Some minor notes.

The reason they're making your son take chemistry?  Because they're mean.  Or perhaps because they hold to some archaic notion that education is about broadening one's horizons and tempering the intellect, not just about preparing one for any particular career path.  I haven't decided. 

Small-molecule synthetic chemistry in the NY Times?   A pleasant surprise to see in the national newspaper of record, at least last I checked. 

Microbial physiology via NMR.  So cool.   Also, kind of jealous.  I really need to get some awesome stuff done sooner rather than later.

I think that will be all for the evening.


Read more!

Prize ponderings

There have been some particularly interesting and worthwhile points made on the blogosphere over the last two days in the wake of the Nobel announcements.

1.) The success of small/investigator-driven/table-top science.  Actually, this applies to more than just the Chemistry Prize - see here for some comments regarding this year's Physics Prize. 

2.) Are we doing ourselves a disservice by discussing and debating the Nobel ad infinitum?  Is trying to find one to three people to recognize for a certain (set of) accomplishments really the best option?  How much of this is a holdover from how science used to be conducted pre-1900?  I happen to especially like Paul's Chemical Hall of Fame idea, and am willing to participate.  (I may want to nominate a physicist or two, though.*)

3.) Chemjobber brings up the interesting point as to whether the "mix" of chemistry that gets highlighted due to the Prize announcements is the one the community wants to present to the public. 

4.) There seems to be a sense that we need to circle the wagons a bit before the central science withers away.  I can't entirely disagree with this one.  I've been told multiple times that some of the questions I've stumbled over while doing biological chemistry regarding underlying questions of (mostly) physical and inorganic chemistry aren't really fundable, at least relative to the biological question with which I'm engaged.  You can only try and spin questions into applications for so long and so far before it gets tedious.


5.) I would read this post over at Everyday Scientist if you haven't already.  I'm in the same sort of boat as a bio/physical chemist.  I look at the Physiology/Medicine Prize and see work like in vitro fertilization and the H. pylori work recognized, and vast amounts of cell biology and systems physiology in their ranks (immunology, olfaction, neurobiology, and so on).  I view biochemistry as something which is securely rooted within the realm of chemistry.  Of course, this makes me wonder - while the issue of communicating chemistry to the public has been a discussion topic in various contexts over the years, maybe we also need to open up the lines of communications between chemists.  I'm not entirely sure how to go about doing this right at the moment, but I am definitely open to ideas.  

Of course, perhaps this is all just colored by my spectroscopic tendencies - if I can fit it into a coil,  cuvette, or beamline, consider my interest piqued.  Biological, chemical, geological, material, or physical. 

As always, the comment section is open. 

*: Erwin Hahn and Albert Overhauser.  Spin echoes and the Overhauser effect.  You know you want to agree with me! Read more!

A perhaps idiosyncratic view.

So, as it turned out, I called this year's Nobel Prize for Chemistry.  While I am now curious if I have any Elven ancestry (Elrond had that gift of foresight, right?), I feel I should note the following for those feeling that biochemistry isn't really chemistry.

I like biological chemistry since, in my view, it allows me to explore so many areas of chemistry.  I've synthesized isotopically enriched small molecules, I've purified proteins, I've been able to work with multiple spectroscopic and physical measurement methods in detail, I've examined paramagnetic inorganic solids with both success and failure, I've spectroscopically dissected multicomponent organic solids, I've had to explore certain types of self-assembling systems, I've cranked through theoretical treatments of metalloenzyme catalysis as well as polymer chemistry to make sense of my data over the years.....it's been a good time.

Extending from that, I like chemistry since it is perfectly situated to go hopping over boundaries.  I don't see why I shouldn't be able to figure out signal transduction pathways just because I'm a chemist.  I don't see why I should humbly hand over fundamental questions about the theoretical basis for spectroscopic methods to the physicists.   

Although right now biochemistry is giving me a headache.  Speaking of which, back to it.....

P.S. - A hearty congratulations to both Serge Haroche & David Wineland as well as, of course, Robert Lefkowitz & Brian Kobilka! Read more!

To The Classroom!

A recent post at Chemiotics sparked some old, dimly remembered memories from my grad school days as a gen. chem. TA leading weekly discussion sections.

Now, general chemistry is, from what I can figure, is a slightly different beast than organic chemistry.  At the universities I attended, the class was also a requirement for physical science and engineering majors, and could make up a substantial fraction of the class given the strength of the engineering programs at my alma maters.  Organic chemistry tended to draw from a smaller student pool - outside of the legion of premeds, it was populated by those with chemistry & biological science majors, as well as the expected chemical/materials engineering students. 

Back to general chemistry - this situation leads to walking an incredibly tricky path so as to keep the material interesting, relevant, and not too off-putting to anyone in the audience.  In short, no one is entirely happy with things, but one might consider that a sign that everyone is getting what they need in the final accounting, although not necessarily what they'd prefer. I'll be a bit obnoxious as usual here and suggest that gen. chem. can be an opportunity to demonstrate chemistry's status as the central science to a diverse audience, if done well. 

Back to the premed issue, though - I think what perturbed many of us is the attitude that arises in a class with a significant premed population.  I won't belabor this point with various horror stories (as we all have them), but, for example, the majority of the "point lawyering" I experienced was from premedical students.  In all of those cases I can still remember/wrote down for the record, none of them involved an actual grade breakpoint (e.g., they were nowhere near the boundary that would have resulted in a different overall final grade).

Of course, perhaps what we need is a different model for medical education.   Or maybe not.  Perhaps what we need is to be reminded of the difference between education and training.  Learning about something that may not be transparently applicable to your post-university career plans is not the end of the world.  A radical idea, I know. 

Obligatory mention - congratulations to the new Nobel laureates! 

P.S. - If anyone wants to share their horror stories teaching undergraduates, please share in the comments.  Read more!

Stuck in the middle with you.....

So, due to recent research efforts, the path to enlightenment - well, at least, reasonable progress on a project - has become clearer.  Of course, it entails going back and preparing otherwise identical samples, albeit with a different labeling scheme.  Naturally, this will require some optimization.

In other news, I've recently been inspired to think about how to characterize extremely nasty and messy mixtures of appallingly complex and egregiously sensitive molecules.  My initial thought was that I should just let other people do this sort of thing.  However, I had a number of uncharitable thoughts about certain areas of the research community and realized that I should think more carefully about this situation.   I then had the notion that I need to do what my blog name suggests and think about things with less than precise site-specific chemical resolution for a bit.  I can layer on some perfectly reasonable physical parameters and other particular measures of interest.   Some people will complain, but then again, there are always those sorts.

Another unrelated topic I've been pondering - just how "open source" is chemistry?  How many of us have data trapped in proprietary formats in backup discs or external hard drives?  How often have you had to grudgingly use readily available software in ways it should never be used since more appropriate software doesn't exist or is egregiously expensive for the extent one needs it? Any information, griping personal anecdotes,  or interesting reads on the topic would be appreciated.

That will be all for tonight, I'd say.

Read more!

Nobel Notes (Pt. II)

Upon request.....

Molecular Dynamics

So if we skip over the entire Monte Carlo simulation work, the first proper MD work was Berni Alder and Tom Wainwright in the late 1950s on hard-sphere systems.  Wainwright, as I noted last year, passed away a few years ago.  George Vineyard (Brookhaven National Lab) used MD to study radiation damage right around 1959/1960, and Aneesur Rahman did the first MD simulations of an actual liquid (for the pedants - yes, I know it was argon) in the mid 1960s.  Unfortunately, neither Vineyard and Rahman are still with us.

Here it gets more complicated, as the move to more "chemical" systems involved a number of people (David Chandler and Bruce Berne among others).  And then there's developments like ab initio MD (Car & Parrinello in the mid-1980s) which have been more on the fundamental side, in terms of bridging MD to DFT in this case, and has found plenty of application (Car & Parrinello were jointly awarded the APS's Rahman Prize for Computational Physics a while back).  


Magnetic Resonance/NMR

So, I really do think solid state NMR has a prize with its name written on it.  It's obviously been a while in the making, but it is finding great use in multiple areas of application (chemistry, structural biology, polymers & materials, and various subfields and intersections branching off from these).  My general feeling is that it would be tricky to award a Nobel for solids NMR without including Alex Pines (Berkeley), as he's had his hand in the development of cross polarization (which basically everyone uses, whether you're doing static solids NMR or magic angle spinning solids NMR), as well as contributing to multiple-quantum NMR spectroscopy, quadrupolar NMR methods, and various other proofs of principle and applications (investigations of the Berry phase by NMR to his more recent efforts in combining optical pumping and hyperpolarization for imaging purposes).  There are other names here, but it gets tricky.  I suppose Pines' former graduate advisor, John Waugh, could be here as well.  And there's always the risk I'm forgetting someone, since I'm sure there's some paper from 1975 that I haven't read (or whenever). 

I think I've brought up Harden McConnell before, not only for his contributions to NMR but also for his work in EPR and its applications to understanding biomembranes, including early work in spin labels.  Of course, I'm sure people will gripe about the fact that his more recent work was biochemistry and immunology-oriented.  Heh.

I wouldn't object to Ad Bax being included, but I can see where it might be hard to convey the Nobel-quality novelty after Wuthrich's prize 10 years ago or so now.   I know he's tremendously well-cited - heck, I've cited him! - and always places very highly on those h-index rankings, but I could see this being an uphill battle to some extent.

So that's that, at least for now, I'd say.




Read more!

Nobel Notes

I am not even going to try and offer up any predictions or suggestions given last year's surprise.  I will, however, make a few comments, some of which I've mentioned in the past.


Molecular Dynamics

Martin Karplus is usually mentioned here.  Chembark has this folded into a more general computational chemistry prize with other scientists who have contributed greatly in other areas of comp. chem., as has the listing over at the Curious Wavefunction.  Not to take anything away from Prof. Karplus and his extraordinary career, but as was brought up last year, this position betrays a lack of appreciation for the development of MD.  I'm not sure how one could reward Karplus without snubbing the early accomplishments under the rug that showed the power of computational methods to ask questions and provide answers to physical problems.  Of course, it's also entirely possible that an MD prize would be one in Physics, which would be entirely acceptable as well.

GPCRs

While some have noted that a Prize for the recent structural accomplishments might seem premature, I can envision a slightly different scenario.  Kobilka's former mentor, Robert Lefkowitz, did receive the National Medal of Science a few years ago for his pioneering work in GPCRs, and has earned various other accolades over the years.  It's possible that there might be some sort of Prize that involves more on the biochemical side of things, but with an eye (and inclusion of) the structural work.

Magnetic Resonance

Not even going to try since I'll just keep babbling on for a while.

The Kavli Question

Will we ever see a dual Nobel/Kavli Prize laureate?  Or is the work that the Kavli Prizes recognize too interdisciplinary to make it through the Nobel process?  (Cue the whining of chemists who want to eliminate biochemistry from eligibility for the Nobel Prize.  Heh.)

P.S. - Really kind of hoping a physician wins the Nobel for chemistry, a chemist wins the Nobel for physics, and a physicist wins the Nobel for physiology/medicine.  It would be a tremendously hilarious week.









Read more!