What's that 'Bright Orange' Chemical?

As reported by NPR this morning, the U.S. Supreme court hears the case of Carol Anne Bond, convicted of violating the Chemical Weapons Convention through her repeated attempts to poison her husband's mistress with two industrial chemicals. From NPR:

"Bond stole toxic chemicals from the chemical manufacturing company where she worked and ordered other chemicals over the Internet. She combined the chemicals into a compound that is potentially lethal in small amounts — and is also bright orange. Bond spread the toxic material on her rival's mail, mailbox, front doorknob, car door and other surfaces.

But because of the orange color, the mistress, Myrlinda Haynes, easily spotted the chemicals and avoided any injury except a thumb burn."

 I tried to look for information on the identity of this "bright orange" substance. Digging into the SCOTUS brief, it seems Ms. Bond purchased two chemicals:

". . .petitioner [Bond] decided to punish Haynes. She purchased some potassium

dichromate (a chemical commonly used in printing photographs) from Amazon.com, and stole a bottle of 10, 10-chloro-10-H-phenoxarsine (an arsenic-based chemical) from her employer. Petitioner knew the chemicals were irritants and believed that, if Haynes touched them, she would develop an uncomfortable rash."

According to this oral argument from 2011, Ms. Bond had been a microbiology technician with Rohm & Haas, from whom she nabbed the arsine compound. What I haven't been able to figure out from the stories or briefings is whether she intended the combination of two potentially poisonous, irritant substances to function apart, or to perform some sort of solid-phase oxidation to, for example, phenoxarsine oxide (a known antimicrobial compound).

This case needs more chemical context...paging Deborah Blum!

Now Where Have I Heard This Before?

Yesterday morning, I heard an NPR report that detailed more strife in a typically white-collar profession. Whose field do you suppose we're discussing?

"...schools routinely said that 90 percent or more of their graduates had jobs nine months after graduation. It turns out they were including barista positions, low-level marketing gigs, or just about anything else you could call a job." [Emphasis mine]

"At some schools, less than a third of their graduating class were obtaining long-term, full-time jobs" 

"A new study reveals that since 2009, the median starting salary...has fallen 35 percent." 

Any more of these posts, and I might
have to rename the blog!
Credit: Arrested Development

Give up? It's not chemists, it's lawyers (This story does seem to spring eternal, given earlier posts by Chemjobber and myself). The comparison's just too apt to pass up: young grads consider financial security, invest their time towards an advanced degree, and later awaken to an economy facing a glut of overeducated professionals.

To their credit, at least the American Bar Association (ABA) seems aware of the risk, and wants to inform newly-admitted legal students of the economic dangers. Their Nero, unlike ours, isn't fiddling while Rome burns. So, what lessons could Ph.D.-granting chemistry departments learn from the legal profession? 


Honesty - Brian Vastag's Washington Post article from two weeks ago really struck a chord, amassing nearly 3700 comments and prompting discussion up and down the blogosphere. Although it's a political talking point (STEM STEM STEM!), chemical graduate departments must take a page from the ABA and inform new recruits that the salad days of secure scientific employment have passed.

Transparency - As Janet Stemwedel recently mused: What does a chemistry Ph.D. get you? Are alternative careers really playing out? How are pharma salaries adjusting to the recession? Are stock options, benefits, or retirement plans really going away? Where will the jobs be in 10 years?

CJ's correct to call for career tracking; after all, we have the technology! Through a combination of email surveys, social network mining, digital IDs, online CVs, and employer reporting, we should be able to paint a more complete picture of the sci-employment landscape. Using data from past students, new grads could adequately prepare themselves, and younger students could better assess their decision to attend grad school.