? How many atoms?

I asked the rest of the team if they had any ideas, but got no answers I would be comfortable publishing! Still intrigued, I thought about it more while it was my turn on the tea rota.

It’s relatively easy to work out, with a little digging, but might surprise you. I’ll let you all stew on the question over the weekend – and suggest your own answers below – and return with my Fermi-style calculation on Monday!

Neil

Neil Withers (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Reactions: Clemens Richert

Clemens Richert is in the Department of Chemistry at the University of Stuttgart, and works on functional nucleic acids. His group’s homepage can be found at https://chip.chemie.uni-stuttgart.de.

1. What made you want to be a chemist?

The desire to get an education in a fundamental field of science that fascinates me. I was more drawn to chemistry than physics, probably because I liked synthesis better than mathematical approaches.

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

I like to build things, both on a molecular level and on a macroscopic level. I enjoy working with my group and do not actively think about other options, but I can well imagine being an entrepreneur in the (bio)tech area, making novel devices. For example, we are thinking about using the organic waste that a household produces and harvest enough energy-rich compounds from it to make the household independent of fossil fuels. If I was more patient, I would also like to teach autogenic training as a technique to overcome stress-related diseases.

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

My lab focuses on synthesis and molecular recognition. We have projects on enzyme-free replication, high fidelity diagnostics, and nanostructured materials. I hope we will find new ways to induce energy-rich organic compounds to drive spontaneous molecular evolution, and to develop devices that are based on molecular recognition and that include molecular machines. I also would like to be able to find highly specific ligands for biomacromolecules within days rather than years.

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

Linus Pauling or Richard Feynman. I have so many questions I would like to ask either of them.

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

I like to be in the lab and perform experiments. There is immense satisfaction in being able to synthesize a new compound with the desired properties in high yield. I go to the lab daily, but the last time I did a serious study with my own two hands was seven years ago. I measured the reactivity of active esters, using a mass spec-based approach (Synlett 2005, 411-416).

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

The book would be Ernest Hemingway: The old man and the sea. The album would be Dire Straits: Making Movies. I would prefer to take my guitar, though.

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

Peter Gölitz, editor of Angewandte Chemie. I wonder how he manages to deal with thousands of manuscripts per year and still remain an approachable human being.

Speaking Frankly: Emotional honesty

Frank Leibfarth is a graduate student trying to make his way through the academic maze. Find him contributing to the Sceptical Chymist or continue the conversation on Twitter @Frank_Leibfarth.

——————

I started writing this post almost three months ago, after reading a string of emotionally honest and unapologetic pieces from Athene Donald, Rita Tojeiro, Paul Bracher, and others. This outward display of emotion was refreshing to hear from scientists, especially the discussion about imposter syndrome, which brought back unwelcome memories from my early career. Via Paul’s post, this was also the first time I read about the tragedy surrounding Jason Altom’s suicide and the accompanying New York Times article.

I felt a powerful empathy for what Jason must have been going through in the time leading up to his suicide — the isolation, the warped reality, and the pain. I’ve felt varying degrees of those as a graduate student; I think everyone has. In my writing I was trying to convey that these are very real and common sentiments. I was calling for more emotional honesty and an acknowledgement of the physiological hardships that accompany being a young researcher. Primarily, I advocated for scientists to actually talk about their feelings instead of hiding them under a façade of professionalism.

Then my best friend Mason committed suicide.

He was 26: brilliant, inquisitive, serious, engaging, intense, and one of the most outwardly joyous people I had ever met, all the way to the end. He was in a doctorate program for physical therapy. Mason was obviously fighting demons that none of us can imagine, but he didn’t share his struggles with even his closest friends. He fought his demons alone, and he died with them.

I don’t assume to know what Mason was thinking or feeling. The more I wonder why, the less I understand. What I do know is that in my most vulnerable times in graduate school, isolation was the most difficult emotion to combat. It created a warped reality where no one could understand my feelings of insecurity and inadequacy, where everyone was more talented than me, and where I would surely fail no matter how much effort I put in. Of course, my perception of being isolated and alone was the problem. As I progressed and started to express those feelings, I quickly learned they were common among my peers. The problem was, and still is, that no one ever talks about these feelings. I had to search out answers; some people never start searching.

In science we don’t like to talk about feelings. In an apparent effort to remain impartial and intellectual, most scientific disciplines have systematically stripped themselves of emotion. This impartiality works well when communicating results, since we are (hopefully) divesting ourselves from the work and letting the data speak for itself. This emotional desert, however, is difficult and potentially dangerous for those of us searching for our scientific identity as graduate students.

Graduate school is a vulnerable time in the lives of young people. We must transition from learning out of a book to generating original knowledge. More significantly, we must find our way through a degree program for which there is no manual, no ‘right’ way to succeed, and no guarantee that we will be employed upon graduation. The isolation and subversive competitiveness accompanying the graduate-school experience made me feel insecure, afraid, unappreciated, anxious, unintelligent, and an impostor in my own discipline.

In retrospect, part of me is glad I cycled through all these emotions. Feeling inferior made me work harder, made me develop a sometimes unhealthy drive to attain relevance, and made me fully commit to the indentured graduate-student lifestyle. But I also wish someone would have told me that those feelings were normal. I wish some of the people that I looked up to told me about the times they felt insecure, or the times when they still do. I wish those senior to me would have acknowledged the emotional difficulty and told me it was common. The problem is, so few people talk about it. There is no comfortable time or place to discuss these feelings, and in the frenzy of busy days and impartial intellectualism the topic never gets raised. Acknowledging the abundance of emotional unrest that is inherent to the graduate student experience would go a long way toward cultivating well-adjusted scientists.

I survived. Most do. Mason didn’t. His death has only intensified my desire to do away with the emotionally repressive traditions of our discipline. We need to generate not only creative and brilliant scientists, but also well-adjusted and confident professionals. Our education system seems built to provide the former; we need to figure out how to make that commensurate with the latter. Graduate school is an unsentimental education. This means we, as a discipline, need to add the sentiment. If not for ourselves, then for Rita, or myself, or Mason, who will find comfort and confidence in knowing that we are not alone.

Reactions: Steven Benner

Steven Benner directs the Westheimer Institute at the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, and works at the interface between the physical sciences, informatics, natural history, and planetary science.

1. What made you want to be a chemist?

As a child, I was a “rockhound”, and became familiar with the Periodic Table by way of the specimens that I collected. Also, like many young lads, I was a pyromaniac, and chemistry represents a socially acceptable redirection of this human trait. Of course, both traits (collecting rocks, burning things) date back to the Paleolithic in the human species (at least).

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

I would probably be a middle school science teacher. There is a huge need for people in this space, to motivate and educate students at a very critical time in their development.

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

Since I started the Westheimer Institute ten years ago, my lab has tried to do “big” things across disciplines, something difficult to do within standard academic structures. To pay the bills, we develop new kinds of DNA to diagnose diseases, use dynamic combinatorial chemistry to create small molecule therapeutic agents, and work to create new forms of life under the “synthetic biology” paradigm. We resurrect ancestral genes and proteins from now-extinct organisms to bring “the experimental method” to bear on hypotheses in natural history that might tell us more about terran life. We very much want to understand how to extract information from the huge volumes of error-ridden DNA sequences that NextGen sequencing is producing. As members of the NASA Astrobiology Institute, we worry about how life began and how it might be distributed in the cosmos, including on Mars and Titan.

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

It is a common misperception that historical figures would be intrinsically interesting to have dinner with. Aristotle, Newton, Franklin or Einstein may have been brilliant (compared to us), but we modern day folks of modest intelligence are the cultural descendants of them all. Thus, any one of them would find modern college freshmen more fascinating than we would find them, especially if we showed them our iPads, and nearly all of the information flow over the dinner table would go from us to them. And it would be frustrating. For example, the entire evening with Aristotle could well be spent explaining why the water on the table was H2O.

So my choices would target ancestral technologies that we have lost. For example, when Cleopatra went to visit Julius Caesar, she carried a fresh rose from Egypt. We have lost the ability to preserve flowers in this way. I would love to meet the guy who knew how to do this 2000 years ago. Also, the recipe for Greek Fire is lost, despite its having kept Byzantium alive in the Middle Ages far past expectations given its geopolitical context. I would love to speak to the guy who knew how to make it. More pyromania, I suppose.

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

Last week, before I went to the ACS meeting. I took several sets of nmr spectra of a series of arsenate esters over a range of pHs and temperatures. The goal was to see if DNA having its phosphate esters replaced by arsenate linkages, too unstable to survive in most environments on Earth, might be stable in the subsurface oceans on Titan, the largest moon of Saturn. There, the water-ammonia mixtures are cold, and the pH is high, both increasing the stability of arsenate esters.

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

Answers to these “If you were a tree, what tree would you be?” questions are less interesting than they seem at first glance. If I were stranded on a desert island, the book that I would want would be entitled “How to Survive on a Desert Island”. I would have taken the complete collection of Mozart Piano Concerti with me, only to discover that the sand on the desert island destroys CD players.

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

Christopher Switzer at the University of California at Riverside, Andrew Ellington at the University of Texas, Clemens Richert at the University of Stuttgart, or Joseph Piccirilli at the University of Chicago. They all have interesting visions of how chemistry might be directed towards “big” questions.

Reactions: Katherine Haxton

Katherine Haxton is in the School of Physical and Geographical Sciences at Keele University, and works on dendrimers and other advanced materials for catalysis and drug delivery.

1. What made you want to be a chemist?

I didn’t. I wanted to be a scientist, probably a particle physicist but I’m not really sure I knew what that was! I turned out to be particularly bad at classical mechanics, actually all 1st year university physics except the quantum stuff but fortunately was much better at chemistry so decided to stick to that. By the time I did my final year project on dendrimers, I was hooked.

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

A particle physicist, with things like the LHC that area of research sounds very exciting at the moment. For a non-science job I’d go for running a good wine shop and start importing Canadian wine to the UK.

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

We are working on new kinds of hybrid materials, combining dendrimers with other classes of materials, that will hopefully lead into a number of applications such as catalysis and drug delivery.

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

Someone like Marie Stopes or Emmeline Pankhurst. It would be quite fascinating to get their take on today’s women’s rights and issues, particularly those related to science.

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

A couple of weeks ago I had to run through an experiment for a first year teaching lab, a form of the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction that oscillates through purple, red, blue and green. It’s very pretty and satisfying to see spontaneous colour changes like that.

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

Phillip Pulman’s ‘His Dark Materials’ trilogy – I think that could do with a couple more readings, and for an album, probably the Bach Cello Suites.

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

Some of the chemistry staff up in St Andrews would be good. Perhaps Russell Morris or David Cole-Hamilton? I’m curious about their desert island reading habits!

Blogroll: Scary chemicals

Sensational chemophobia and the problems with biofuels

‘Are you scared yet?’ This is the title of See Arr Oh’s post on Just Like Cooking but could equally serve as the unspoken subtitle of the news report he’s blogging about. First highlighted on ChemBark the investigative report from US TV channel Fox29 is about “unlocked chemistry labs and the ease with which a terrorist could steal hazardous materials”. So far, so serious. But, as ChemBark says, “the underlying point of securing labs is a valid one, but the presentation is way Way WAAAAAAY over the top”. See Arr Oh takes the presentation to task more than ChemBark, giving us some random quotes that illustrate the chemophobic sensationalism of the report, which breathlessly reveals the presence of 0.1 M HCl and ether. He counted “26 mentions of the word ‘chemical’ (or once every 14.4 seconds)” – mostly “preceded by a sensationalist adjective”. We can’t deny that lab security is an issue for serious discussion, but perhaps it deserves better reporting than it got from Fox29.

When Nobel Laureates talk, people listen — and when they write provocative editorials, people read closely. So when we spotted the editorial in Angewandte Chemie by Hartmut Michel (1988 Laureate) titled ‘The Nonsense of Biofuels‘, we sat up. And so did Ash Jogalekar at The Curious Wavefunction, where he took us through the photosynthesis expert’s arguments. First among these is the lack of efficiency of photosynthesis itself — a 4% upper limit — which is exacerbated by the energy needed to grow, harvest and transform the biomass into useful fuels. Finally, when it comes to fuelling transportation, only 20% of the energy produced by a combustion engine is used to propel the vehicle. Michel suggests that either photosynthesis needs to be improved, or photovoltaics and batteries pursued with more vigour — solar cells are around 15% efficient, and vehicles can usefully use 80% of the battery’s energy.

[As mentioned in this post, we’re posting the monthly blogroll column here on the Sceptical Chymist. This is April’s article]