Aug
11
11
Lisa Jarvis
Lithium: Where Science and Art Meet?
Posted by Lisa Jarvis on August 11, 2009 in Chemistry is Everywhere
While British artist Roger Hiorns’ installation Seizure, a London flat coated in copper sulphate crystals, relied on chemistry in its creation, Brooklyn-based artist Jeremiah Teipen’s installation Lithium relies on chemistry in its inspiration. The artist, who has other works that explore the interesection between art, science, and technology, based the piece on “models of lithium atoms generated by computers that are powered by lithium-ion batteries.” But perhaps its best explained in his own words:
The piece is up now in a building in his neighborhood (220 State Street for anyone in the area), and is at its loveliest from 8pm on. See any noteworthy chemistry- or science-inspired art in your neighborhood? Give us a heads up.
A Very Arctic Science Tribute to Michael Jackson
Jul
6
6
Posted by Lisa Jarvis on July 6, 2009 in Uncategorized
I’m finally back from my adventures at the Toolik Field Station in northern Alaska. Rather than formal parting thoughts, it seemed more appropriate to give readers a sense of what environmental scientists do for fun when the nearest watering hole or movie theater is a 350-mile drive down the Dalton Highway. Everybody at camp works incredibly hard (perhaps all universities should simulate midnight sun streaming through their lab windows–it clearly helps to keep students working ’til the wee hours of the morning). But during their few hours of down time, they get incredibly creative. The following video came as a challenge from one summer researcher during Toolik’s “One Glove, One Love,” Michael Jackson tribute party, which incidentally featured a lot of nicely decorated left-handed lab gloves. She asked the reporters that had infiltrated camp why we hadn’t asked the researchers for reaction quotes following MJ’s death. Fair enough. There’s no reason only celebrities should have an opinion. Soon after, she threw down the gauntlet: if the camp puts on their own production of Thriller, would we broadcast it? Well, here’s what happens when you mix scientists, a few reporters, MJ, and the worst mosquito swarm seen on camp during my two weeks at Toolik.
Things I Didn’t Expect To Find In The Arctic
Jun
26
26
Posted by Lisa Jarvis on June 26, 2009 in Where is C&EN?
I’m still up at Toolik Field Station, NSF’s long-term research site in northern Alaska, and wanted to make a few comments about life at the station. Here are just a few things I didn’t expect I’d see this far north in the world:
1. A musical interlude.
There was a serious jam session/sing-a-long last night in the overflow dining tent. I hear it’s a standing gig, and if you don’t know how to play an instrument, you’re encouraged to pick one up and learn. There were some usual suspects—guitar, banjo, harmonica, violin—and some less expected additions—a full drum kit, mandolin, and a saw. Earlier in the day, I had noticed some mysterious markings on the floor of the tent. Turns out, they are song chords. Crowd favorites? Dylan (“Don’t Think Twice, It’s Alright”), Talking Heads (“Psycho Killer”), and Beatles (“Hide Your Love Away”).
2. Mosquitos.
Before I left for Alaska, I told friends I needed to track down Deet and a mosquito net. Many were perplexed: there are mosquitos in the arctic? Sure are. Each person has their own personal swarm. It reminds me of the dirt cloud perpetually surrounding Pigpen. Breck Bowden, a scientist who has been coming up here for two decades, commented at breakfast yesterday that the mosquitos this summer are the worst he’s seen since 1997. Constant itching isn’t the only problem; the pests can get into instrumentation in the field and seriously throw off measurements. We witnessed their meddling ways when we went out to measure carbon exchange in a particularly mosquito-rich area of heath. For a small taste of what it’s like, another reporter on the trip posted video of what happens when you put nine journalists in a bug-filled van.
Extreme Chemistry: Arctic Edition
Jun
23
23
Posted by Lisa Jarvis on June 23, 2009 in Chemistry is Everywhere, Where is C&EN?
Greetings from (nearly) the top of the world! I’m sitting in a tent full of science journalists at the Toolik Field Station, NSF’s long-term ecological research in northern Alaska. In the summer months, there are upwards of 120 scientists and support staff on site doing a range of research related to climate change. 
The writers are here as guests of the Marine Biological Laboratory, which sponsors an annual science journalism program. The idea of the program is give journalists a glimpse of the research going on here not just by talking to folks in the field, but by also getting our hands dirty. Actually, hands, clothes, gear—it’s all dirty. We’ve been tromping through the tundra, wading into streams, sliding on aufeis, all in the name of science.
Yesterday, we hiked through the tundra to see a thermokarst, a gulley formed when an ice wedge melts beneath the thick layer of permafrost, causing the soil to erode. We took samples of the water and soil, then came back to the chemistry lab (tight quarters in a trailer), and analyzed them for nutrient content. The fear is that there’s so much organic matter trapped in the permafrost that this kind of rapid melting will only accelerate climate change. In the next week or so, we’ll be heading out to several locations in and around camp to get a flavor of the wide range of research happening here.
It all may sound rather straightforward, but consider this: in a given day, the temperature can fluctuate from below freezing to above 70ºF. Getting to the sampling site may require a several-mile hike carrying a ton of equipment, possibly even a drop-off by a helicopter. Once arrived at the sampling site, it could mean wading waist-deep into the water while combating a swarm of mosquitos. And did I mention that showers are only allowed twice a week here?
So I throw it out to you, readers. Is there any pressing area of climate change research you’d like to learn about? Any questions about the camp (or life at the camp) itself? I’m here for another week and a half, so fire away.
Insert Bad Chemistry Joke Here
Jun
11
11
Posted by Lisa Jarvis on June 11, 2009 in Uncategorized
This fella’s jokes aren’t new (some I’ve read on t-shirts at ACS meetings), but his delivery–a rather special combination of British wryness and geeky but wonderful awkwardness–made it worth sharing. That said, I’m interested to hear if anyone has ever heard a chemistry joke that was actually, well, good. Give us your best shot in the comments…
Bringing Sexy Back (to Chemistry)
Jun
5
5
Posted by Lisa Jarvis on June 5, 2009 in Uncategorized
Heads turn everywhere he goes. Mouths gape when he walks in the room. Your heart may skip a beat. No, it’s not Brad Pitt or George Clooney. It’s Ajay Bhatt, co-inventor of USB. And he’s one of the heartthrobs at the center of Intel’s new ad campaign “Our rock stars aren’t like your rock stars.” On a similar theme, the June issue of GQ features a six-page spread called “Rock Stars of Science,” which featured cancer and HIV researchers posing alongside, well, real rock stars. (I will reserve judgment for the choice of Josh Groban as a “rock star.”)
It seems everywhere I look these days, people are trying to sexify science. And by science, I mean everything but chemistry.
Over at “In the Pipeline,” Derek Lowe asked readers this week, “Does it bother you, or by contrast make you a bit proud, when you tell someone that you’re a chemist and (as happens in about seven out of ten cases) they say ‘Oh, that was my hardest/least favorite/most boring subject when I was in school’?”
I’d put the proportion closer to 9.8 out of every 10 cases. I’d say 7 out of 10 times I get a much more—how to put it delicately?–visceral response. So why is chemistry such the red-headed stepchild of the scientific community? Why does chemistry seem so impervious to any attempts to make it more appealing?
Should Chemistry Go Interactive?
Jan
13
13
Posted by Lisa Jarvis on January 13, 2009 in Uncategorized
There’s a piece in today’s Science Times about how MIT has overhauled its intro physics class, abandoning the lecture-hall style approach in favor of smaller, hands-on, interactive classes:
“Last fall, after years of experimentation and debate and resistance from students, who initially petitioned against it, the department made the change permanent. Already, attendance is up and the failure rate has dropped by more than 50 percent.”
That rise in attendance isn’t surprising—showing up counts toward students’ grades under the new regime. The rise in test scores, on the other hand, sounds promising. It makes us here at C&ENtral Science wonder whether general chemistry is due for a face-lift as well. There’s already discussion about whether orgo should be retrofitted for majors versus med students, but is there a need to make gen chem more engaging?
The goal of the MIT program is to keep nonmajors on track, but it seems possible that if the physics class were more interesting, more people might consider the major. Would these types of small, interactive classes work for turning students on to chemistry just as well as in physics? C&ENtral Science readers, what do you say? Do we need to take a lesson from our the physics folks?
Talkin’ Turkey
Nov
25
25
Posted by Lisa Jarvis on November 25, 2008 in Chemistry and Food
Among the most time-honored Thanksgiving traditions, the propensity for guests to head directly from the dinner table to the couch ranks right up there with pilgrim hats, family football games, and drawings of turkeys that look suspiciously similar to the outline of a five-year old’s hand. Some people nap, some just stare vacantly at the T.V. for hours, but pretty much everyone attributes their post-meal grogginess to one source: tryptophan. Grandpas, moms, and third cousins alike got comfortable spouting off the name of the essential amino acid found in abundance in turkey.
But it turns out that whole tryptophan thing is a myth. As the nation gears up for the holiday, several newspapers have stories explaining that while turkey does contain tryptophan, the level is so low that you’d have to eat a 40-pound bird to feel its effect. See articles here and here for some related tidbits, but the best scientific explanation is probably in this piece in the LA Times.
So what’s the real culprit? Most think it’s the spike in insulin that results when we’ve stuffed ourselves full of carbohydrates. As a vegetarian who often finds herself on Thanksgiving staring down a plateful of white food—mashed potatoes, macaroni and cheese, crescent rolls, a mysterious “salad” involving marshmallows—I find comfort in the news that my post-meal haze is not a result of sympathy pains, but rather, a shared state of carb overload. After all, isn’t Thanksgiving about maintaining familial bonds?
The Corn Syrup Conundrum
Oct
16
16
Posted by Lisa Jarvis on October 16, 2008 in Chemistry and Food
While we’re on the subject of chemicals and food, I’m wondering if anyone else has noticed what seems to be a flood of ads touting the healthiness of high fructose corn syrup. They usually feature a wildly unbelievable scenario—in one a teenager offers his brother some cereal and they get into a debate about whether HFCS is safe or not—and are, unsurprisingly, sponsored by the Corn Refiners Association.
I’ve had friends ask what the difference is between HFCS and good ol’ sugar, aka sucrose (I wonder how many other readers out there serve as their friends’ primary source for all things science—and I mean ALL things science.), and thought perhaps some clarification was in order. In a sense, the difference largely comes down to ratios: sucrose is made up of a glucose loosely bound to a fructose molecule. The acidic environment of your belly causes that sucrose to break into glucose and fructose. In other words, you wind up with a 50:50 ratio of fructose:glucose. High fructose corn syrup, on the other hand, is made by taking pure corn syrup (100% glucose), adding enzymes to convert that glucose to fructose, then creating blends of the two components. The stuff added to your soda is generally HFCS-55, which means its 55% fructose and 45% glucose. Some studies have linked soda consumption to obesity and diabetes, and suggest this could be due to the slightly higher percentage of fructose. The Corn Refiners Association obviously refutes those claims, citing a rise in obesity in countries like
This battle to win the public over to HFCS, with the ads highlighting that it’s “made from corn,” is vaguely reminiscent of an earlier battle in the artificial sweetener arena. A few years back, the makers of NutraSweet sued the Splenda folks over the tagline “Made from sugar so it tastes like sugar.” I wrote an Insights about the chemists who explained the science behind the manufacturing process–there were some choice moments during the trial, like when they forced a scientist to go through every step of the synthesis and say whether the chemicals used were sweet. As it turns out, phosgene, not so sweet. These sweetener folks sure like to play hard ball to get you to consume more of their product. Or at least less of their competitor’s product.
So there you have it. Perhaps we should all just drink more water. As long as it comes out of bottles that don’t contain bisphenol A.
Is Orgo Worthwhile?
Sep
16
16
Posted by Lisa Jarvis on September 16, 2008 in Uncategorized
The debate over whether organic chemistry is a necessary evil for med students is heating up, with a story today’s Wall Street Journal that some chemists might find, well, controversial. Seems the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) is reviewing what science courses premed students need to take, and organic might not make the cut.
The logic? According to an excerpt from WSJ: “The Diels-Alder reaction, an organic-chemistry classic, helps explain the impetus for change. The reaction comes in handy if you are into chemical manufacturing. But, do doctors really need to know a bunch of different ways to combine two molecules to form a ring of six carbon atoms? ‘In my many years of medicine, I have never heard the Diels-Alder reaction mentioned once,’ says Robert Alpern, dean of the Yale School of Medicine.”
I don’t think Alpern is exaggerating, but I do recall that the mechanistic knowledge I learned in organic came in handy when I took biochemistry—a class AAMC says is likely to be added to the list of recommended coursework. After all, wouldn’t it be useful to be able to understand how a drug works in the body? And don’t most med students do a research rotation where experience in the lab—both a biology lab and a chemistry lab—would be useful?
Organic chemistry is certainly challenging for a lot of biology majors, and AAMC argues it may deter students from continuing on to med school. But maybe the problem is with how organic chemistry is being taught to premed students rather than the difficulty of the class. I open the floor to the “C&ENtral Science” readers: Is orgo worthwhile for everyone? Maybe you’d even get more out of it if those pesky premeds were weeded out?
It doesn’t help that the article is illustrated with a photo of a guy holding a model of a benzene ring with the caption, “A model of benzene, more useful to industry than in the practice of medicine.” Hmm…
Recent Comments