Letters from Lindau: An introduction

Editor’s note: Anthea Blackburn is a graduate student based in the US who will be attending the 63rd Lindau Meeting of Nobel Laureates (this year dedicated to chemistry) in Germany next month. Anthea will write daily blog posts from the meeting for the Sceptical Chymist.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Hello Sceptical Chymist Readers!

Have you ever thought about which three historical figures, past or present, you would most like to have dinner with? My dinner party would almost certainly feature Nobel Laureates — ever since I developed an interest in science I have been fascinated with the people who have received this prize. While cramming with friends for exams during my undergraduate studies in chemistry I realized that I wasn’t alone in my admiration — discussions about which Nobel Laureates we would most like to meet were common.

Of course, we were born a few decades too late to meet most of the scientists that we learned about in class and in our textbooks — van ’t Hoff, Diels, Alder and Pauling, for example. More recently, however, as my scientific career has progressed into graduate studies, the Laureates that intrigue me the most are those who were awarded the prize for concepts I use on a daily basis — the likes of Suzuki, Negishi, Heck, Lehn, Cram, Pedersen and Ernst — many of whom are still alive and kicking.

And that dinner party with the scientists who have contributed so much to our understanding of the molecular world around us? Well, come July, what I thought was an elusive dream will be (partly) coming true. Each year, the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings are held in Lindau, a small island town on Lake Constance, Germany, where young researchers from around the world are selected to meet with a group (what is the collective noun for Nobelists?!) of Nobel Laureates from a particular field. The meetings foster interactions between the Laureates and the young scientists through presentations, discussions and many, many social events. This year the meeting, the 63rd of its kind, will focus on chemistry, and I have been fortunate enough to be selected to spend a week mingling with 34 Nobel Laureates and other young researchers from around the world.

I write today, however, to introduce myself, before I embark on this incredible scientific voyage. I am a born-and-bred New Zealander, who has been living in Chicago for the last three years studying chemistry at Northwestern University under the tutelage of a Scot. I have been working on a few interesting projects throughout my graduate career thus far, all of which stem from the synthesis and characterization of topologically interesting and mechanically interlocked molecules. As a graduate student at a school with a large chemistry department, I have the privilege of hearing from very successful chemists about their research in formal settings like lectures and seminars. Although this environment exposes me to the latest exciting science, it does not offer the chance for students like myself to easily talk with established scientists in an informal setting.

Fortunately for me, this is one of the main themes of the Lindau Meetings — discussions between students and Laureates outside of the lecture theatre are a core aspect of the event. Of course, I am looking forward to learning about Nobel Prize-worthy science, but as a chemist interested in inspiring science and making it applicable to the general public, I am much more excited to have the opportunity to talk to these Laureates and interact with them on a more personal level. These scientists have clearly excelled in sharing and presenting their research successes with the scientific community, and, upon being awarded the Nobel Prize, with non-experts, as well as the general public, so I am preparing to absorb as much of their expertise and technique as I can — any information I can gain will only make me a better communicator, scientific and otherwise!

The next time I write will be from Germany. As a way of sharing what goes on at these meetings, I will be writing daily Sceptical Chymist updates during my time in Lindau, starting on Monday July 1st. Check out my Twitter feed as well — @antheablackburn — I’ll be tweeting during the meeting too. I am excited to share stories of my experiences, my thoughts from Lindau, and my interactions with the superstars of science.

Blogroll: Digital discourse

Editor’s note: As we continue to invite bloggers out there in the wild to compose our monthly Blogroll column, Brandon Findlay penned the July 2013 column.

———-

Chemists chat, share snippets of research, and try to out-draw each other during #RealTimeChem week.

Are you connected? The rise of smartphones and social networks is blurring the line between conference and lab, allowing chemists to share and discuss their discoveries in real time. In April, students, postdocs, industrial chemists and professors were in full presentation mode, sharing their research struggles and triumphs in #RealTimeChem week. Doctor Galactic curated the @RealTimeChem twitter feed and picked his favourite tweets each day. Meanwhile, JessTheChemist kept tabs on the blog posts, providing a quick summary for each. All told, around 700 people took part, and Mark Borkum built the interactions into a beautiful illustration (png file).

As the week progressed, contributions ranged from Andrew Bissette‘s serious take on classic research papers to Vittorio Saggiomo‘s light-hearted music video, with several ancillary hashtags gaining popularity. On Thursday, JessTheChemist threw down the gauntlet, challenging her fellow chemists to tweet their hand-drawn structures under #FreeHandRings. From simple six-membered rings came ever more elaborate structures, until See Arr Oh squashed the competition with a beautifully crafted maitotoxin.

No two hand-drawn structures are alike, as shown in an earlier post on the Baran group blog, Open Flask. Polling the lab, Dane Holte discovered that not only did his labmates have a preferred double-bond arrangement (the two Kekulé variants were far more popular than the inner-ring Thiele model), but that drawing the hexagon was quite contentious. The most popular line order was used by only 5/25 chemists, with eleven other options receiving at least one vote.

Written by Brandon Findlay, who blogs at https://chemtips.wordpress.com

———-

[As mentioned in this post, we’re posting the monthly blogroll column here on the Sceptical Chymist. This is the July 2013 article]

Titanium tales

In this month’s ‘in your element’ article (subscription required), Mike Tarselli from Biomedisyn Corporation recounts just how pervasive titanium is in our lives. And by ‘our lives’ I refer to us human beings as well as us chemists.

[Note: Find out more about Mike here by reading his replies to our Reactions questions.]

Ti_nchem.1656-i1

{credit}© DIDIER ZYLBERYNG / ALAMY{/credit}

Element 22 is ubiquitous on Earth – although not as a pure metal, a form that has only become accessible in the 20th century. Titanium and its compounds serve a myriad of purposes. To name but a few, titanium is a component of jewellery, glasses frames, and the pins and screws used to staple together broken bones, while pigment TiO2 also endows paints, toothpaste and pharmaceutical coatings with a bright, glimmering white.  Not to mention partly making up the striking Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao (pictured)!

Chemists have long relied on titanium, in various compounds and oxidation states, to promote many, many reactions – the article elegantly relates diverse ways in which titanium, in different oxidation states and coordination environments, engages with a variety of molecules, but I will avoid spoiling it here. Let me point out though that titanium compounds may not be as environmentally-benign as we might have thought. Few efforts have been made so far to recover catalysts from finished products (for example polyethylene bottles), or by-product salts, but this is an issue that seems worthy of attention.

In any case, this year marks the 222nd anniversary of the discovery of element 22 — and what a rich 222 years that have been, too! As per Mike’s toast, “raise a titanium silicate-coated champagne glass, and enjoy some titania-frosted cake. Delicious!”

 

All you can tweet (the blog version)

For the sake of posterity and having all of the tweets in one place that isn’t Storify, here is a recap of our April 2013 editorial about how we use Twitter.

Speaking Frankly: The allure of Pasteur’s quadrant

Editor’s note: Frank Leibfarth is about to embark on a postdoc position and is 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 stand at the cusp of a thrilling and intimidating time in the life of a young scientist. I recently defended my dissertation and I am embarking on a postdoc with the intention to join the academic ranks. The next few years, especially the beginning of an assistant professorship, will be the closest to true intellectual freedom that most scientists have in their career; perhaps the only time to imagine and pursue risky ideas with money untied to the requirements of funding agencies or companies. This is my opportunity to take chances, to think big, to solve pressing problems or, at a minimum, to fail spectacularly while trying.

We, as scientists, possess a specialized and rare set of skills. Few people can say that their training, used correctly, can fundamentally better the human condition. Young scientists not only have the privilege of being in this position, but also the freedom to choose our path forward. But how does one conceive truly innovative ideas, those upon which to build your life’s work, in a relative vacuum? This depends on how we approach and classify scientific research.

Since the creation of the U.S. National Science Foundation on the recommendation and philosophy of Dr Vannevar Bush, most of the developed world has classified scientific inquiry as either ‘basic’ research, purely curiosity-driven work meant to develop general knowledge, or ‘applied’ research, performed in the service of some immediate goal. This model, which permeates how funding agencies allocate money and how popular culture perceives science, presumes the creativity of basic science will be lost if constrained by premature thoughts of practicality. Personally, this one-way street — with basic science and its eventual application at two ends of a linear spectrum ¬— feels limiting.

Donald Stokes agrees. In his book Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation, he advocates that understanding and use are better considered in two-dimensions, with the vertical axis representing the quest for fundamental understanding and the horizontal axis referring to the consideration for use. By separating this plot into four quadrants, Stokes asserts that the top left quadrant represents the classic notion of basic research and the bottom right quadrant refers to purely applied research. Stokes gives the examples of Niels Bohr and Thomas Edison as scientists whom occupy these two quadrants, respectively.

quadrantThe true innovation in Stokes’s classification is the top right quadrant, which he refers to as Louis Pasteur’s quadrant. Pasteur, as Stokes notes, never undertook a study that was not applied; his fundamental contributions to science, however, spawned the entire field of microbiology and forever changed the way we view the cause and prevention of disease. Pasteur’s quadrant illuminates a path where applied goals are not inherently opposed with scientific creativity and rigour. Understanding and being open to this use-inspired basic research has been inspiring for me. It has enabled me to move away from the either/or logic of basic-versus-applied research and think ‘big’ by focusing ‘small’. Choosing a fundamentally new and/or novel phenomenon and uncovering the basic science underlying it can set the stage for translating that knowledge into application.

Use-inspired basic research is also a powerful approach in policy considerations. As austerity becomes the economic policy of choice in countries throughout the world, investments in science are being scrutinized for their ability to maintain a nation’s competitive edge in a global economy (examples here and here). The belief that curiosity-driven inquiry can itself guarantee advancements in technology is sometimes difficult to justify, but mission-oriented research inspired by societal need both protects fundamental science and advances vital economic and social interests.

Like most scientists in my position, I am both excited and uneasy about my impending intellectual freedom. The concept of Pasteur’s quadrant, however, tears down many long-held assumptions about basic and applied research and assures me that I can do both rigorous and relevant science.

Correcting the record

Nobody likes making mistakes, but we all make them. The important thing is to fix them and here at Nature Chemistry we try to remedy things as swiftly as we can (sometimes it’s easy, sometimes not so). I just want to point out a very recent correction.

Last Thursday @V_Saggiomo sent us this tweet:

about a paper from Jack Szostak that we published on May 19th.

There was indeed a problem and we contacted the author to double check and he clarified for us what the mistake was — all that was needed was a change to the figure legend in question. The correction went live yesterday.

This is not the first time an error has been pointed out to us on Twitter, I’m pretty sure that this correction was triggered by @Marcel_Swart (either by tweet or direct message). I’m sure he’ll correct me if I am wrong!

If you do spot an error in a Nature Chemistry paper that you think needs a correction, let us know and we’ll investigate. If it’s just a minor spelling mistake or similar error then we generally live with those, but if it is something that would affect a reader’s understanding of the work, then a correction would be made.