Thin Layer Consternation

Earlier today, I was involved in a minor dust-up with some commenters over at Derek's blog. A central issue concerned my (admittedly quick'n'dirty) TLC, which meant to indicate the complete consumption of the acrylate starting material for Blog Syn #002.

Well, since I was already running another entry for #003, I decided to pause and take stock of my TLC tool-box: yes, I should use a ruler, and yes, a classic TLC would have lots more info (solvent system, stain, clearer labels, etc).

So, I took a sample from my IBX oxidation of methylnaphthalene to 2-naphthaldehyde (12 h timepoint, set up in straight DMSO with 0.1 volume of H2O). Results below:

Before anyone goes crazy, that's DMSO / H2O on the baseline, and the SM at Rf ~0.8. It's stained in potassium permanganate, which forms pale yellow spots upon heating. I circled the "UV-only" spots with a pencil before staining.

I'm guessing that the tiny new spot (Rf ~0.45) represents trace aldehyde. But, as you can tell, we're still a long, long way away from completion. Sad, because it was a lot more homogeneous this time!

Readers: How's my technique? Have any more pointers?

Everyone Play Nice: A Blog Comment Code of Conduct

(Note: This post is not directed at any of my beloved regular commenters here at Just Like Cooking. You've all been very helpful, friendly, and insightful. But not all blogs can claim that luxury...)

The two-way street of blogging?
Credit: Patappo

We've all been on blogs; after all, you're reading one right now! We know that blog audiences encompass a wide swath of humanity, with different viewpoints, different cultures and different experiences. Blogging in specific - and the 'Net in general - offer some great perks at virtually no cost to the reader: expert analysis, humor, activism, and a sense of community.

But it's a two-way street. In exchange for posts and analysis, bloggers usually hope for a bit of critical or complimentary feedback. In another great example of online democratization, nearly any reader can leave a message on a blog, through the 'Comments' window at the bottom of the page. 

Lately, the tone and message of these comments, even on scientific blogs, has taken a downward turn. Now, I'm not trying for "Malaise" here, but I've thought about this, and I'd like to offer a short set of suggestions for improving the interaction between writers and commenters, and, more generally, the blogging community:

1. Follow the "Golden Rule."

2. Be professional. 

3. Offer critiques, not attacks.

4. Don't use offensive language.

5. Try not to exaggerate.

6. Think about writing your comment in stone, to stand the test of time.

7. If you still disagree, go start a blog!

"A Crisis of Blogging Confidence"
Credit: Wikipedia | Library of Congress

Let's explore these a bit. The first, usually summed up as "Do unto others," advocates simply for empathy and understanding. Suggestions #2-4 follow naturally from the first: everyone wants to be heard, but achieving that requires cogent, thoughtful statements, polite disagreement, and, when needed, clear arguments. 

For #5, I've used the word try, because exaggeration for satirical or humorous purposes is usually OK...and even encouraged! Number six addresses the (very real) phenomenon of web caching. Sites like Internet Archive, and yes, Google, keep shorthand copies of websites stored on their servers for future retrieval. What does that mean? That we write with indelible ink; the great paradox of the Internet marries the transient nature of emails and tweets to the realization that your data never truly vanishes. 

The ideal blog community promotes useful discussion, with fellow commenters joining together to crack down on "drive-by" posts which aim to inflame, incite, or indict. For the spurned, I have another suggestion (#7): write a blog with your viewpoint, come back, and link out to it from another blog's comments. Two reliable (current) options are Blogger and WordPress.

Latte Foam Designs
Seattle, WA

You might say "Well, it's the Internet, what can you do?" While it's true that people go online to lose themselves for a time - in games, in music, in chat-rooms, on social networks - they're still people, and the folks writing blogs are, too. Before you click "Send," think about the person on the other side of the connection. It would make for a much more fulfilling experience, for all involved.

Now go forth, and comment!

(More chemistry to follow, I promise!)

Thanks for reading,

See Arr Oh

No Superstars? The 'Blog Nerd' Community and 'Science Pride'

Like many in the science blogging community, I try to pay homage to the chemists who've gone before me, especially those who've found their niche and momentum. These include Derek, Ash, CJ, and recently Paul over at ChemBark, who attracts a pretty diverse, passionate, and gregarious comment base.

I took issue recently with the stance of one ChemBark commenter, eugene, who stated: 

"...I sincerely hope [the "superstar mentality"] doesn’t go to any young professors’ heads in the future. Not only will you be vastly overestimating your ‘coolness factor’ with society at large, but you should focus on the science and your job please..."

Familiar scene for the "blog nerds"
Source:  U Chicago blog Science Life

A few lines before this, eugene refers to the "hype...created by the chemistry blog nerd community." (referring, no doubt, to Chemjobber's satirical piece about Dan Nocera's move to Harvard). Let's mull on that epithet: blog nerd community. I think that, by and large, we chem-bloggers enjoy this gig, which is critical because we don't really make our living here - we're all scientists by day, and writers after hours. Our online community encourages, supports, and challenges us. And sure, we're nerds . . .didn't you hear that that's cool nowadays?

But I digress. Back to eugene's comments: "...focus on the science and your job, please." I must know, what's so wrong with wanting recognition for hard work? 

Hey, it's my grad school advisor!

You've all heard the oft-repeated stigma, chemists as introverts, passing up individual glory, monastically devoted to our work until we die at our benches, pipette in hand. There's an ingrained mentality at work here, stating that the discipline is bigger than any one scientist. Chemists write all of their procedures in passive voice, deferring credit, as if the flasks and reagents had jumped up and performed the reactions themselves. I feel like eugene's comments boil down to: "Sit down, shut up, work hard, and hope it all works out."

Derek Lowe recently wrote a telling editorial, in which he explored reasons why most students shy away from work in STEM fields. Quoth the Pipeline:

"...if money and social standing are your motivating factors, you've probably ruled out the sciences for those reasons alone...I definitely did not go into science to become rich.  

There's another factor that doesn't get as much attention as it should: It takes a certain personality type to really get into this stuff. "Yes, it does," I can hear people saying, "and it's the one that we call nerdy." That can help, true, although not all of us in the labs live the stereotype"

Happiest scientist I could find!
(Although her PPE is not quite right...)
Source: 123RF

Yes. Myself, for one: I'm firmly on the ENTJ side of the Myers-Briggs, but the thought of discovering new reactions still gets me to work in the morning. So, I ask you: why can't chemists be proud of their success? Become champions for our cause, rally around research, take credit for our role in society? If judges judge, and singers sing, why can't chemists react?


Chemists: When you go to work today, before you slip on your lab coat and gloves, pause a second to think about all the time and effort you expended to be standing in front of your hood. Enjoy it - you're a superstar.