Blogroll: Life in the lab

Editor’s note: As we continue to invite bloggers out there in the wild to compose our monthly Blogroll column, Matthew Hartings penned the September 2014 column.

———-

Mourning a loss and celebrating the everyday.

The public hearing over the laboratory accident that claimed the life of Sheharbano (Sheri) Sangji concluded on 20 June 2014. Jyllian Kemsley and Michael Torrice broke the story for Chemical and Engineering News on Twitter. Writing at The Safety Zone blog, Kemsley aggregated chemists’ responses and wrote a myth-busting post detailing and correcting misconceptions that some chemists had about the events that led to Sangji’s death. The chemistry community owes a debt of gratitude to Kemsley and Torrice for their outstanding coverage of this tragedy.

Elsewhere in the blogosphere, Paul Bracher and Chemjobber initiated lively discussions about the outcomes of the legal proceedings. A major thought running through these conversations was that university-employed chemical researchers are not protected from workplace hazards in the same manner as industrial chemists. This raises the question of what protection graduate students and postdocs are entitled to, if they are not considered employees of a university? While these issues remain for us to sort out, my thoughts turn to Sheri’s family and friends who will always live with her loss.

During this time of introspection, chemists also came together to celebrate the small victories, the setbacks, and the spinning wheels that constitute life in the lab. Doctor Galactic hosted #realtimechemweek in which chemists shared their ‘everyday’ on Twitter. The highlight of this celebration was the post announcing ‘Tweets of the Week’. While we normally celebrate publications and grants, it is good for us to celebrate the mundane and acknowledge the risks that accompany being a chemist.

Written by Matthew Hartings, who blogs at https://sciencegeist.net/.

———-

[As mentioned in this post, we’re posting the monthly blogroll column here on the Sceptical Chymist. This is the September 2014 article]

Jaws up close

Posted on behalf of Leonie Mueck, Associate Editor, Nature.

———————–

In Jaws up close, I highlighted an article from a group of researchers led by Zhongchang Wang at Tohoku University on a new electron microscopy technique that achieved atomic resolution of the fluoroapatite structure in shark teeth without damaging the sample. A technical comment has now been published, which refutes the proposed bonding situation in fluoroapatite. On the basis of density functional theory calculations, Wang et al. had claimed that the Ca-F bond in fluoroapatite is covalent, which could be crucial in understanding why shark teeth are so healthy.

Based on further calculations and bonding analysis, Antti Karttunen from Aalto University, Finland, and Florian Kraus, from Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany, now show in their comment that this conclusion is unsubstantiated. Rather, the Ca-F bond should be seen as ionic which rules out its strengthening function in shark teeth.

Materials Girl: End of a TA era

[Posted on behalf of Materials Girl]

Teaching has been part of my graduate-student experience since the very beginning. For better or for worse, my department is happy to hire newcomers as teaching assistants (TAs) during their first terms as grad students. After 14 quarters encompassing a wide variety of undergraduate courses, I have now maxed out on the school of engineering’s allowance for TAing. This fall will be the first term where I have absolutely ZERO classes to take or teach. It feels surreal, and a bit sad. (Even sadder if my advisor runs out of funding to pay me, but that’s a whole different set of issues…) Since age 4, I have been ‘in school’ and always had classes of some sort. Twenty-two years later, the change is very noticeable. In particular, I find myself actually having proper time to focus on research, instead of having half my week appropriated to classroom-related work.

Here, TA duties generally consist of teaching a weekly discussion or laboratory session, grading, holding office hours, responding to barrages of emails near due dates, and more grading. The experience has been as rewarding and unique as the variety of students I’ve encountered. Teaching — if it is done properly — forces us to disseminate (and reiterate) information with particular clarity (and patience), while grading hones attention-to-detail and writing skills. I’ve enjoyed not only gaining valuable skills (and regaining forgotten information), but also interacting with students and seeing them flourish.

At the end of each class, students are requested to write anonymous evaluations of their instructors. In addition to a list of questions, the final section is left open to all comments. Although these ‘evals’ are meant to help us improve the course and our teaching, mine have largely consisted of jumbled and amusing comments such as: ‘Fair grading is the best! Give me a good grade please. Just kidding, but seriously can you read this?’ Some of my friends have received more technical or extensive reviews, particularly those in the chemistry department — perhaps engineering undergrads are just less wordy.

Originally I considered sharing my funniest evaluations, but they all take a backseat to this one: ‘Dis gurl da baws. It don’t take no TEM to see you fine gurl.’ (from a student in a class on nanoscience and nanotechnology which, among other things, covered characterization). Most of the reviews are humbling and positive. Additionally there’s the occasional amusing student who gripes about ‘harsh grading’ or finds my serious-TA mode ‘scary’ (I’ve since eased up on being extra serious while in front of a class). Instead of rambling further on the joys and pains of the experience, though, I shall simply summarize by quoting another evaluation:

‘Here’s a smiley face. :)’