Although he probably doesn’t read this blog, I’d like to congratulate Professor Evans, who is being honored at the upcoming Novartis Symposium on Advances in Organic Synthesis. Novartis assembled an excellent lineup of speakers and printed out some fancy posters to announce it:
Hmmm. I had no idea all those EDC couplings I’ve been running qualify me as an advanced synthetic chemist.
It looks like everyone around here should prepare to lie back and think of England; the chemistry faculty is coming up with another one of its grand schemes. At our school, space is worth more than money. Consequently, the faculty forages insidiously for every scrap of floor space in the department. Last year, as I noted previously, they wanted to tear up our historic library to lure a superstar chemist who eventually spurned their overtures. Now, according to a newly-distributed survey, the VWR stockroom is on the chopping block.
It’s wonderful feeling to be asked questions like, “if there were no on-site stockroom, what would be an acceptable turnaround time for deliveries?”
Umm… instantly? Like a transporter… or a stockroom?
“Sorry, George. I couldn’t work today because someone took my last bottle of HPLC-grade acetonitrile and VWR can’t get another one here until Monday. You understand, right?”
If there is nothing more to this decision than what is said in the survey’s cover letter, that the department is “hard pressed for space,” then eliminating the stockroom is an absolutely moronic idea. Think about it: if you eliminate what has essentially become a storeroom for common supplies used by the department, then each lab will have to create its own storeroom for boxes of paper towels, office supplies, assorted tubing, vials, etc. The list goes on. Instead of creating space, you have created the need for space. Furthermore, each lab is going to have to coordinate ordering its own basic supplies. That’s more work for the students, the lab administrators, the financial office, and the shipping companies. Besides the one professor who gets an extra room, who benefits?
This analysis is so obvious that I’m forced to suspect that there’s something more at stake than floor space. My guess is that someone isn’t satisfied with the current contract with VWR. Maybe the faculty is playing hardball, figuring that the threat of closing the stockroom will force the company to renegotiate its deal? This is only a guess; I’d love to know the terms of the existing contract. Does VWR pay Harvard or does Harvard pay VWR to keep a fully-stocked storeroom in the building?
In the last several years, the graduate students here have appealed for the faculty to be more “transparent” in their decision making. That is, if they disclose all of the factors that are being considered, the subordinates would have an easier time rationalizing what the management is doing. If something is being left out of the equation, I think it would be in the faculty’s best interest to let us know what’s going on so that we would be convinced that eliminating the stockroom is a good idea.
If people are looking to buy gifts for their advisors this Christmas, consider getting them a book or two by Peter Drucker.
Anyway, in an effort to be constructive, here’s another suggestion for our esteemed faculty:
It seems to me that the stockroom could easily occupy less floor space, but it would require changing the way VWR does business. Under the current set up, researchers use shopping baskets and are free to walk through the aisles to inspect the merchandise. This is a luxury that is probably unnecessary, and the arrangement requires that the merchandise be kept close to the floor, in reach of the customers. There is roughly six to ten feet of unused (wasted) space between the ceilings and the top of the shelves. Extending these shelves to the ceiling would essentially cut the required floor space in half.
In this configuration, it would be a liability to have students climb ladders to reach items. Instead, students could tell the attendant what they want to buy, and the attendant could fetch it. Ideally, students could call or e-mail their orders such that they would be ready for pickup on arrival.
How’s that sound? Some professor gets more space while students retain the convenience of a stockroom, the stockroom clerk keeps his job, VWR maintains its presence at Harvard, and we all avoid delays in research. Hooray.
Finally, if this proposal actually turns into a fight, it should be remarkably easy for us to win. While the entire faculty had something to gain in desecrating the library–the addition of a highly-respected colleague–in demolishing the stockroom, only one member of the faculty stands to benefit. Forget filling out the stupid survey; professors make the decisions around here, not students. Instead of responding to the survey, use the time to write a quick note to your boss or say something to her in the hallway. A quick comment about the inconvenience of the plan should be all it takes to get the message across that eliminating the stockroom will be counterproductive to the progress of research. If it comes down to a vote, only one professor would seem to benefit from the plan. We need to make sure the rest of the faculty is aware of the cost to them, so they have reason to vote against it.
Harvard is going to perform a makeover of its undergraduate experience whenever the administration around here decides to get its act together. You would not believe the amount of faculty in-fighting on the subject, but it’s good that people are taking the matter so seriously. A lot of people think that undergraduate education is an afterthought at Harvard (and other big universities), but that really isn’t the case. This common misconception is probably rooted in the fact that most members of the faculty have ridiculously busy lives, so their time is a severely limited resource. The result is that relative to other universities, students get less interaction with “real” professors. In their stead, “advisors,” “tutors,” and “teaching fellows” are used to handle the nuts and bolts of teaching and mentoring around here. From the perspective of the undergrads, I can see how it stinks; they’re paying $30k/year in tuition and only getting to see the backup team play. On the other hand, the teaching and support staff at Harvard–especially in chemistry–is quite good.
As far as the curricular review goes, the central question is: “what should students learn in their time at Harvard?”
It seems that only minor tweaking is what’s under consideration; I don’t think anyone wants to defenestrate the course catalogue and build from scratch. The most recent report suggests that each student should take classes in “‘Cultural Traditions and Cultural Change,’ ‘The Ethical Life,’ ‘The United States,’ ‘Societies of the World,’ ‘Reason and Faith,’ ‘Life Sciences,’ and ‘Physical Sciences.’” It looks like the general education “core” classes will still be taught, but students can substitute departmental electives in their place. The committee that studied the issue tried to emphasize the “real world” and “analytical reasoning” more, but that list doesn’t have me convinced. Where’s the economics? Where’s the math? Where’s the psychology…or training in business and interpersonal relations? By “analytical reasoning” do they mean the ability to analyze boring pieces of 19th century literature?
I get a little annoyed by how humanities majors get off so much easier than science majors when it comes to rigor. Of the administration’s proposed list of seven requirements, five fall squarely in the humanities and only two are in science. It seems like more science and math should be required, but maybe I’m just a biased scientist. Perhaps there’s a grad student in Gaelic Studies sitting in his office writing about how we need less science and more international literature. Regardless, I’ll take the report as evidence that while not everyone can grasp science, anyone with more than a couple functioning neurons can succeed in the humanities.
If you’ve got some extra time (ha!) and are interested in institutional curricular reviews, go to this site and read essays from prominent professors at Harvard on how the University should alter its undergraduate curriculum to reflect the changing needs and demands of society. George was the only professor of chemistry who wrote an essay, and he makes some good points.
As far as science goes, I think that we should lean more towards keeping the “fundamental” courses intact, as opposed to shifting to interdisciplinary introductory classes. There is a place for these interdisciplinary courses as electives for juniors and seniors who have a solid foundation of knowledge so the material needn’t be watered down.
In the social sciences, there should be less time spent on reading literature and interpreting art, and more time on technical and persuasive writing. It’s amazing how many ostensibly intelligent people can’t formulate a coherent, logical argument. Introductory courses in economics and politics should be required, and I agree with many of the essayists in their opinion that students should have a basic understanding of religion and how it affects the world today. I don’t see the value of having language requirements in a world where English has become the dominant language.
Back to science, it should be said that chemistry departments are not immune to screwing up curricula or being recalcitrant to change. This recent post by Derek Lowe on having to learn German to get a Ph.D. reminds us that sometimes curriculum requirements lag behind what students actually benefit from learning. I’m not saying that a knowledge of German wouldn’t be helpful now and then as a chemist, but is learning the language the best way to have a grad student spend her time? Probably not. If you want to learn German, learn German. Just don’t make everyone have to do it.
Perhaps a more useful requirement for chemists would be a hands-on course in instrument repair. All the way from undergrad through grad school, it seems like once a month something breaks down and has to be fixed: HPLCs, vacuum pumps, shakers/rockers, various instrument plumbing, etc. A short unit on laboratory glassblowing could be helpful, too.
If I were a rich man, I’d get the print edition of most of the journals that I read. There’s nothing like the feel of leafing through a nice, thick issue with glossy pages. While I’m a poor grad student, my advisor is rich enough to afford the print edition of every single chemical journal known to man. The nice thing is that when’s he’s done with them, they make their way to our seminar room.
When eating dinner and reading through the October 2006 issue of Chem. Soc. Rev. the other day, I came across this little gem:
Now that’s what I’m talking about! British people really know how to grab your attention. I’ve suddenly become very excited…uhhh…about chemistry.
You’ve got to hand it to the British for pushing the envelope of what is considered appropriate for the chemical literature. There is no way that ad gets approved to run in an ACS journal. I wonder if RSC specifically hired foot models or if they used regular models. (I doubt those people between the sheets are chemists.) I’m also fascinated by the mechanics of this pose, as the coupling couple appears to be lying perfectly parallel to the plane of the bed. It looks uncomfortable.
I’ll definitely have to get my hands on the November issue to see if there’s a sequel. Maybe a picture of a woman in a lab coat eating peanut butter and pickle sandwiches? The 2007 editions could feature tasteful ultrasounds, until the July issue posts a picture of the demon child of chemistry.
Well, this election couldn’t have gone much better. It was especially nice to see Santorum get the boot, and I can live with people like Joe Liebermann. It’s a shame that so many moderates had to go.
Beyond the candidates, it surprises me that the vote to allow embryonic stem cell research in Missouri was so close and that homophobic bigots constitute the overwhelming majority of our population.
Now, let’s see what changes in the next two years.
As a general rule, I try to avoid becoming absorbed in deep political conversations because they’re usually a waste of time. Most people won’t change their minds based on a simple conversation. Fortunately, the political climate isn’t static because there are occasionally major events that do change people’s minds and because people eventually die. For example, there used to be a whole lot more racists in this country, but we’re running the clock out on them.
This said, allow me to touch on politics because Election Day is tomorrow and there are some important implications for science. I’ll keep it simple.
This election is about one issue and one issue only: Iraq. If you believe in staying the course, vote for people that support Bush. If you believe in a different plan to wrap things up, vote for the candidate with the best chance of beating the guy who supports Bush.
Everything else is orders of magnitude less important, so much so that you can just ignore it. It’s kind of like how you don’t need to integrate NMR spectra to the thousandths place.
There are plenty of good reasons to vote for either side. While Bush & Co. appear to have royally screwed up their master plan for ending terrorism, the Dems haven’t exactly been specific in outlining how they plan on cleaning the mess up.
If you think that the Iraq issue doesn’t have profound implications for science policy, then you’re mistaken. The war is costing us about $4.5 billion per month in operations alone, and may cost upwards of $2 trillion dollars by the time it’s all done. That’s about 15 times the scientific R&D budget for 2005.
The budget crunch has forced the administration to effectively “cut” science funding by not keeping up with the rise in inflation. The word around here is that labs are already starting to feel the pain.
Furthermore, while I’m no economist, I am more than a little troubled by the extent to which the current administration is running up the national deficit. If there’s a recession on the horizon, that can’t be good for science funding, either.
If you want to look beyond Iraq (just for fun), you’ll probably still have trouble finding a good reason to convince a scientist to vote for a Bush loyalist:
1) Stem cell research: Bush opposes the creation of new lines of stem cells from human embryos. This “ethical stand” would be a lot easier to swallow if he voiced the same dissent about the destruction of embryos during in vitro fertilization.
2) Creationism and intelligent design in schools: need we even go here?
3) Anything with the word “faith” in it: Just to be clear, “faith” corresponds to beliefs that are not based on proof. “Science” is knowledge of the world gained through observation and experimentation. No matter what some people want you to believe, these two things cannot be reconciled, short of Big Daddy showing up to my Super Bowl party and correctly predicting the final score of the game.
So, to finish this rant, take the time on Tuesday to vote, especially if your state or district is home to one of the close races.
And yes, you guessed it; I dressed up as Rudy Baum for Halloween.
Here’s some good news: not only will Dylan “Tenderbutton” Stiles have a regular column in Chemistry World, but so will Derek “In the Pipeline” Lowe and Philip “I Own Pop Science, Bee-yotch” Ball. For the unfamiliar, Chem World is Britain’s equivalent of C&E News, except it’s not as Randy Baumtastic.
The articles are great, guys, but don’t forget about us little people on the Interweb. We’ll keep the Explorer window warm while y’all are working in Microsoft Word.
For those of you too lazy to go looking for the CW site, I’ve excerpted the best parts of each column and pasted them below:
Derek Lowe: In the Pipeline
Less revolutionary approaches start with looking over the whole process of discovery and development with an eye to their (improvable) bottlenecks. One problem with this is the large number of candidate compounds, many of which have a plausible claim to importance. In general, though, it’s better to make improvements in the earlier stages of the process, given the tremendous expenses of later clinical development. It may not be a matter of finding the good molecules, candidates or projects – rather, we need to recognise and kill off the bad ones more quickly, before they destroy everyone’s time and money.
Dylan Stiles: Bench Monkey
Therein lies the adventure. Synthesis is an academically sanctioned opportunity to live on the edge. Handling dangerous materials can be thrilling, like skydiving in a lab coat. Anyone who has ever put their mettle to the test and stood behind a blast shield while generating diazomethane knows that magical feeling I’m talking about.
Philip Ball: The Crucible
From the latest departmental safety report:
A CCB researcher was drawing ~50 mL of tert-butyldimethylsilyl triflate (TBSOTf) into a plastic 60 mL syringe. A good deal of force was being applied to the plunger and it was pulled out of the syringe, spilling the TBSOTf into the hood and floor and splashing the researcher’s lab coat and forearm. The researcher had been working inside a fume hood and was wearing gloves, eye protection, and a lab coat.
The researcher took off his/her gloves and lab coat and rinsed his/her arm in a nearby sink. No medical attention was sought and besides some initial itchiness on the forearm area, no adverse effects were reported. The TBSOTF was quenched with sodium bicarbonate solution and the resulting liquid was absorbed using an absorbent spill control pillow.
Guidance
* When encountering difficulties drawing a reagent into a syringe, the use of a larger gauge needle should be considered.
* When transferring large quantities of a reagent, a syringe should not be used to its fullest capacity. Multiple transfers with the syringe or a cannula-based transfer should be considered.
* Lab coats with snaps can be removed much quicker than those with buttons when a chemical exposure occurs.
This accident strikes me as pretty run-of-the-mill. For every one of these that gets reported, there are probably ten that don’t. A plunger mishap I had as an undergrad was the closest I ever came to starting a fire. In reducing an arylnitrile to the aldehyde, I used a particularly finicky glass syringe to transfer the DIBAL-H. Some of the solution spilled onto a paper towel and started smoking, but the “fire” went out in the time it took me to inject the reagent.
Alison Frontier’s “[Organic Synthesis is] Not Voodoo” site is pretty good. It’s a nice place to go for basic information (e.g., recipes for TLC stains) and experimental techniques (e.g., how to run a column). Yes, most of us would consider this stuff routine, but it’s a great resource for undergrads and there are more than a few things for experienced chemists to pick up, too.
The only feature that I’m not so fond of is the “blacklist.” In this area, random goons on the Internet can post procedures that they find to be irreproducible. Once a procedure has been blacklisted, other visitors to the site can vote whether they agree or disagree with the blacklisting.
In theory, a site like this is of value in saving people’s time by identifying procedures that don’t work as well as the authors claim. The problem is that there’s a significant potential for abuse. To a scientist, reputation is everything. To smudge someone’s reputation brings all of their research into question. For this reason, it’s more than a little distressing that anyone can come to the site and anonymously enter “Evans Auxiliary Aldol Condensation” into the blacklist and go on their merry way. From what I understand, that chemistry is rock solid. It’s been used–and is still used–to synthesize numerous natural products, and there is a sound model for its mechanism of action. After the original poster, 124 people have weighed in and only 5% agree with the blacklisting. I would imagine that this 5% includes some unpracticed synthetic chemists and maybe even some people with vendettas, too.
Shouldn’t a moderator, maybe Professor Frontier, go onto the site and remove Evans from the blacklist? Even though 95% of the people who’ve voted disagree with the listing, and that number is publically disclosed, there is certainly a negative stigma associated with being listed at all. It doesn’t seem fair.
Anyway, to improve the site, I have three suggestions:
1) Change the name. Instead of throwing everyone onto a “blacklist,” use the voting results to determine a “reproducibility factor.” In this case, the Evans’ Aldol reaction would be considered “95% reproducible.” There’s nothing shameful about that.
2) Don’t allow anonymous nominations. Make people who want to blacklist a procedure stand by their nomination. It’ s unfair and un-American that some random dork can stand back and tarnish a scientist’s reputation under a cloak of anonymity. Just as in our court system, you should be allowed to face your accuser, and the people who stand in judgment should be able to see whether the people doing the blacklisting have any ulterior motives.
3) Allow debate. Blacklisted chemists should be allowed to respond to the charges leveled against them. Also, nominators should describe exactly what doesn’t work. This way, people who visit the site will be able to help the person figure out what went wrong. Alternatively, if something really does deserve to be blacklisted, you’ll see that a lot of people will be able to corroborate the original claim.
Anyway, that’s my two cents. And for the record, I applaud setting up a “service” like this one–it is potentially useful and takes a lot of guts to stand behind, especially for someone without the security of tenure.
A couple of weeks ago, one of my labmates told me to go down to the stockroom. When I asked why, he just responded, “You won’t be disappointed.”
Of course, I went down immediately.
The first odd thing of note was that both of the stockroom guys were on duty. Usually there’s only one, but today there was something drawing an audience: a representative from ChemGlass had set up a booth with various apparatuses and colorful brochures. The payoff was that the sales rep was blonde, attractive, and serving free baked goods. Two male chemists were attentively listening to her presentation, and I know for a fact that one of the guys doesn’t even use glassware on a regular basis.
It’s not hard to figure out how to pitch products to the rank and file of chemistry labs: hire attractive sales reps, bring free food, and have the attractive sales reps serve the free food. That recipe will never fail, because students get the payoff at no personal cost; ordering off grants is like playing with house money.
While attractive sales reps can successfully hawk their goods in person, I’m not so sure about the effectiveness of the ads in C&E News that feature super-hot models. First, is anyone fooled by the lab coats and safety glasses? No chemists look like that. (Any rebuttals should be accompanied by links to pictures, please.) Second, the use of sexuality to attract my attention is so obvious that ordering the advertised product would make me feel more than a little used. With a sales rep, I can at least fool myself into thinking “here is an expert on glassware who just happens to be good-looking.” In C&E News, they all look amazing, and because they can’t talk, I have no reason to believe they know anything about chemistry. I mean, just look at this ad from today’s issue of C&EN (page 40):
While she should be applauded for wearing eye protection and tying her hair up to avoid its ignition on a Bunsen burner, I am appalled that she uses the telephone so often that she has an earbud and microphone built into her safety glasses. The glossy lipstick is a tad over-the-top for a day at the lab, too. I am forced to conclude that she knows little in the way of manufacturing “critical raw materials for cell culture products” or anything else that the Sigma-Aldrich companies do. Ditto for this guy:
Finally, ‘intelligent’ should be the new ’sexy.’ If you really want to make me feel like I’m purchasing my chemicals from the right vendor, teach your telephone operators how to pronounce IUPAC names correctly. There is nothing more irritating than hearing one of these people take ten seconds to stumble through something easy like “1,2-dichlorobenzene” then ask if they’ve pronounced it correctly. And no matter how badly they’ve butchered the name, we all just say ‘yes’ so we can move on to items 2 through 10. Would you order food from McDonald’s if the cashier asked if you wanted “fleas with your humbooger”?
