The Old Days at Org Syn

Thanks to a bevy of used book stores, I'm slowly completing my collection of Profiles, Pathways, and Dreams, the biographical essay series from editor Jeff Seeman. I recently re-read four of these: Cheves Walling, F.G. Stone, Raymond Lemieux, and the indomitable Jack Roberts' colorful collection of biographical anecdotes. Never one to pull a punch, Roberts wistfully recalls his first involvement with Organic Syntheses in the mid-1950s, then led by famous organic chemist Roger Adams:

"The modus operandi of Organic Syntheses is relatively simple. Much of the work is carried on by mail, and the editors meet twice a year for much of a day to assign preparations, work out difficulties, plan for future volumes, choose new editors, and the like, with the current editor-in-chief presiding. Following that meeting, the editors join with the editorial board for cocktails and dinner at one of the best (and most expensive) restaurants in town. In the old days, the dinner would be followed by . . .an Adams report on whatever was on his mind at the time. He often ribbed his colleagues, without malice, but nonetheless, severely. After Adams finished, the meetings often degenerated into the semblance of a stag smoker, with rounds of off-color jokes, the most tasteless of which usually came from the representatives of the publisher . . .Rather prodigious quantities of spirits, wines, and brandies were consumed, and some of organic chemistry's most renowned practitioners had to be helped off the scene. My first encounter with these bacchanalian festivities was in Atlantic City, in the spring of 1956. I made it back to my hotel under my own steam, but I spent the next day in bed, a lesson I did not forget."

This recollection sounds uncomfortably close to how I felt each time someone in my graduate group passed their oral examinations. Some things never change.

Turning Wishes into Horses

A fantastic summary crossed my desk today, courtesy of the RSC's Chemistry World. It profiled a new reaction from the Milstein group, just reported in Nat. Chem., that just looked so tempting: oxidation of a primary alcohol, using water as the "O" source, with hydrogen gas as the lone byproduct.*

And thus began what my brain usually does, "Science Wish Syndrome." Not familiar? Here's the stages:

1. Unbridled Enthusiasm - "Holy cow, that reaction looks fantastic! I'm sure it will produce 20 new analogues / help me wrap up my thesis early / solve world hunger. I can't wait to try it!"

2. Skepticism / Doubt - "Well, Blogger X tried it, and couldn't reproduce the yields. And the Supporting Info says it only works with 100 mesh hyper-refined silver powder sourced from Argentina. Still, it's in Nature / Science / JACS / Angew Chem, so it must work, right?"

3. Despair - "I ordered all the reagents, and used my last 0.3 mg of shootmenowicene in the test reaction. I barely got 10%, and it's a mixture of stereoisomers! Who the heck let this into this journal?"

Readers, does this ever happen to you? Modern chemistry publication, with ASAP format, DOI codes, PDB uploads, and overall rush to publish before the guy on the other side of the pond, seems forced somehow, and doesn't always live up to the glowing reviews crowed about in press releases.

Over at Not the Lab, Vinylogous has suggested that we compile a sort of post-hoc online review journal, playfully named "Blog Syn" (after 800-lb-gorilla-in-the-room-for-synthetic-methods Org. Syn.).

Well, how might something like this work? I'd assume that the community would have some sort of mechanism to suggest papers, say, for when too-good-to-be-true chemistry like the NaH 'oxidation' comes 'round. A central aggregation point, perhaps cultivated by an "Editor / Blogger" would then issue requests for duplication. To ensure results were processed in a timely fashion, a deadline would be suggested (2 weeks?) and the "Duplicators" would have to authenticate that they tried to cleave to the original conditions as best they could. A digital "Stamp of Approval" might then follow the reaction through the online world, indicating, much like Org. Syn., that the reaction works in others' hands.

Readers, would anyone like to be part of such an effort? Methinks the #RealTimeChem crowd could get excited about this. Yes, I know everyone's busy, and this isn't the first thing you think of when there are proposals to write, classes to teach, or conferences to attend. But the literature will only be as good (or as bad) as the folks who contribute, and we desperately need more quality control.

*Update - It occurred to me (too late!) that I sound like I'm condemning the Milstein reaction, which I have not tried, and have no reason to suspect won't work as of this writing. I just wanted to use it as a backdrop for seemingly "perfect" reactions that end up not living up to expectations. The reaction, as reported, needs some scope exploration, so only time will tell if it's as widely applicable as I'd hoped.