Advertisement
Grab your lab coat. Let's get started
Welcome!
Welcome!
Create an account below to get 6 C&EN articles per month, receive newsletters and more - all free.
It seems this is your first time logging in online. Please enter the following information to continue.
As an ACS member you automatically get access to this site. All we need is few more details to create your reading experience.
Not you? Sign in with a different account.
Not you? Sign in with a different account.
ERROR 1
ERROR 1
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
Password and Confirm password must match.
If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)
ERROR 2
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.
Policy
Chemistry card game
September 5, 2016
| A version of this story appeared in
Volume 94, Issue 35
I began reading about the “science-themed card game” Lab Wars with curiosity and interest (C&EN, July 25, page 48). However, as I read further, I became dismayed with the full nature of the game.
To encourage scientists to conduct heists and steal secrets runs counter to ethical scientific practice. This might be the “real world” of current business and political practice, but it should be frowned upon in ethical scientific practice.
In a time when political leaders seem to encourage outrageous and morally reprehensible actions and international terrorism abounds, I would hope we would try to discourage such activities in our science labs—not seemingly encourage them. Ethical scientific practice could set a better example for the world.
The article does not note whether the game includes penalties for ethical and legal misdeeds. There is an implication, however, that no penalties are imposed, since both admirable and “nefarious” actions seem to lead to a win.
Lynn Larsen
Jarrettsville, Md.
Corrections
July 18, page 7: The news story about a mutant enzyme that produces novel triterpenes showed the wrong structure for the pentacyclic triterpene. Here is the correct structure.
Aug. 1, page 2: The chemical safety letter about peroxide formation should have referred to “2-propanol,” not “isopropanol,” which incorrectly combines two different alcohol naming conventions.
Aug. 15/22, page 49: The Talented 12 profile about University of California, Berkeley, chemist Ke Xu incorrectly stated that a technique he developed could distinguish between components in a cell that are less than 10 nm apart. It can distinguish between components that are 10 nm apart or more. The profile also incorrectly stated that, in the past, researchers had to use different cell samples in order to use superresolution fluorescence imaging and electron microscopy. Researchers have used both techniques on the same sample, but the sample had to go through a difficult, error-prone dehydration process.
Advertisement
You might also like...
The power is now in your (nitrile gloved) hands
Sign up for a free account to get more articles. Or choose the ACS option that’s right for you.
Already have an ACS ID? Log in
Join the conversation
Contact the reporter
Submit a Letter to the Editor for publication
Engage with us on Twitter