The Sceptical Chymist - Blog Posts with Comments

Your language help required

nwithers — 2009-11-24T06:23:02-05:00

Do any of our readers speak Korean?? If so, we'd love some help.

Some background...being utterly self-obsessed, we've set up Google News alerts that let us know whenever a news website (or blog) publishes a story that mentions 'Nature Chemistry'. It's nice to see when our articles get picked up elsewhere, and very useful to get feedback of any kind - it's less interesting seeing how many cosmetic products are marketed using the awful phrase "nature's chemistry"! [at least 2 or 3 a week, since you asked]

Anyway, this week we've found 3 or 4 webpages, in Korean, that mention Nature Chemistry. One mentions JACS as well.

So what? Well, the unusual thing is that the articles really don't look like normal science news articles at all! They look a lot more like a celebrity news story, complete with a professional photo of a young chap posing with/without guitar case - check 'em out.

Google Translate doesn't help - apart from providing a kind of Lear-esque nonsense poetry all of its own - but maybe you can! Is one of our - or JACS' - authors famous in Korea? Am I missing the point entirely?

Neil

Neil Withers (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Comment 1 (Your language help required)

Daniel Mietchen — 2009-11-24T07:54:22-05:00

I just clicked on your link 4 which states that a singer known (not to me, though) as 루시드폴 (Lucid Fall) has just published the article in question (under his real name 조윤석 - Yun Suk Jo). So he is the first author.

Comment 2 (Your language help required)

Neil — 2009-11-24T08:11:31-05:00

Aha! And we then covered that JACS paper in a Research Highlight. A quick Google reveals the following page from the Korean Times (in English) that explains a little bit more.

Mystery solved - many thanks Daniel!

I wonder how many other pop stars out there are secretly doing PhDs...

Comment 3 (Your language help required)

Daniel Mietchen — 2009-11-24T08:34:22-05:00

I know several who do and think it wouldn't be difficult to find more if you are interested.

Volume 1 - done!

scantrill — 2009-11-23T07:51:30-05:00

Today the December issue of Nature Chemistry went live (yes, I know it's still November and Thanksgiving has not yet arrived for our American cousins, but hey, all the Christmas stuff is already in the shops...!).

Anyway, this represents a fairly significant milestone because it closes out Volume 1 of the journal. Nine issues, lots of pretty covers and some great science to boot! (I guess I'm biased, but you'll just have to live with that). For those who are fans of metrics, it is these nine issues that will contribute to our first immediacy index (due out in the summer of 2010) and our first impact factor - due one year after that.

But we're not resting on our laurels, not al all! So begins Volume 2, and the January 2010 issue is not too far from being put to bed as well (short deadlines because of the festive season...). Indeed, two papers from this issue have already been published online in advance of print - with two more following next Sunday.

We will endeavour to continue bringing you the best chemistry from labs around the world in 2010 and hope you enjoy what we have to offer. But now that we can draw a line under Volume 1, for those of you brave enough to leave comments on this post, we'd be keen to hear what you think we've got right, what we've got wrong - and what your favourite bits were...

Let us know - we're always looking to improve.

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Chief Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Comment 1 (Volume 1 - done!)

mitch — 2009-11-24T02:06:24-05:00

Awesome, I just noticed you put images in the RSS feed. I don't remember this always being the case, is this new?

Mitch

Comment 2 (Volume 1 - done!)

Neil — 2009-11-24T06:22:29-05:00

I think that the Research Highlight feed doesn't have/never had images, but the real research articles in the whole table of contents feed always has. They can take a second or two to load, however, so you might have missed them if you're a quick browser!

Images in our RSS feed was pretty high on our "web toys" wishlist - from our experience of scouring journal feeds for Research Highlights etc, we know what a difference it can make.

Reactions - Maitland Jones

nwithers — 2009-11-20T06:47:10-05:00

Maitland Jones, Jr, teaches in the Department of Chemistry at New York University.

1. What made you want to be a chemist?

When I was 12 or 13, I met William Doering. I had asked/demanded (remember I was all of 12) of my parents to be allowed to play the 12-year old tennis circuit that summer. My parents properly replied, "Time to get a job, kid." They met Doering at a party and coerced, or bribed, him into giving their kid what would today be called an internship at Hickrill, a privately funded basic research lab that happened to be near where we lived. There I not only met Doering, for whom I would work for the next ten years or so, but several other wonderful organic chemists, including Larry Knox, for whom I directly worked at Hickrill, washing dishes and being a general gopher. I knew nothing, of course, but the atmosphere was electric, the work intense, and the passion palpable. No one with the slightest interest in science could emerge from that place unchanged.

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

All my life I have loved jazz, and I have spent an enormous number of hours in dingy clubs over the last five or six decades. I know a lot about the music and run a jazz series in Princeton, New Jersey. I probably - certainly - could not be a musician, but I could run a club, or maybe be a critic. I still might do that.

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

Well, I closed the research lab when I moved from Princeton to NYU, so I can only answer that in retrospect. My group worked on the chemistry of reactive intermediates, carbenes, benzynes, and the like. We also expanded into the chemistry of boron cage compounds, and the interactions of reactive intermediates with those three-dimensionally aromatic compounds. We hoped only that it would lead to a better understanding of how molecules react - and of how "electrons talk to each other."

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

Thelonious Monk. I saw and heard Monk when I was a kid. Indeed, I was at the Five Spot for a few of the times Monk played with John Coltrane. I didn't have a good enough understanding of the music then, and I'd like to talk to Monk about his music, or, better, to see him play again, nowI have a deeper appreciation of it.

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

A long long ago, probably in the 1970's - or even 1960's. Peter Gaspar was visiting Princeton for a semester, and we happened on a result of Bill (Florida) Jones's that had, we thought, important implications for the chemistry of phenylcarbenes. So I ran the experiments, evaporating p-tolyl diazomethane through a hot pyrolysis tube and collecting the products, styrene and benzocyclobutene, as Peter and I expected/hoped. Write it out - it is a remarkable transformation. Then work out a mechanism. It's wonderful chemistry. It turns out that a student of Harold Shechter's had run similar experiment but for some reason Harold never published them at the time and they languished in Dissertation Abstracts.

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

It has to be a book I've read because one can't take chances on a desert island, so I might pick Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow, for sheer flat-out virtuosity. Even if one doesn't get all the references - or even if one doesn't get the point at all - one can read it page by page, sentence by sentence, just for the brilliancy of the writing. And it's long. If I am allowed another, I'd take David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest - for much the same reasons. Or maybe Vikram Seth's A Suitable Boy. Or....

Music is easy: Charlie Parker, the Collected Dials and Savoys.

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

There are only a small number of the great physical organic chemists left - Doering and Roberts, I guess. Few know them now, I'm afraid, as the discipline has fallen so far out of favor. It would be nice to let them have a chance to make the case again.

Tateshina 2009: Behind closed doors

apichon — 2009-11-20T03:20:50-05:00

I spent last week-end at the 9th Tateshina Conference on Organic Chemistry in Nagano, a couple of hours east of Tokyo on the train (from which I enjoyed a superb view of Mt Fuji on the way back).

This meeting is the Asian sister of the EUCHEM Conference on Stereochemistry, better known as the ‘Bürgenstock Conference’. At a time when there are many – and varied – conferences, these two adopt a very particular format (you can read our editorial on ‘meeting matters’ here, no subscription is required but you need a nature.com account).

Limited to around 60-70 invited participants, mostly from Japan, China, Singapore and Korea, the Tateshina Conference is designed to favour communication. Delegates gather in a secluded location (rendered particularly beautiful by the autumn leaves) for 48 hours, with about half a day left free so that they can engage in scientific chats, or make the most of the venue, or combine both. A large chunk of time is devoted to dialogue: a 25 minute presentation is followed by at least 15 minutes of discussion – rather than the mere 5 minutes allocated in most meetings – leading to some lively exchanges. And, this isn’t chemistry-related but I cannot not mention that we were treated to a fantastic clavichord recital, including a guest appearance from our chairman, Eiichi Nakamura, for a clavichord-flute ensemble.

This all contributed to a unique atmosphere — but I won’t tell you about the science because in order to encourage open and stimulating communication, it is agreed that any information presented isn’t for public use. Judging from the wide range of topics discussed I can reveal, however, that many areas of chemistry come under the umbrella of organic chemistry.

Anne

Anne Pichon (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

The role of referees

scantrill — 2009-11-19T04:59:37-05:00

One of the most fundamental aspects of our job here at the Nature research journals is overseeing the peer-review process. In making our decisions on whether to accept a manuscript for publication, the advice given to us by experts on the topic in question is absolutely crucial. And we get a wide range of responses from referees - sometimes we get very lengthy and detailed reports (some of which even rival the word count of the original manuscript being evaluated - yes, really), and sometimes we get very short reports of just a sentence or two.

What do we want? Well, Nature Physics have written a wonderfully lucid editorial explaining just that. If you referee for any journal, but especially those in the Nature stable, this is required reading. You can find the editorial here - it is freely available, but you do need to have a nature.com account.

I'll leave you with one of the most important sentences from the editorial to whet your appetite and encourage you to go and read it - Whatever you think about a paper, it is vital to explain to us exactly why you think it.

Stuart

Stuart Cantrill (Chief Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Reactions - David Andrews

nwithers — 2009-10-30T06:16:41-05:00

David Andrews is in the Department of Chemistry at The University of East Anglia, and works on the quantum theory of light-matter interactions.

1. What made you want to be a chemist?

I had a keen interest in science from early childhood, fired up by a memorable first visit to London’s Science Museum. Like many young lads I had a chemistry set, and I remember my Dad taking me to a supplier to supplement my basic stock of chemicals with more exotic compounds and reagents. In the sixth-form at school we were taught by a wild-haired Welshman with cracked spectacles, whose enthusiasm for chemistry was hugely infectious. I know at least three of our fifteen-strong class went on to do first and then higher degrees in chemistry; our schoolteacher was truly inspirational.

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

I would gladly go into graphic design. It is a subject that fascinates me; I can spend hours playing with the fantastic software now available. Decent graphics can play a very important role in scientific publishing; good artwork should be visually pleasing and informative. Inspired by the concept of dendrimer symmetry, my daughter recently produced a tailor-made cover image for one of my books, and I have contributed to the choice and production of several others.

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

Most of my research group’s efforts at present concern what has been termed ‘optical binding’ – the astonishing discovery that light itself can produce and modify intermolecular and inter-particle forces. In a nutshell, this means that it is now possible to manipulate micro- and nano-particles into stable, non-contact assemblies, held together by light – rather like a scaled-up version of the atomic bonding in molecules. If it lives up to its current promise, this could progress into major advances in the field of nanofabrication.

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

What a question! One of many in my A-list would be Michael Faraday who, despite significantly disadvantaged origins, rose to become world-renowned for his pioneering experiments and penetrating insights into chemistry, optics and electromagnetism. Lacking the pomposity that too often comes with fame, he would be fascinating and congenial company, I think.

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

Last year I visited St Andrews University with a colleague, and we were allowed hands-on experience of some highly sophisticated optical micromanipulation kit. That is the closest I have come to doing an experiment since undergraduate days. As a student I got on well in the labs, but although I enjoyed the physical chemistry, the organic experiments in particular I found quite scary. After electing for a third-year project in theory, there was no more practical to do. Letting me into a lab these days is probably quite risky.

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

For the book, almost anything by Thomas Hardy – but for choice, A Pair of Blue Eyes – and for the music album, the exquisite The Mask and the Mirror by Loreena McKennitt. She has the voice of an angel, and her songs are heartachingly beautiful.

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

I will choose Greg Scholes at Toronto; he is someone whose science I have the very highest regard for – and who is a very unassuming, modest individual. His views should be well worth hearing.

How many elements have you used?

nwithers — 2009-10-27T06:11:00-05:00

Thanks to Derek Lowe's recent post 'Elements I Have Yet to Use', we've all spent some time this morning looking at the periodic table, casting our minds back to our days in the lab and counting up the elements we HAVE used.

Laura's in the lead with 31, and Stu is undecided "between 25 and 30" (bless his aged memory...), and I'm down around 20. Gav, as a physical chemist, is at the back of the queue with "between 5 and 10 — including the silicon in the computer!"

I decided to change the rules a little (in my favour, of course!), and asked "but how many elements featured in compounds you actually made?" (in other words, not just as reagents etc). As I hoped, that puts me in the lead thanks to solid-state syntheses rarely involving anything that doesn't end up in the product! My count for this is about 18, Stu around 12 and Laura 16. Gav says he's no longer playing the game...!

Between us we've used almost every group in the periodic table, apart from the noble gases and possibly group 5 (V, Nb, Ta) — although I did use vanadium cans in some neutron experiments, but apparently that doesn't count! Lanthanides crop up more than you might expect (La, Ce, Eu, Sm, Gd, poss Yb).

We're all behind Derek who has used 45 so far — as ever, we bow before his superior awesomeness.

Neil

Neil Withers (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Comment 1 (How many elements have you used?)

Will — 2009-10-27T09:34:44-05:00

I counted 22, using your revised rules. Making series of lanthanide compounds really boosts that number.

Comment 2 (How many elements have you used?)

Neil — 2009-10-28T06:35:06-05:00

Lanthanides are definitely good for that - such a lot of them and with such similar sizes and 3+-ness.

Stuart has now suggested that we look for the commercially available compound that features the most elements. Anyone willing to take up the challenge??

Comment 3 (How many elements have you used?)

Katherine Haxton — 2009-10-28T10:26:40-05:00

Well, wouldn't doing a reaction under Argon count as using a noble gas? And perhaps running an NMR could count for using helium. We could go further with mercury in thermometers, nickel cadmium batteries etc etc! How many different elements do we encounter in 'every day normal' life? Probably many many more than we've actually done experiments with.

Without Ar and He and the others above, I count 26 elements that I've used legitimately in the process of chemistry which is quite good going for a polymer chemist with inorganic leanings. The most varied compound I've made has 7 different elements in it, but I'm sure that will be an easy record for someone to beat!

Comment 4 (How many elements have you used?)

Derek Lowe — 2009-10-28T21:41:10-05:00

I counted argon in just the way mentioned above, and helium for both the NMR and (a bit more directly) as a GC carrier gas. Now, if I count the elements only in compounds that I've made, well. . .that'll knock the list down to about 28. Some of those were pretty transient, though, so if we're talking things that were stored in a flask or bottle, I'd say that puts me down about 20.

Now as for my superior awesomeness, that's another matter. My wife says that she agrees with you, most of the time. . .

Derek

Latest ChemPod online

nwithers — 2009-10-26T10:16:15-05:00

It's that time again - time that you can listen to the chemistry@nature podcast: The ChemPod. You can download it from that link, or from iTunes.

As you might expect, we've got interviews with newly minted Nobel Laureates Ada Yonath and Venkatraman Ramakrishnan. They wax lyrical about their work teasing out the structure of the ribosome and how they're being reprogrammed to use artificial amino acids.

There are also interviews with Guillermo Bazan and Ting Xu, whose latest papers have just been published in Nature Chemistry and Nature Materials respectively. Bazan discusses his success using microwaves to make polymers for solar cells, and Xu about stimuli-responsive nanocomposites.

And the Sceptical Chymist's very own Andy Mitchinson chats to host Mark Peplow about the latest chemistry papers in Nature.

Neil

Neil Withers (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Nobel Laureate - Venki Ramakrishnan

scantrill — 2009-10-13T11:22:10-05:00

***This is cross-posted from The Great Beyond***

After Venkatraman Ramakrishnan learnt he'd shared the 2009 Nobel Prize in Chemistry (with Ada Yonath and Thomas Steitz), NatureNews went to meet him at the UK Medical Research Council's Laboratory of Molecular Biology, in Cambridge. Here he is, describing the thrill of seeing atomic-resolution structures of the ribosome - and his surprise at sharing the chemistry Nobel: a subject in which, he admits, he'd flunk an undergraduate degree.

Materials Girl: Buried under a mountain of digital paperwork

nwithers — 2009-10-13T08:22:26-05:00

Posted on behalf of Materials Girl

I have been in grad school for two weeks. Already, my original plans to jump into research – and sleep 9 hours a day – are currently thwarted by a flurry of newly discovered fellowship applications. Also, my nemesis has returned: physics class! I now have the pleasure of competing against graduate students who majored in applied physics, instead of the previous motley crew of undergraduate science and engineering majors. Serves me right for going into matsci instead of inorganic chemistry. This sounds like grounds for a discussion on the merits of GPAs in graduate school…

Application writing is tedious. I don’t know a soul who actually enjoys composing personal statements, previous research reports, or proposals. I have also spent many hours typing personal information into online forms via the cantankerous internet connection in my office (at least it saves paper). Personally, my problem is not so much the time it takes to type up everything. The issue is in composing something scientifically meaningful, which communicates my ideas in a clear, clever fashion that does not put people to sleep. (Being a slow writer also causes troubles. Or maybe it's just my brain that might be slowing; my mother recently commented on yet another lapse in my short-term memory, stating that age 21 is a bit early for Alzheimer’s to be setting in. I’d like to think that we all have these sorts of problems, though.)

In terms of producing worthwhile content, I specifically have the personal statement in mind. It’s like a repetition of college applications, where all of my accomplishments, background, and any aspect that I write about has inevitably been done, experienced, and described by myriads of other applicants. How does one presume to be unique, and then convey it in one thousand words? To what extent can a short essay convey the subtleties of a personality and the drive to excel, avoiding horrid clichés and hackneyed concepts? For those who wade through the sea of incoming material: how do you distinguish between creativity and reiteration? The same can be said about research proposals, too. They need to know that I know what I’m talking about. But how?

All I can do is my best, and hope it is sufficient to propel my application into the “accept” list. Good luck to everyone else in the process of begging for funding. Unless you are one of my competitors. (Just kidding! Or am I…?)

Reactions - Jonathan Sweedler

nwithers — 2009-10-09T06:30:54-05:00

Jonathan Sweedler is the James R. Eiszner Family Chair in Chemistry and has appointments in Physiology and Neuroscience at the University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign; his research area involves analytical neurochemistry and he studies novel neurochemistry related to learning, behaviour and neuronal network formation.

1. What made you want to be a chemist?

I have always loved science and knew I wanted a career in science research. My original exposure to chemistry was home chemistry sets and learning how to make reactions that go boom – while perhaps not too acceptable in our society today, this was more accepted in the 1970s. Given this interest, I guess it is not too surprising that my first vhemistry-related job was working at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for three summers while I was an undergraduate student.

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

Since receiving my PhD in chemistry, I have moved my research toward my other science fascination — neuroscience and understanding the functioning of the brain. About one third of my group now includes students from the physiology and neuroscience departments and the rest are from the chemistry department. If I wasn’t a chemist, I would still be at a university but likely housed in a neuroscience department. I enjoy university research too much to do anything else!

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

My group has two major interests — one is creating new analytical tools to probe nanoliter and smaller samples for their chemical constituents (sometimes such measurements are called metabolomics and proteomics), and the other applies these techniques to well defined neuronal networks to understand cell to cell signalling in the brain. We characterize novel neurochemical pathways related to neuropeptides, serotonin, chiral amino acids and nitric oxide, as well as try to determine the physiological function of the new compounds we uncover.

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

What a question. Perhaps Antony van Leeuwenhoek; he created some of the first effective microscopes and made some of the most important discoveries in biology, such as discovering bacteria, microscopic protists, sperm cells, blood cells, and rotifers. Of course, he only spoke Dutch and I do not, and so perhaps this would not be the best dinner conversation.

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

I still go to marine stations to collect selected marine invertebrates as they make wonderful models to study learning and memory in a well defined neuronal network. I can collect animals, study their brains and probe their unique neurochemistry. Yes, spending time (and diving for animals) in the Caribbean or the Pacific Northwest really is part of my “job.”

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

So I am allowed a CD player and power with only one CD, but not my i-pod full of all my favourite music, games, and texts? How about if I use the power supply for the CD to power a nice two-way radio? OK, as far as the book, either the complete works of William Shakespeare (I have not read many of his plays), or one of the “How to Survive on a Desert Island” survival guides I see listed on Google.

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

Richard Zare at Stanford University: He is a very creative person; I am sure his answers would be more interesting than mine.

And the winner is...

nwithers — 2009-10-07T10:47:00-05:00

...biology?

This year's Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Thomas Steitz and Ada Yonath for studies of the structure and function of the ribosome. The reaction of an inorganic chemist (me), a physical chemist (Gavin), an organic chemist (Laura) and a supramolecular chemist (Stuart) was along the lines of 'biology again'. The Twitter-sphere seems to agree:

@sciencebase: Couldn't they create a separate #biology Prize? So disappointing when real chemists miss out. #nobel09 #chemistry

@LeighJKBoerner Sigh. Another yr, another chem Nobel awarded for biology. In last 10 yrs, only 1/2 of the prizes have gone to chemistry.#nobel09 #chemistry

@LeighJKBoerner I'm not saying that the ribosome discoveries weren't worthy of a Nobel. I just wish there were a biology category. #nobel09 #chemistry

@simon_frantz For anyone debating whether today's Prize is biol. or chem., see Roger Kornberg's answer in 2006 (~50 sec in) http://bit.ly/26vVbn #nobel09

@simon_frantz Another Chemistry Prize fact as told to me an hour or so ago. Ada Yonath is the first female Chemistry Laureate for 45 years #nobel09

@michaelgrr ribosome can assemble itself and do its job all in a test tube, no cell required. thus it is definitely #chemistry .#nobel09

@xiquitabacana biology at the moment is the most exciting science? #nobel09 #biology

@Hugenay23 Is biology science? };-> RT @xiquitabacana: biology at the moment is the most exciting science? #nobel09 #biology

@mgberlin Nobel prize in chemistry goes to biology. Not very encouraging to an aspiring inorganic chemist. #nobel09 #chemistry

@rpg7twit Chemistry don't mean a thing if it ain't got that zing! #nobel09

This isn't to suggest that the discovery wasn't prize-worthy (far from it - having done a bit of powder diffraction I can just about begin to imagine exactly how hard protein crystallography is). I guess we'd just like to see it go to some of the areas of chemistry that we know and love. Maybe even to people who, if affiliated to a university, would be in the chemistry department...

On the positive side, it goes to show just how broad - and impressive - chemistry can be. Read Stu's take on it in our research highlight.

Neil

Neil Withers (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Comment 1 (And the winner is...)

Bryan H — 2009-10-07T12:39:51-05:00

The fact that Ramakrishnan, Steitz and Yonath study a biological system does not preclude their work from begin classified as chemistry. In fact, I would argue that this year's Nobel, as well as Kornberg's, are closer to chemistry than last year's Nobel prize for the discovery of GFP. Discovering GFP is purely a pursuit of molecular biology: identifying the genes, proteins and other molecules that are responsible for biological phenomena. The only chemistry really came from Tsien whose work elucidated how GFP fluoresces and applied that knowledge to develop new fluorescent proteins. This year's chemistry laureates, however, have been focusing on elucidating the molecular mechanisms of peptide synthesis by a catalyst that is a very complicated supramolecular assembly.

To me, chemistry is the study of atomic and molecular structure and understanding how these structures affect the properties of molecules and molecular assemblies. In this respect, the work of Ramakrishnan, Steitz and Yonath falls right into the heart of what chemists do.

(disclaimer: I used to do structural biology, so I am biased in this regard)

Comment 2 (And the winner is...)

Valentin Ananikov — 2009-10-10T03:48:40-05:00

Two plausible reasons to give chemistry prizes to biology:

1) research in chemistry does not lead to great discoveries of fundamental importance and practical value as compared to research in biology (the era of chemistry is over);

2) current members of the nobel committee in chemistry better understand biology and the prize reflects their preferences. Four out of six current members have an expertise as bio-.
http://nobelprize.org/prize_awarders/chemistry/committee.html

I am curious which one of the above has more influence.

Comment 3 (And the winner is...)

Sean — 2009-10-15T16:12:11-05:00

Good points Bryan in bringing up the GFP situation although two wrongs don't make a right :) Overall, I agree that this search is well within the realm of chemistry.

Reactions - Jason Chin

nwithers — 2009-10-02T06:19:06-05:00

Jason Chin is in the Division of Protein and Nucleic Acid Chemistry of the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, and works on engineering the chemistry and biology of life

1. What made you want to be a chemist?

Curiosity about the mechanisms by which invisible rules control change in the visible world made me want to be a scientist.

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

A writer. I read continuously, often several books at once. Most recently I read Olive Kitteridge, A Fraction of the Whole, Sea of Poppies and Netherland. Writing is just so versatile.

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

Reprogramming the genetic code. We hope to accelerate our mechanistic understanding of post-translational modifications by genetically encoding the modifications and looking at their effects. We also hope to turn the cell into a general polymer synthesis device.

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

T. E. Lawrence. I imagine he could tell an interesting story or two.

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

A year or so ago. I helped with a method to measure the fidelity of a ribosome a student had evolved, by looking at 35S cysteine mis incorporation into a gene with no cysteine codons.

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

I would need a subscription to The New Yorker. In general it is beautifully written and brings together lots of interesting articles and fiction. I read The New Yorker in Cambridge, so I know how it feels to read it far from the source already

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

John Sutherland at Manchester University, UK. Because he is using chemistry to ask the right questions about the origins of biology and provide elegant and important pre-biotic syntheses - arguably the most important syntheses.

The shameless annual Nobel Prize speculation post

nwithers — 2009-09-30T10:18:36-05:00

At about this time next week, one member of the Nature Chemistry team will be breathing a sigh of relief, having just dashed off a few hundred words on the 2009 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. But which of us will be doing the writing? That all depends on who wins, which is probably the question most of you are more bothered about than our writing rota...

So who WILL win?? I'm happy to admit that I have absolutely no idea whatsoever. Even the guys at ISI Thomson Reuters get it wrong - or cover themselves by predicting about 15 winners. Last year, I suggested John Goodenough and, as he hasn't won, I suppose I really should stick with him - which I'm happy to.

I thought one way of getting an overview of the blogospheres' collective opinion was to tag cloud the text from three recent blog posts. OK, it's not very scientific, but then who said awarding a stack of cash and a gold medal to a few people a year was?!

Hopefully the image will appear below:

created at TagCrowd.com

The tag cloud seems to reveal List, Gray and Zare with the largest names, with Gratzel hot on their heels - is this a sign? In the second sizing tier comes Whitesides, Moerner, Hartl and Horwich. It might be worth noting that 'organic' and 'biology' are both much larger than 'palladium'. But then it might not. I tried to generate a cloud from the comments on the post, but they didn't generate anything useful — no comment!

While I'm on the subject, our October editorial is all about the Nobel Prize, and it's available here for free to all registered nature.com users. Here's the intro: "The 2009 Nobel Prize in Chemistry will soon be awarded amid the usual speculation [that's us, NW], angst, disagreement and elation — but is it really worth all the fuss?" Read the editorial, make your own minds up and let us know what you think.

Neil

Neil Withers (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

Materials Girl: Upwards and onwards

nwithers — 2009-09-29T06:53:26-05:00

Posted on behalf of Materials Girl

The day has arrived: fall quarter has begun and I am officially a grad student! I have long since left the comfort of teeming undergraduate dormitories and dining halls, in lieu of bare graduate apartments and my own kitchen. (Next step: avoiding frozen food and making time to cook up edible chemistry.) In the shiny new engineering building, there is a desk waiting for me alongside the other first years. Soon I shall take my research from the realm of theories & literature into that of wet-synthesis & laboratories! With my departmental transition from chemistry to Materials Science and Engineering (MSE), I am more of a “materials girl” than before.

My academic world will primarily consist of three categories: (1) graduate courses, (2) undergrad classes to TA, and — of course — (3) the everpresent job of scientific research.

1. My financial aid contract requires a full-time classload per 10-week quarter. So, I am enrolled in the obligatory [difficult] introductory MSE course, another on proposal writing, and slew of seminars. Nothing particularly new and exciting just yet.

2. To some, lecturing, presentations, grading, and all the works of teaching are trivial. To me, they are all important. With the undergraduate viewpoint still fresh (in which graduate students are expected to know everything and be available 24/7 to answer questions), I aspire to be one of those wonderfully enlightening, inspiring Teaching Assistants. Past experiences with terrible TAs make me wonder…

Deep down, there exists a nagging phobia that my chemistry-tuned background will be insufficient to support the inquiries of engineering students. The MSE class I will teach this term is a one of many core engineering requirements; statistics — and personal confessions — say that most of my students will be more concerned with lesser branches in the school of engineering. (Civil engineering? Who needs that?) How do quiet, calm, low-key individuals convey a passion for chemistry and materials science to students who don’t want to be there? (And contrary to what online ramblings may imply, in person I am quite verbally reserved.)

Any doubts aside, I am excited to wield power over undergrad— I mean, to teach. With my limited teaching/tutoring experience as aid, I can help cultivate minds and fend off requests for deadline extensions. We are the future!

3. Let’s just cross our fingers and hope for miracles. Or at least a stack of papers for Nature to publish. ;)

On a side note, it cannot be avoided that being a minority ensures that I stand out — even literally, as the department seems largely populated by short Asian males*. It’s not a bad thing, but I do wonder what judgments, expectations, and presuppositions await those with double X chromosomes.

*Let the record show that I am 1.68 m [= 5 ft 6 inches for those who like Imperial units and dislike mental arithmetic. NW], Vietnamese, and find it entirely appropriate to point out the common lack of great stature among my fellow Asians.

A flood of questions is before me: “what happened?”, “what now?”, “what am I doing?!”, “what if…”. Hopefully the journey will be more enjoyable than tedious (it’s already established that the road will be painful). For now, however, I must return to begging for fund— I mean, writing scholarship essays and proposals.

TBC

P.S.: My summer was spent doing little chemistry and a lot of art: throwing in a ceramics studio 8 hours a day, using an entire wall to paint a mural in my bedroom, and visiting museums. Should I feel guilty?

Comment 1 (Materials Girl: Upwards and onwards)

psi*psi — 2009-09-29T19:00:03-05:00

I'll trade your undergrads & class for mine (~50 freshmen, over half of them biology premajors)! I haven't seen anything from gen chem for 6-8 years (6 for the lab, 8 for the class). (And while we're trading things, you could also add five or six inches to my height...)