Advertisement

If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)

ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCES TO C&EN

Environment

Letters

February 21, 2005 | A version of this story appeared in Volume 83, Issue 8

* Jan. 17, page 63: The Ca(NO3)2-enriched liquor that saltpeter farmers extracted from aged dung heaps could be treated with K2CO3 and evaporated to yield mostly KNO3.

Curing the pharma blues


As a retired medicinal chemist who has experience both as an academic and industrial scientist, I feel compelled to comment on the crescendo of indictments of the pharmaceutical research process that I read almost everywhere, including in C&EN (Dec. 6, 2004, page 3).

The problem leading to the drought of innovation can be traced from the 1960s to the present, during which time management passed from chemistry to the "new biology." Since management rests in the hands of biologists and M.D.s, the blame for the current state of intellectual bankruptcy rests squarely on their shoulders.

Prior to this transition, pharmaceutical research was conducted by highly qualified Ph.D.s working in the laboratory. Today, biological targets are chosen by a few supposedly inspired biologists and then represented in the laboratory by relatively simple screens that are run as a routine by less trained individuals. The choice of targets often represents a naive focus on one step in a complex disease process (for example, kinase inhibitors).

Chemists are driven to mechanize organic synthesis and mass-produce simple compounds that represent no significant challenge to their highly specialized skills. Such an approach obviously won't succeed in finding effective treatments for complex diseases such as diabetes, cancer, and viral infections, or for degenerative diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis. The power of inspired observation is absent in the process, and laboratory investigation is neither intensive nor broad enough. Such single-neuron hypotheses often fail to address tissue-specific, genetic, and sex differences in physiology with respect to the target molecule (for example, COX 1 versus COX 2), and are often negated by resistant mutations in the target molecules (as with kinase inhibitors).

The power of biology in modern drug research is evident in many successful therapies, such as erythropoietin, ß-interferon, targeted antibodies, certain AIDS drugs, and so on. However, these therapies are very costly and cannot solely sustain the revenue stream of large companies.

Yes, restructuring is needed in the pharmaceutical industry, but the current intellectual process will also have to drastically change.

William C. Lumma
Helena, Mont.

A consulting chemist's perspectives


I read with great interest your editorial "Disturbing Trends" (C&EN, Oct. 11, 2004, page 5) as well as the follow-up editorial, "A Radical Notion" (C&EN, Nov. 8, 2004, page 5), and the many responses to "Disturbing Trends" in that issue. My perspective is very different from those in academia, government, and industry. As a consulting chemist, my interactions are with others who count on my knowledge and experience to set matters straight.

Viewed from the perspective of the expert witness and fire investigator, these are exciting times to be a chemist. My clients include attorneys, insurance companies, and lay individuals. The media has created such a negative connotation of chemicals and chemistry that my first task with virtually all clients is to perform "Science 101"-- establishing the facts in the case and then applying fundamental principles. Client attorneys appreciate this tack; opposing counsels generally don't. I have encountered opposing lawyers who actually try to invent science and have seen some of them unwittingly sound like stand-up comedians. The value of chemical literacy cannot be overstated.

I have worked on many cases where applications of simple safety rules would have prevented explosions, fires, or releases of hazardous materials.

Occasionally I work on defense cases. In a recent murder case, my team did both a "CSI" and a "Matlock" for my attorney client. A review of the crime lab data indicated that the defendant didn't have powder residue (the metal components of the primer compounds that ignite the gunpowder) on his person. Further examination indicated that another person present at the scene had detectable powder residue on his person. I used a dry erase board to walk the jury through the forensic evidence. The defendant was acquitted after three hours of jury deliberation.

In a case involving the use of cryogenic gases to keep electronic components cold in a military application, I learned that an impurity gas had a negative Joule-Thomson coefficient. The net effect was a boiling point depression that adversely affected an important system. When I explained that the impurity gas had to be removed at the supplier's facility, the key cause of the failure mechanism was identified and eliminated.

I have worked on cases with medical professionals. An M.D. can indicate that a certain chemical must be responsible for a condition; my task is to determine how realistic it is for that chemical to form. I go through the underlying chemistry, and in most instances, I am able to deduce a plausible pathway. In multiple expert cases, the whole can be greater than the sum of the parts.

The cases that I work on have stretched me in chemistry, engineering, and physics. No two cases are identical. In addition to knowledge and experience, complete honesty and objectivity are also required. Integrity and reputation are essential in my business.

When I visit college campuses, I make it a point to meet with students. There is a reason why one needs to take the heavy load of lab and lecture courses. Without such fundamental knowledge at one's fingertips, those who try to invent science can create outcomes not supported by the facts.

As the debate over changes in chemistry curricula at our universities continues, it is the real-world science that should drive what is taught. Students and faculty are likely to benefit when the chemistry curriculum meets this real-world criterion.

David M. Manuta
Waverly, Ohio

China coal fire burns out


I was most interested to read the Newscripts piece titled "130-year-old fire is out" (C&EN, Nov. 22, 2004, page 128). This is because I have a long-standing interest in the spontaneous heating of coal and also because I have discussed such matters with collaborators at the China University of Mining & Technology. So I think I might be able to provide some further insight.

I do not know whether the coal that burned for 130 years was anthracite or a lower rank such as bituminous, but my intuition suggests that it was anthracite, since China has long been known to have vast reserves of the material. Before oil-derived fuels became prevalent, anthracite was perhaps the most coveted fuel in the world, and China was known to be the country with the greatest reserves of anthracite. This was formally recorded at an International Geological Congress in 1913.

A second, related point is that anthracite coals are low in volatiles. If the 130-year fire was in an anthracite deposit, one naturally wonders how the flame was sustained despite a paucity of vapor-phase breakdown products of the coal. However, release of flammable volatiles would not be important if there were significant amounts of leaked methane. That leakage of methane can occur in coal mines is well known; there have been innumerable related fatalities. Although I have not discussed the fire described in C&EN with my associates in China, I have gained the impression that investigators with similar expertise are heavily involved in the mitigation of methane hazards in mines.

For a vivid but brief account of the unsightliness and environmental consequences of coal-burning utilities in China from about a decade after the 1913 congress, one need go no further than the biography of the Duchess of Windsor (1895–1986). During her first marriage, to an officer in the U.S. Navy, she spent some time in China, notably in Shanghai, while her husband was stationed there. Her most recent biography comments on the environmental conditions that prevailed, and a particular coal-fired power station is singled out for dishonorable mention.

J. C. Jones
Aberdeen, Scotland

What's in a name?


I see nothing to be gained by changing either the name of the American Chemical Society or the definition of chemistry ("A Radical Notion," C&EN, Nov. 8, 2004, page 5). Fifty-five years ago in junior high, I learned that "chemistry is the science dealing with the properties, composition, structure, interactions, and transformations of matter." Similarly, the other basic branch of physical science, physics, was defined as the science dealing with the properties, interactions, and transformations of energy. Despite the enormous development and diversification of chemistry and its applications, this definition of chemistry includes all of its branches from theoretical to applied, even engineering that involves chemistry.

Furthermore, the idea of redefining chemistry or chemical because some people in fields such as molecular biology or materials science may feel that these terms exclude them seems ludicrous. How can one study or practice any discipline that requires chemical knowledge without knowing that chemistry is relevant to his or her work?

And leave American out? Then you have just the Chemical Society--and sorry, that name's been taken for a long time.

Please, just leave the venerable name of the American Chemical Society as it is.

Clark W. Perry
Danbury, Conn.

Having expressed my aversion to chemistry being referred to as molecular science, I suggest the following as an alternative name for ACS: the American Chemical Sciences Society; the American Society for Chemical Sciences; more broadly, the Chemical Sciences Society; or my favorite, Society for Chemical Sciences.

Giles Carter
Clemson, S.C.

Change our name? never.
The word chemical in the name of ACS is an adjective, modifying the word society to define the tool most used by its members in their endeavors. However, in the public eye it has gradually become a noun synonymous with chemicals. We are viewed increasingly not as public-minded researchers, but as producers of alien slimes that pollute our planet. This view has been reinforced again and again by the media in their coverage of Bhopal and other tragedies.

For many decades, the chemical industry has been trying valiantly to improve its image. Sixty-five years ago, DuPont emphasized its role with the slogan "better things for better living through chemistry." Today, BASF declares, "We don't make things; we make things better." The role of chemistry is not to make chemicals but to improve our way of life.

The word chemistry is about 1,500 years old. Hermann Kopp 160 years ago clearly described the evolution of chemistry ("Geschichte der Chemie," 1843) from "the art of making gold" by transmutation through "explaining and curing illnesses" to his view of the science at that time: "The task of chemistry as it now stands is to resolve compounds into their components, and to be able to produce the compounds again from their components. ... When chemistry was still the art of making gold, when chemistry served only medical purposes, what we now consider to be the purpose of chemistry did not seem to be that at all, but rather a means of reaching the goals set at that time. And the fact that what to us is now the purpose of chemistry was recognized even in the earliest times at least as a means of achieving the contemporary goals, brings the history of the earlier times into relationship with the most recent times, and at the same time resolves the question of how the name chemistry could be applied unchanged to such widely different aims."

Kopp's analysis, which came shortly after Friedrich Woehler's synthesis of urea and decades before benzene was found to be a six-membered ring, still stands. Regardless of the further evolution of chemistry to a multidisciplinary science primarily devoted to life sciences, chemistry is still chemistry. Let us stand up and fight, and not surrender to public misconceptions of our role as polluters. Improve our image? Yes. Change our name? Never.

Chester E. Claff Jr.
Brockton, Mass.

Article:

This article has been sent to the following recipient:

0 /1 FREE ARTICLES LEFT THIS MONTH Remaining
Chemistry matters. Join us to get the news you need.