NY Times "Debate", and my reaction to it. (Part 3)

Continuing coverage from Part 1 [1] of the series of my reactions to the NYT article on the future of STEM education in our country, Christopher Emdin [2] chimes in with a few cents to address his experiences with urban students from New York. His proposal, narrowly stated, wants to marry the pervasiveness of the hip hop culture in his area to the training of new scientific thinkers. In a video produced with NPR [3] he narrates the story of a group of young students writing and performing their own raps in a contest designed to promote multiple lines of thought and build confidence in the youth.

From [4]

"My father told me the program wasn't going to work and it was going to fail like every other program." says Victoria Richardson out of Bronx Compass High School [3]. She performed with two friends of hers on base pairing DNA and despite not winning the contest- they were still proud of what they were able to accomplish. Not only were they able to simply memorize rote base pairing schemes but they understood the material enough to create a work of art and communicate that knowledge enthusiastically.
Dr. Emdin says in the video, "Not every student a part of Science Genius will be a straight A student and go to college...and be the next Einstein. But you know what? We are definitely going to have more scientifically literate young people." [2]
That's a powerful point to note. In his article, he notes that the hip hop culture isn't completely general.
"I argue that the more teachers can consider the unique culture of their students, the more relevant and accessible their education will be." [2]
He basically says here that teachers should feel free to pull from whatever is popular in the kids' lives wherever they teach. Make it accessible and make it fun. Then, maybe a few, will ask those really probing questions that get them started down a really academic path. But no matter what field or endeavor these students choose- we will be all the better for a literate public.

[1] http://jsphmeany.blogspot.com/2013/12/ny-times-debate-and-my-reaction-to-it.html\
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/12/10/math-and-science-for-more-than-just-geeks/in-teaching-stem-use-hip-hop-as-a-bridge
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQrj4NPefd8
[4] http://www.tc.columbia.edu/i/media/9099_SciGenius-161_MarieCurieHighSchool.jpg

NY Times "Debate", and my reaction to it. (Part 2)

The first article in the lineup, as I briefly mentioned in Part 1 is by Miyaim Bilaik, who has her PhD in Neruoscience but is also now an actress most notably playing Amy Ferrah Fowler on the show "The Big Bang Theory ." (BBT)

I liked her thoughts on the matter, noting that "[t]he confines of a classroom, combined with teaching methods that are not engaging or inspiring..." [1] were not effective at getting young minds excited about the world around them but only fearful of what will be on the next exam. She posits the idea of using modern entertainment- television, movies, and games- to help supplement people in new and interesting ways to help people think about and grasp otherwise esoteric information. This is more than just bringing nerd culture into the limelight for shame [2]/ ridicule[3]. The battle over the net effect on "geek culture" by BBT is one that will wage like the battle at Helm's Deep outside of this discussion.

SOME PEOPLE ENJOY BBT DESPITE BOTH CHAMPIONING AND DEMEANING ITS CHARACTERS AND THEIR FLAWS!!!!

Science-literate producers and directors can wield incredible power in telling a story by not only the story elements it weaves, but the concepts it has the opportunity to explain. Think about it. If Glee or High School Musical could make singing in show choir cool again- what could we do with a show about kids making science interesting and approachable? Like Beau Lotto [5] and his "Blackawton Bees" [6] kids show us- ground breaking science can really be done.

I understand there will be limitations. Story will always take precedence. But breadcrumbs of learning are always better foundation than the black pits of despair that could be found on TV today.


Let's be real. Who would you rather your kid be watching?
[0] http://jsphmeany.blogspot.com/2013/12/ny-times-debate-and-my-reaction-to-it.html
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/12/10/math-and-science-for-more-than-just-geeks/use-hollywood-plots-and-characters-to-teach-stem
[2] http://butmyopinionisright.tumblr.com/post/31079561065/the-problem-with-the-big-bang-theory
[3] http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-reasons-2013-officially-marked-death-nerd/
[4] http://static4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130117112538/lotr/images/b/b4/Theoden_leads_the_attack.png
[5] http://www.ted.com/talks/beau_lotto_amy_o_toole_science_is_for_everyone_kids_included.html
[6] http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/7/2/168.abstract

Quotes from Chemistry...part 2!

"Respiration is a combustion, truly very slow but otherwise perfectly similar to that of charcoal; it occurs in the interior of the lungs... and the heat developed in this combustion is communicated to the blood which traverses the lungs and is spread throughout the animal system."
-Lavoisier and Laplace, 1783

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pierre-Simon,_marquis_de_Laplace_(1745-1827)_-_Gu%C3%A9rin.jpg 

Laplace, before his transform. [1]

NY Times "Debate", and my reaction to it. (Part 1)

The other day, the New York Times  [1] ran a series in their opinion page compiling a series of pieces from a rather diverse group of scientists. I was initially confused though, when it was filed under the "Room for Debate" section and the columnists were labeled as "Debaters". I thought, "Oh cool, I'll get to read about some good back-and-forth points on the STEM NGSS." I had attended a (very one-sided) panel on the New Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and some of the problems they currently face when I was at Dragon*CON back in September but I was hoping to at least see what the 'other side' had to say in their own words. Problem is, it wasn't a debate. There weren't two sides tackling the finer points of an issue or group of issues. It was a collection of like minded individuals pointing out the flaws inherent in our system and offering some (admittedly creative!) solutions. I didn't like that it was labelled a debate though. Forum might have been a better label. I'll leave a discussion of the NGSS for a future blog post; that's a topic worth a thousand words itself!

According to the lead post of the thread, this all was spurred on from an editorial article a couple days prior asserting "Who Says Math Has to be Boring?" This title is great. I'm roped in. The second paragraph points to an interesting statistic:
"Nearly 90 percent of high school graduates [3] say they’re not interested in a career or a college major involving science, technology, engineering or math, known collectively as STEM, according to a survey of more than a million students who take the ACT test."
Following through the link, I look at the graph that ACT included on that page. What I found there shocked me. I could not believe my eyes. 41% of ACT tested students interested in studying STEM-related disciplines (the 10%) met the 'ACT College Readiness Benchmark' in the sciences. Those not interested in studying STEM (the 90%) ? A dizzying 21%. This means nearly four out of every five students is underprepared for basic college level science. What this graph also shows is that, oddly enough, the STEM-interested students outperformed their peers across the four broadly-defined subject areas of English, Reading, Mathematics, and Science.
The December 8th article points to several possible overlapping culprits: underprepared teachers, outdated curriculum, lack of cultural influence, and a lack of clear applicability. This point is echoed in each of the ten follow-up opinion articles written on December 10th. All of these pieces echo one major point: We need more people interested in science. We need them for jobs. We need them for sustainability. On the other hand, nobody mentions a solution to the question:

At what level do we need these trained scientists? 

Writers tout that there seem to be this extreme need for technical thinkers, as if there are more jobs than there are qualified people to take them. They way they talk, I'm imagining jobs like so many pieces of trash just littering the streets of life blown asunder in the wind.

Yeah, Kinda like that. Even Billie Jean tells you to think twice.

I get it. Being in science in our current culture isn't glamorous. It's messy, confusing, frustrating, and doesn't always directly "apply to my life". It's not being a sports star, world-class cook, singer or actress. It doesn't promise untold fame, riches, or sex appeal (the assumption is that it leads to the opposite of these things). This is a huge point, actually, that Mayim Bialik [4] makes in her article- make modern science accessible by incorporating it into a story and give context. It's like teaching people real science through shows like CSI...except using real science to do so. [6]
But if there are so many jobs, why is no actual emphasis put on WHERE these jobs are? Who is hiring? I see my friends pulling their hair out trying to get jobs all across the spectrum- chemistry, medicine, engineering. Granted a large number of these are in the graduate level positions. But what about the bachelor's, associates, vocational and High School level? What do these jobs even look like? And if they are scattered around so proliferously, then why are new chemists leaving chemistry behind [7]?

The rest of this series will focus on my reaction to each of the individual articles and pose certain questions that I think we as a society need to find answers to- and fast. It will challenge science communicators to quit repeating the rote sentences we see all over the economic news. Sentences that, frankly, I'm sick of seeing. If I felt that I could confidently walk out of my graduate program today and have a job next week- I wouldn't be so critical. And let's not forget- not all 'jobs' are created equal.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/12/10/math-and-science-for-more-than-just-geeks
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/08/opinion/sunday/who-says-math-has-to-be-boring.html
[3] http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/cccr13/stem.html
[4] http://www.mayimbialik.net/
[5] http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/12/10/math-and-science-for-more-than-just-geeks/use-hollywood-plots-and-characters-to-teach-stem
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect
[7] http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/i4/New-Bachelor-Level-Chemists-Face.html

Quotes from Chemistry...part 1

"...for nothing is created in the operations of either art or of nature, and it can be taken as an axiom that every operation an equal quantity of matter exists both before and after the operation, that the quality and quantity of the principles remain the same and that only changes or modifications occur. The whole art of making experiments in chemistry is founded on this principle: we must always suppose an exact equality or equation between the principles of the body examined and those of the products of it's analysis." -Antoine Lavoisier

(Partington, J.R., A Short History of Chemistry, third edition. 1965)

"My dear, is this entirely necessary right now? I'm trying to make the grocery list for once!"

NASA Trip in all its glory!

I mentioned briefly at the end of my Oct 25 2013 post that I was also getting ready for a big trip....NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) had invited me and a slew of other lucky folk to gather at JPL for a two-day conference called "Year of Earth" [1] which previewed us to the various different missions that NASA JPL has in the works for the coming year [2]. Included in this highly immersive experience was a live public address from the NASA JPL auditorium where the project scientists in charge of these crucial Earth-based missions talked about the data being collected and, more importantly, the effects we hope it will have on current models used in predicting climate change. The video of the public address can be found on YouTube [3] and if you watch far enough into it, you can see my few seconds in the spotlight! (Okay, I was asking a question. But still, it was for science!)

In front of Mission Control!

We had a blast and the whole conference was full of people eager to talk about space, the Earth, and climate. Teachers, students, amateur enthusiasts and professionals all gathered to learn from each other and network all while cheering the banner of our beloved American space program. In fact, one of the "tweeps" (as we were called) has even created an infographic [4] about the online impact each of the participants had while at the event. The hashtags "#NASASocial" and "#EarthNow" even trended on twitter during the conference! Rachel Eddin, a blogger for WIRED wrote a story [5] that beautifully summarizes how incredibly passionate people are about having this mission of publicity succeed. She writes "There's a unity of purpose and generosity of resources...I was immediately inundated by offers for information and links...we were sharing data, educational resources."

Network Centrality Graph by Audun Utengen, from [5]

Many of the attendees had much better equipment (i.e. cameras) to capture the awesome campus that is JPL (like this shot from Rachel Eddin [6]). These people's work deserves to be seen. Veronica McGregor, in fact, helps to streamline this process by creating a powerful Storify feed [7] that highlights many of the stunning images people have uploaded. In the words of the one and only LeVar Burton, "Don't take my word for it!"

In addition to this, bloggers of all different ilk have thrown their hats in the ring to help publicize the exciting work coming out of NASA. This excellent photo-tour [8] of the event by Jennifer Kaplan has a great summary with equally quality photos of the facilities we were able to see. I know that I could have sampled only a small number of the amazing bodies of work that have come out of the two day event, to have tried would mean that this would never get published! It was absolutely unreal. The energy I can only describe as infectious.

None of this would have been possible without the tireless work of three key people spearheading the event planning. Veronica McGregor, Social Media Manager at JPL; Stephanie Smith, Social Media Specialist; and Courtney O'Connor, also Social Media Specialist; deserve a great deal of thanks for their hard work in coordinating the event. Their tireless dedication really showed in how smoothly and efficiently the event moved- and how even now, a week and a half after the event, activity and chatter flows between the attendees spanning continents.

"Goofy shot" of the tweeps. Source: NASA JPL Flickr [9]

[1] http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-invites-social-media-fans-to-preview-the-year-of-earth-at-jpl/#.UoRVSfkQbgw
[2] http://www.planetary.org/blogs/guest-blogs/bill-dunford/20131111-science-against-the-storm.html
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGGHwTQ-c9U&list=PL2aBZuCeDwlT56jTrxQ3FExn-dtchIwsZ
[4] http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/underwire/2013/11/NASASocial_CentralityGraph_AudunUtengen.jpg
[5] http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/11/nasa-socials/
[6] http://24.media.tumblr.com/eda6529e8509192a313a3941f58a1b01/tumblr_mvum1ci0C81qgxab9o2_1280.jpg
[7] http://storify.com/VeronicaMcG/nasa-social-nasajpl-nov-4-5-2013/grid
[8] http://jenniferkaplan.me/2013/11/07/nasa-social-at-jpl/
[9] http://www.flickr.com/photos/nasa-jpl/ 

Get pumped....for SCIENCE!!!

So recently there has been a lot of activity going around me about science communication. And in this vein, it spawns from a number of different sources all with different intents- and these are all very good things. But the boiled down basics of it all comes back to one thing, and that's getting the public excited about science. Yes, the public, YOU!!!

I was watching a TED Talk the other day (Okay, it was more than one!) on a layover flight home from NASA (more on that later!) and there were two that really stuck out in their messages to me. Arthur Benjamin [1] was giving a lecture on the fascinating patterns hidden within the Fibonacci Numbers and how, "mathematics is used for three things: calculation, application, and last and unfortunately least- inspiration." He uses the illustrative nature of the Fibonacci sequence to make his single sentence point:

"Mathematics is not just solving for X. It's also figuring out Y." Source: [1]

A tangentially related video from Stuart Firestein [2] talks about the value of "high-quality ignorance" or, in other words, knowledge just beyond our current scientific understanding. His motivation behind this is to let non-specialists know that science is a lot less like the so-called scientific method we learn about in school but "more like farting around...in the dark."
These two messages, combined with the wonderfully inspirational video [3] from my new friend Saramoira Shields (@mathematigal on Twitter) point to a very simple statement that holds a lot of complicated weight. Science, math, engineering, whatever it may be- is hard. BUT! It's not impossible. It doesn't take some genius to whip up an answer to a problem on the fly or be the first kid to raise his or her hand in class. That's not the point. The point is to become a thinker, a rationalizer.
It takes patience. It takes perseverance. And it takes a little bit of caring attention to cultivate the knowledge base to make the leap from Calculation to Application. After a while and no short amount of effort, "farting around" can lead to wonderful "A-ha!" moments that make every bit of frustration well worth the trouble. And that, my friend, is where we can really reach Inspiration.

On a related note, my last post [4] was about the Three-Minute Thesis [5] competition going on at UA as I was soliciting some feedback for the Semi-Finals, as I was a representative for the Chemistry Department. I am pleased to report that not only I but the other two chemistry representatives, Greg Dye and Steven Kelley, have all been passed on to the UA 3MT Finals- competing for top thesis presentation at UA! Congratulations are in order for them as well as all of the other finalists.
We go on stage at 6pm next Wednesday, Nov. 20 in Russell Hall 159. So if you're in the Tuscaloosa area, come drop in! I and the other contestants would really appreciate the support! Next year will be even better with as excited as the administration is about this event. Click the link above to check out the original idea from the University of Queensland.

"The best thing to come out of Australia since me!" said Crocodile Dundee never. Source: [6]

I want to be able to talk about science. I want to talk TO YOU about science. And, maybe with a little bit of effort, we can feel the glee of discovery together.

[1] http://www.ted.com/talks/arthur_benjamin_the_magic_of_fibonacci_numbers.html
[2] http://www.ted.com/talks/stuart_firestein_the_pursuit_of_ignorance.html
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs9aGVUZ3YA
[4] http://jsphmeany.blogspot.com/2013/10/after-hiatus.html
[5] http://www.uq.edu.au/grad-school/three-minute-thesis
[6] http://www.mnn.com/sites/default/files/main_hogan.jpg

After a hiatus...

It's been a while since I've contributed a post sadly and I attribute part of that to a jam packed teaching schedule and October being busy- Halloween is my favorite holiday after all!

Recently I participated in the first round of a competition being put on by my school, and competed for a nomination to the school-wide competition open to all PhD students at UA. This competition aims to increase the ability of graduate students to communicate their research to a varied and general audience. We are to translate our dissertations into a speech, 3 minutes in length or less that is able to be grasped by the public at large.

I thought to myself initially, "Oh yeah, piece of cake. I've been explaining my work to my family all along!" Trouble is, my family is full of scientists and engineers. I haven't really been trained to think outside of a wider perspective, which is my main driving force for this exercise. I thought I would post here the text of my speech, as "finalized" by the judges so that you, my readership, could offer comments and suggestions. I hope you enjoy it!

"When I was an undergraduate, my physical chemistry professor was one of those “back in my day”-type guys that would talk about his experiences at Los Alamos National Labs and the punch card computer he had to use- it was big as a whole room!  Consumer electronic devices are being made to fit into ever smaller packages and computers are being built with ever smaller circuits. Imagine sensors that can be eaten or medical devices implanted in the body without any impediment!

My project takes this to a new extreme. It focuses on the design and manufacture of molecules that will replace current electronic components. My strategy is to tailor a molecule's three-dimensional structure and thus custom-design molecules that behave the same as components already found in technology today, while cutting size by roughly 1000x and using energy much more efficiently. This would be like shrinking the function of a laptop to fit on a contact lens!

Specifically, I aim to make single molecule diodes, which carry electrical current in one direction, but prevent it from flowing in the opposite direction. Today, most diodes are made of silicon, which requires the device to be manufactured from a large base to a small finished product. This process has its limits and the building of molecular electronics focuses from a bottom-up design, which can reduce waste. I’ve asked the question- how small can we make these diodes? Where’s the limit? I’ve proposed one possible limit, a single bond between two carbon atoms. Up until now, construction of molecular diodes required three components to be made separately over several steps and then brought together as a final step- but I’ve simplified this process by producing a molecule in a single reaction with these three components all at once. The bridge component, key to function, is a single bond- no extra atoms involved at all!

From there, I’m able to take advantage of tricks within certain atoms’ properties to make these molecules attach themselves to metal surfaces much like an atomic version of alligator clips clipping to a battery and circuit.

Taking advantage of lower current flow and higher operating efficiency would lead to the production of smaller and faster circuits in future technology. This could lead to paper-thin flexible tablets, wearable electronics like contact lenses or even miniaturized pacemakers!

And then, someday in the future, I can complain to future chemistry students about how we had to suffer with flat, bulky, inflexible devices- back in my day."

Image Credit: PhD Comics

I have high hopes for this event, but I'm most excited about the possibility to talk about my research in a way that doesn't make people's ears smoke. It's been a trip so far, between this and the NASA visit next month I'll have plenty to talk about. 

What do you think? Where could it be more plain? 

Nanomechanics

"By irradiating the surface through appropriate filters, the controlled mechanical  motion of the bistable [2] rotaxane molecules were harnessed to push droplets of iodomethane uphill on a substrate positioned at a 12º incline." [1]

This line comes from a 2012 Chem. Soc. Rev. article titled "High Hopes: Can Molecular Electronics Realize its Potential?" In short, the authors of the original article[2] were able to utilize light energy to push a fluid against its normal direction of flow. By changing the physical location of one molecule with respect to another in a thin film, the scientists were able to control how a liquid acted in real-time on this thin film.

If that doesn't blow your mind, think about it this way. The potential energy in light was transferred to a molecule, which was able to undergo a mechanical change. So potential energy was converted into kinetic energy. This change, affected by the movement of the molecule, then caused a change of potential energy of the liquid on its surface which was eased by converting this new energy into movement- more kinetic energy. Shine light, move liquid. 

Heck, shine light-move anything is a staggering possibility. Controlled surface wetting has implications for cool new polymer films. Maybe even one that will collect water from rain (or the atmosphere![3,4]).  The Cohen paper [4] also discusses controlled drug release but why limit it to medicine?

Almost, Morpheus. I like your imagination though.

What about creating nano-machines? 

Oh. Well thanks anyway graygoo.net

 Still, it's an interesting thought.

[1]Coskin, A., Stoddart, F. et al.; Chem. Soc. Rev., 2012, 41, 4827-4859

[2]Berna, J., Zerbetto, F. et al.; Nat. Mater., 2005, 4, 704-710
[3] MIT Review
[4] Zhai, L., Cohen, R. et al.; Nano Lett., 2006, 6, 1213-1217

Bond...Covalent Bond

Ahhh, Hollywood. You can be so impressively close to reality when it comes to creating interesting situations. Last night, I was really interested when a "chemical structure" was actually displayed in Moonraker featuring Roger Moore as James Bond. The old publishing style of structure caught my attention initially, and I wanted to have a closer look at the structure, which looked slightly odd to me at first glance. The fused tricyclohexane rings caught my attention first since I had never seen something like that before- even hormones which have fused polycyclic systems aren't attached in a linear fashion. Then there's the question of the DS on the structure. What could that be? And then other problems started to show themselves.

Image courtesy of Prof. Mark Griep [1]

 Pictured above is the antiquated typeset for the chemical structure of the Moonraker "hypertoxin." Below, I've redrawn the structure in the modern ChemDraw format. No stereochemical centers were specified around the chiral centers so I just left that alone without making any presumptions. Several problem areas should be readily evident. (ChemDraw had red boxes in some areas, telling me I'm wrong!)

1- There are WAY too many bonds around phosphorus. I know that it can hybridize- but that atomic arrangement just doesn't make a lot of sense. What exactly is (C2H3O) ? My best guess, if that extra (2) is supposed to be outside the parentheses is that they are acetyl groups. However I'll discuss below for a way for the phosphorus atom to make a bit more chemical sense.

2- What is -CHCO2 ? There is a serious deficiency of atoms somewhere in that side chain.

3- The original structure shows a -OCCH3. In my updated structure I changed it to another acetyl group.

4- Are there actually any chemicals with a linearly fused tricyclohexane? A quick SciFinder search says yes, in fact there are a plethora of chemicals with this functional group. However, most of them are based around interconnected ring systems like adamantane derivatives.

5- That DS structure. What what what?

With regard to that last problem, I searched around Google for a little bit and came up with an interesting answer on someone who's written on this topic before. Dr. Mark Griep, a professor of biochemistry at University of Nebraska- Lincoln manages a blog called ReAction- Chemistry in the Movies. In 2009 he wrote 

"Within the script, I found the dialog for the scene in which the “molecular structure” was revealed but there was no accompanying description or drawing of it. I assumed this meant the screenwriter left that issue to the set designer..."[1]

 And from a quick correspondence with Dr. Griep, he never did get an answer after being in touch with several of the people involved with the pre-production process of Moonraker. 

"The DS probably stands for Derivative something-or-other. The portion of the molecule near the bottom resembles one of the WWI nerve toxin like DIFP, diisopropylfluorophosphonate, and is what makes this a toxin."

DIFP, courtey of Wikipedia

I had a few ideas of my own, but none of them really made sense. As you can see, the D of DS is attached to the carbon atom in question. This would prevent the compound from being a deuterated thiol. And how would you selectively deuterate that thiol anyhow? Obviously the movie glosses over the chemical details but it does hint that the chemical is based off of a chemical that is naturally produced by a South American orchid. 

Maybe the S was supposed to be lowercase then? That would make the DS into a Ds, which is the chemical symbol for Darmstadtium, a real element. There's a catch to this though. Darmstadtium[2] is element 110 which makes it highly radioactive (it has a half-life of 11 seconds) and thus unsuitable for industrial production of an apocalyptic nerve gas. The element has another big glaring problem as an acceptable answer. It was discovered in 1994, 15 years after the release of the movie! Unless someone has a TARDIS laying around for use in Bond films, then I'm pretty sure that's just a happy coincidence. 

All this in mind, I've gone about "correcting" the molecule in a way that makes a bit more chemical sense. Interestingly enough, the P-S bond actually exists in chemistry too[3], and is called a phosphothionous acid. My own boss, when I showed him the molecule said "Oh yeah, that phosphorous looks like it wants to be hydrolized."

I won't go through point-by-point on what I changed, but it wasn't terribly drastic. I would say congratulations and good show to whomever "created" the Moonraker Toxin, it was an interesting journey to see that chemicals really can come in many shapes and forms. It would probably be more than someone's PhD work to create a total synthesis for this molecule, but if anyone ever does I really want to see that paper.

3D Energy minimized model of the molecule. Hydrogen eliminated for clarity.

We may never know what DS stands for, or what it does really. But now a curiosity turned puzzle has been put together. 

And if you're a movie/TV producer looking to put chemical structures in your product, I am completely available to proofread your structures.

[1] http://www.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780195326925/pdfs/8_GriepBlog_18Oct09.pdf

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darmstadtium

[3] Pellerin, B. et al. Tetrahedron Lett. (1987) 28 5811-5814

Chemistry "glassware"...at home???

You'd better believe it. I picked these little puppies up from Thinkgeek not too long ago because really- who doesn't love creative ideas for shot glasses? A little creative lighting, some balance adjustment and boom! The picture you see above came to life.
Had to celebrate the purification of a new compound today, something finally worked in the lab!

+Joseph Meany

Awesome Nicknames

So I'm reading J. R. Partington's "A Short History of Chemistry" (Harper Torchbooks, 1965) partly because it's an old book that I saved from destruction by a local library and partly because no chemistry course I've ever taken really touches on the development of the science that is so central to my life. I know it's dated and there are probably a lot of other texts that are more modern or may be more comprehensive- but I got it for a bargain. Get off my back alright? Okay. Thanks.

I'm working my way through the section right now that's basically discussing the high-times of alchemical study (which interestingly enough coincide with the European Middle Ages) and I've found that many of those researchers had names attributed to them, some based on scholastic significance while others have no evident origin and others just gave it to them[1]. Paracelsus, known also by his real name Theophrastus Bombast von Hoenheim, fits this latter description.

Theophrastus Bombast von Hoenheim...and his brother, Bombad Boss Nass von Hoenheim

Robert Bacon, and many of the other Franciscan Monks earned the scholarly titles, for example Bacon's Doctor Mirablis or Thomas Aquinas' Doctor Angelicus. Albert the Great, Albertus Magnus, was given his nickname by his peers during his lifetime because he brought to public attention many of the philosophical works which had become esoteric at that time.
From that, my question is- why can't we have cool nicknames again? I know it would complicate authorship attribution (which was rife in the Middle Ages), but how awesome would it be to be known as something other than your direct name? I guess that's what Twitter handles are for- I'm looking at you @SeeArrOh! But really. Can't we get a bit of grandiosity generated here? I mean something to really shed light on the SHEER AWESOME of the work that we do? Maybe something just  little bit more varied than Philosophiae Doctor!

What name might you choose, or what name do you think others might ascribe to you? Myself? I would choose Molectronicus.
+Joseph Meany

[1] http://www.naturasophia.com/Paracelsus.html Accessed 6 Aug 2013

Investing Your Humanity

"There's something about investing your humanity, your eccentricity, your exuberance in the things you do. Why do people watch tightrope walkers? Not to see them get to the other side. Its because they might fall. Not everything you do is going to be successful, but that's part of the allure. It's also what makes the work valuable: that you're really present and invested in what you're doing."- Louis Rossetto, Wired Editor and cofounder.

Last month, Wired Magazine celebrated its first twenty years with a special edition of the magazine. Rossetto closed the article with the above quote and it really struck a chord with me, not because I want to start a magazine but because I understand his passion. Originally I started this blog as a part of a fellowship requirement. But since completing that project, this has taken on a life of its own. I never knew that a somewhat mature ecosystem of different chemistry blogs existed, not just as a part of the major publishers but coming from research groups, PhD students and interested hobbyists alike.
I got onto Twitter for the same reason. and in addition to using it to keep up with the latest literature, @CrimsonAlkemist has become a vehicle to interact with other professionals on a social level- presenting cool quirky things and sometimes lamenting about #phdlife. The cool thing about all this is that in addition to creating a non-traditional networking system, I have been able to create something on my own to be proud of. Biz Stone, cofounder of Twitter said once in an interview,

"By simply announcing himself as a genius on his business card, Wile E. Coyote epitomized the spirit of the Silicon Valley entrepreneur. When you're starting a company, you sometimes have nothing more than an idea. You have to begin somewhere so you declare yourself an entrepreneur just like Wile E. declared himself a genius. then you make a business card and give yourself the title 'Founder and CEO'."
Biz went on to create Genius Labs (which was later acquired by Google), and then Twitter.

I find that science isn't so different. We, as inquisitive minds, invest a little part of ourselves in each question we ask and are fulfilled by each question we answer. Experiments and observations, hypotheses and data. Even the failure of a reaction is an act of creation- albeit a minor one. To continue asking different questions until you find the right one is no short act of will. It's valuable. To me, that's what makes my work in the lab and on this blog alluring.

So to my readers I ask, how did you find your passion? How did you come to blogging about chemistry, about science? What about Twitter's ecosystem keeps you hunting down little tidbits of information to share with people you may or may not have met (yet)?

+Joseph Meany

Science and open policy

People complain about how science needs to be more open. I just realized I'm thankful for how open science is today, especially compared with the days of early science and alchemy where findings were encoded in such a form that only those specifically trained were able to unravel their meaning. Since science has progressed to a more standardized form, however, this leaves researchers of historical texts with a large job of decoding the past. With so much information available online, it is important that we are able to communicate thoroughly and openly- but most importantly- truthfully.


"This has always been a problem, however, because the texts that [the alchemists] have left us are very secretive. They're often very metaphorical they're often in a kind of code; and they're filled with all sorts of extravagant imagery- often very beautiful wood cuts but forbidding in the sense of...what does it all mean?"

This comes from Professor Larry Principe of Johns Hopkins University. He works as a science historian trying to decode many of the historical alchemy texts and the American Chemical Society recently put out a video overviewing some of his work. He explains that his main hurdles are decoding these metaphors and symbols, to repeat reactions done by "the ancients" using their methods and glassware to see what it is they actually made.

J.R. Partington, in his book, "A Short History of Chemisty" outlines that many texts from ~1200-1500 are "largely unintelligible" alluding to the secretive nature of this pseudoscience during the time, a contrasting discussion to his earlier elaboration on the treatises written by the Ancient Greeks, Arabs, and Egyptians. Shamefully, as well, "the later history of alchemy is often that of fraud."


While peer review is not perfect in its mission to vet what is "good science" and "bad science," I firmly support the system in place today opposing the search for the philosopher's stone of yesteryear. In the discussion of how to improve science communication we need to not forget- some control is better than none.

http://gizmodo.com/meet-the-man-who-decodes-the-ancient-secrets-of-alchemy-633187520

 http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2013/111/7/c/alchemy_woodcut_duos_caputis_melior_quam_unus_est_by_dashinvaine-d62i1y6.jpg