Sciencemadness Discussion Board - www.totallysynthetic.com

www.totallysynthetic.com

Drunkguy - 9-3-2008 at 10:43

www.totallysynthetic.com

Perhaps some of you will find the above website interesting?

They certainly know how to keep their hands busy. I garduated 4 years ago and have been unemployed almost solidly ever since.

Nicodem - 9-3-2008 at 11:07

OK, organic chemists in general are weird (I should know

). They are the best collection of the most exotic neurotic symptoms I ever saw (only physicists can beat them). But you really have to be weird to become one of the total synthesis freaks. No disrespect meant to their work. What they do is fascinating and at the state of the art level, though it has no other purpose but to fascinate.
Some of these guys tend to work for 16 hours a day. The chromatographic column is their best friend and solvent vapors their drug of choice. They have no private life. They repeat reactions failure after failure, with frustrations rising sky high (the suicide rate is high). Their bosses are tyrants drinking their blood and getting all the fame and money. Yet they are humble and faithful believing that it will all pay off when they will be able to proudly say: "I did my PhD working for KCN" or any such. And they are competitive, too competitive.
And all this for some compound that some plant somewhere produces without any fuss whatsoever.

Drunkguy - 9-3-2008 at 16:42

It's all money though. Ofcourse, it's getting paid for by the government or in the industry via the profits generated through the sale of cheap products that levy an obscene profit margin. You needn't think that any of my friends who stayed on to do their PG studies actually paid for it, quite the opposite infact.

Then there is the prospect of the chemist saying they worked for "altruistic" motives to cure horrible diseases. To an extent the chemist has to be able to see "the bigger picture" and not get too hung-up on it or start taking things too seriously.

I think research never used to be like this. Flash chromatography never used to be around until 20 years ago, and its totally changed the face of research as we know it. Techniques like microwaves and zapping UV light into molecules are also "far-out" and unconventional.

I think the reason why modern research is increasingly more "wacky" than conventional research is primarily because most of the mid-range research has already been conducted.

Plus, the chemist gets a PhD that they can show off. That has got to be worth more to them than caring too much about what they actually had to do to earn their tiger stripes?

chemoleo - 9-3-2008 at 17:28

While in biochemistry (another brand of organic chemistry), the trend is completely into the other direction.
Noone wants to see quantitative analyses (binding constants, reaction rates of enzymes etc) anymore, it will at most end up in the journal of Biochemistry, if you are lucky.
These days everything is about 'ome's', like genome, proteome, interactome you name it. Using large scale chip-based analyses (i.e. of mRNA levels), which have enormous inherent problems, which are assumed but never spelled out. But it's trendy, and seen as the way forward.
Or everyting cellular is done with bloody green fluorescent protein GFP, but never mind the fact that they stick a huge 25 kDa protein on their targets, thereby altering the system while looking at it (almost a Heisenberg uncertainty problem).
Then there are the kits. THey are used like a big magic box, no-one (particularly old-timers) understands them, but they are used all the time as a tool, often introducing artefacts that are completely unrelated to the biological problem to be studied. What's worse is that none of our molecular cell biologists have any decent training in chemistry, so they happily use EDTA on zinc binding proteins (contained in said kits, but being unaware of it), completely killing the protein (unfolding it), and then go on to publish crap papers on some artefactual protein-protein interaction

The result? In my very humble opinion, probably about 50% of publications in the biological sciences are useless and utter crap, muddying the field and confusing the layman or uninvolved. I should send this to NIH

MagicJigPipe - 9-3-2008 at 17:46

Why is it that the stereotype of a chemist looking dorky seems to hold true more often then not? It's like once a chemist gets his/her bachelor's they start this transformation.

I don't care how much they cost, if I ever need glasses I'm getting contacts instead!

BTW, this site is almost useless to me as I can't access the journal articles and I honestly don't think it would be worth it to pay for access per article.

Nicodem - 9-3-2008 at 23:58

Quote:

Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
Why is it that the stereotype of a chemist looking dorky seems to hold true more often then not? It's like once a chemist gets his/her bachelor's they start this transformation.

In my opinion/experience there are two main reasons that makes scientist look pathological. The first, which is becoming more common, is the ambition which leads into self isolation and obsessions or other neurotic disorders. The other is the absent minded behavior due to constant simulation of problems in their perverted mind, absorbing most attention and making them half autistic till they behave and look like some old-time movie stereotype of a scientist.

But let's not confuse chemists in general with the total synthesis freaks. These are a different breed. They know their work has no use but to show off their skills. And they behave correspondingly. It all started before we even had single crystal XRD techniques. At those ancient times, total synthesis was the only method that could indisputably confirm the identity of an organic compound. Now this goal can be achieved with other methods, yet total synthesis evolved further. It became a method of showing off the state of the art of organic synthesis. Some kind of propaganda tightly connected with the competition in the corporate world. A lot of money is invested in making various total synthesis groups compete among themselves in who will be the first to publish the total synthesis of compound X isolated from the organism X with bioactivity X…

Ephoton - 10-3-2008 at 00:35

he drags his left foot crying im not an animal, wow what a find weird looking dude though but
hey I can dig building it all from carbon up what a way to prove mastery.
only thing I can see thats off taste is the glass of guiness ;P

I take that back

"made from ground-up Sopwith Camels"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sopwith_Camel

thats the ideal antique Al reduction material now thats taken history
seriously

ok there totaly nuts.
still I feel a kind of sick draw to finish reading what they do hmmm
best I leave the site I think

[Edited on 10-3-2008 by Ephoton]

Drunkguy - 10-3-2008 at 07:44

What articles do u want?

I have 4 invites left to wuala, ive got nearly 1GB of chemical files for u to get ur noggin to.

Just lemme know if it interests u.

Total Synthesis is down atm, but their FTP server had alot of ebooks too, but I havent bothered ULing that man ebooks onto wuala for space conservation reasons.

Drunkguy - 10-3-2008 at 08:36

Regarding total synthesis and autism.

I was reading about Aspergers syndrome recently. Some guy said something about it and I tried reading some of wikipedia about it.

Interestingly, people with Asperger's can be academically well accomplished people, it is said that only the emotional part of their personality has become impaired. Not looking people in the eyes when engaging in conversation was among the list symptoms. Also, an inability to read other peoples emotions. This one is interesting, because as a chemist/scientist I know first hand that when I try talking to people about chemistry they show little to no interest and quickly become bored and figedity, often blindly agreeing with me without even listening to what has been said, or inappropriately changing the subject to something completely nonrelated.

Finally, on wikipedia it showed a picture of a young boy messing about with chemical models somehow implying that people who are compassionate about science/chemsitry from an early age are genetically predisposed Asperger's. From as far back as I can remember I wanted to be a scientist infact. I never wanted to be a fireman or play football for example.

But I figured total synthesis is a good waying of conclusively proving the identity of a compound isolated from a living organism whose structure has been proposed based on spectroscopic data.

Still, that doesnt really explain why people would want to attempt the total synthesis of morphine since the structure of that is already well proven and it will always be cheaper to isolate this alkaloid from poppies than to make it in the lab. Often times, the identity of the molecule itself is not so important. Rather the project attempts to "show off" the skills of the organic chemist like what nicodem suggested.

Fleaker - 10-3-2008 at 16:07

Nicodem, your posts are hilarious!

Drunkguy, thanks for the link to totalsynthesis, I hadn't seen it, and have now forwarded it to some friends who are organic chemists--I'm sure they'll be amused.

I think that chemists in general tend to be loners and are more content with isolation. To a certain extent, I think we are more driven with research, particularly if it is our own and we are directing it. Many chemists jealously guard their projects, and are very possessive of research.

organometallic - 14-3-2008 at 06:55

@Nicodem: OH man!! I want to be an organic chemist, They aren't all like that? I've spent quite a bit of time at the boots the chemist labs, they seem to be fairly normal people there, althought theyre more following procedures for analysis..
I reckon I might be borderline aspergers, though,

I find that when i look at people's faces while talking to them, the visual signals confuse me and make my brain overload, whereas i would rather over analyse their words. Wierd

Drunkguy - 14-3-2008 at 08:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Fleaker
I think that chemists in general tend to be loners and are more content with isolation.

Quote:

Zumdahl, Chemical Principles, 3rd Edition, Page 1.
There are many misconceptions about the practitioners of chemistry. Many people picture a chemist as a solitary figure who works in a laboratory and does not talk to anyone else for days at a time. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many chemists do indeed work in laboratories but rarely by themselves. A typical day for a modern chemist would be spent as a member of a team solving a particular problem important to his or her company. This team might consist of chemists from various specialities, chemical engineers, development specialists, and possibly even lawyers.

I think that to a certain extent, a chemist should be made to work on their own to begin with. When you walk into an exam, you arent going to have the benefit of talking through a particular problem with workmates in the same way you did when answering tutorial question sheets.

But alot of what I know postgraduate could not have been done without the input of other peoples help, including making available to me various literature that would not have been obtainable otherwise. I mean literature is often more directly relevant to a particular exercise than books. I spent around £1500 on books between 1998-2004.

Also, when you teamwork, you find people who are not necessarily smarter that you, but they have skills that are different to your own and are often complimentary.

Christhegreat sometimes says that "we bounce ideas of eachother." Bear in mind also that it's cheaper to buy things in bulk, but also more expensive. Then you can swap various items, dpending on what they are and how well they ship.

For instance, I would swap 1kg sodium ingot for a 1kg of bromine, or vice versa.

Nicodem - 14-3-2008 at 10:57

Quote:

Originally posted by organometallic
@Nicodem: OH man!! I want to be an organic chemist, They aren't all like that? I've spent quite a bit of time at the boots the chemist labs, they seem to be fairly normal people there, althought theyre more following procedures for analysis..
I reckon I might be borderline aspergers, though,

I find that when i look at people's faces while talking to them, the visual signals confuse me and make my brain overload, whereas i would rather over analyse their words. Wierd

No, no, I was just making fun of the total synthetics. Those are just stereotypes anyway. I guess its because of their bosses are very well known names among the organic chemists and there are a bunch of anecdotes about them (like the well known C***y who is (in)famous for driving students to suicide - half fiction stories like that). Other academic organic chemists are surely also targets for stereotypes. You don't hear much about the industrial organic chemists because they are "locked away" and silent due to the restrictive contracts, but it is said their job is less stressful (though depending on corporation you work for). Then there is also the stereotype that analytic chemists are just too anal and funny stuff like that.

Otherwise, organic chemistry is surely a good decision. But you have to be aware that it is considered to be the dirtiest chemistry and very frustrating. It is also quite a risky and unhealthy work. If you can bear that, then it is just fine.

As for Aspergism among chemists, I think it is an exaggeration, just another stereotype. It might be true they are a bit more autistic than what is average for a population, but autistic symptoms can derive from many different origins, not only aspergism. Even hyperactivity (or ADHD as is called in the USA) can be reason for apparent autistic symptoms.

MagicJigPipe - 15-3-2008 at 09:31

I've noticed lately that more and more amateur and professional chemists are labeling themselves as having Asperger's. It's almost as if they are proud of it and they think it means that they are somehow smarter and more a part of the "chemistry community" because of it.

I don't consider it desirable to have a mental disorder. I mean, I'm 100% sure I don't have it but I just don't understand why it seems to be becoming the latest trend to say, "I have been diagnosed with" or "I think I have Asperger's syndrome".

Not a good thing IMO.

Drunkguy - 15-3-2008 at 11:44

No, I dont like the ideas of mental disorders anyway. I used to tell on of my friends not to play the game of being the mental patient. He had managed to get himself diagnosed with OCD at the age of 14 and was taking the highest dose of fluvoxamine to treat it. By the time I got to university he was a full-time patient in the psychiatric institution and had already tried several courses of various antidepressants, antipsychotics and sleeping pills. Coupled to this he was also a recreational drug user which he also told the doctors about.

As far as im concerned getting diagnosed with a mental condition is not going to do you any favors in hte long-run. I mean, I personally have only ever been diagnosed with depression, which was more as a consequence of wanting to try the drugs such as prozac, Lexapro and Effexor but only the last one was any good imo.

If you go to get a diagnosis, you are either going to get psychotherapy or a drug prescription or a combination of the two. I personally dislike psychothrapy AND alot of the medications used to treat depression.

I feel much happier within myself for avoiding the medical people altogether. Some people just seem to like the attention of being the "subject" even though I always thought that it was damaging to that persons career prospects.

microcosmicus - 15-3-2008 at 15:28

Quote:

I've noticed lately that more and more amateur and professional chemists are labeling themselves
as having Asperger's.

What bothers me most about this is how unscientific it is, especially for people who should know
better. In medicine, a syndrome means a specific set of symptoms. If they had observed
carefully and noted that they exhibit the appropriate symptoms then I would have no problem
with this. In fact, I would find it interesting to hear that people who happen to have this
particular syndrome are disproportionately attracted to chemistry and are good at it --- sounds
like an observation worthy of further study which might lead to some insight on how the
brain works. However, what they are doing is instead fluffy, drawing conclusions from
loose resemblances with sloppy reasoning analagous to saying "the liquid in this bottle looks
slimy and is nasty stuff, so it must be a base" but never bothering to check the pH. They would
never dream of saying that about their chemistry; they should apply similar standards to
their psychology as opposed to adding to the general confusion of pop psychology.

Quote:

I just don't understand why it seems to be becoming the latest trend to say, "I have been
diagnosed with" or "I think I have Asperger's syndrome".

As for why someone would boast about having Asperger's syndrome. one possibility is as
a way to avoid being taunted for being a geek with no life outside the lab. When people
hear that this is due at least in part to a condition of the chemist's psychological makeup,
they are likely to be sympathetic and refrain from teasing the poor chemist. Given how
nasty social pressure against technical types can get, I can see how somebody would
rather be considered as mentally defective than be teased. In this regard, this sounds to me
a lot like how members of other socially marginalized communities also sometimes will
voluntarily apply negative terms to themselves to feel identified with their communities.
There might also be some bizzare chic going on here like how romantic artists in the
nineteenth century seemed to view consumption (tuberculosis) as some sort of fashionable disease.

Personally, I don't care much for this and sometimes wish these people would show
more "geek pride". I feel confident enough about myself that, while it might upset me,
being stereotyped as a nerd is not going to really affect how I think of myself nor
do I feel compelled to justify why my idea of a fun evening might involve poring over
a math problem or staring at a computer screen or mixing and separating chemicals rather
than going to the bar to watch the football game or go to the theatre.

Quote:

only physicists can beat them

Sounds like you haven't met too many mathematicians (to say nothing about logicians)

Since I am a mathematical physicist, that should already mean my weirdness is
comparable to the theirs. Maybe I should get some organic reagents and
start doing some total syntheses in my home lab to win the prize for
weirderst scientist

Quote:

Still, that doesn't really explain why people would want to attempt the total synthesis of morphine since the structure of that is already well proven and it will always be cheaper to isolate this alkaloid from poppies than to make it in the lab. Often times, the identity of the molecule itself is not so important. Rather the project attempts to "show off" the skills of the organic chemist like what nicodem suggested.

Another motivation is simply the challenge. While I haven't done total synthesis, I have
proven theorems and I believe the motivation is similar. Even if there is no practical use
or application for it, proving a theorem or figuring out how to synthesize a chemical is an
intellectual challenge, a puzzle begging to be solved. How to get a group to attach to this
particular carbon? What to do to favor the production of a certain product over other possibilities?
Rising to such challenges is going to likely require some clever thinking outside the box not
to mention loads of trials and even more errors..
Once you get hooked on a problem and can't let go, sixteen hours doing a messy
calculation or seperating out products from a messy reaction can go by like sixteen minutes.
Oh, but then, when you finally get the right insight and finally prove the theorem or
synthesize the molcule , that "aha" moment is a high unlike anything the stuff you synthesize
produces and can make you into a theorem junkie or a synthesis junkie who lives for that moment

[Edited on 15-3-2008 by microcosmicus]

Sandmeyer - 4-4-2008 at 13:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Nicodem
OK, organic chemists in general are weird (I should know

What makes it fascinating is the complexity of the target, but this complexity is sometimes misunderstood (i.e the bigger the more fascinating). Palytoxin exemplifies this, looking at the structure can be breathtaking as far as the size of the target goes. It often stands in literature as "landmark achievement in total synthesis". While it is true that this beast is a non-peptide, its topology still allows a highly convergent attack. Being readily broken into multiple fragments (which in the forward sense can be easily assembled to give the target) the problem of each fragment is easier than the problem of say baccatin III, or even strychnine and morphine - rest is a matter of having a lot of asian phd students and protecting groups at your disposal

....

Quote:

Originally posted by Nicodem

But let's not confuse chemists in general with the total synthesis freaks. These are a different breed. They know their work has no use but to show off their skills. And they behave correspondingly. It all started before we even had single crystal XRD techniques. At those ancient times, total synthesis was the only method that could indisputably confirm the identity of an organic compound. Now this goal can be achieved with other methods, yet total synthesis evolved further. It became a method of showing off the state of the art of organic synthesis. Some kind of propaganda tightly connected with the competition in the corporate world. A lot of money is invested in making various total synthesis groups compete among themselves in who will be the first to publish the total synthesis of compound X isolated from the organism X with bioactivity X…

Yes, the X-ray and NMR have almost made total synthesis obsolete as far as the structure elucidation of natural product goes. But almost, there are structure proposals done with those techniques that are being corrected by total synthesis, even today. Of course, in most cases, currently total synthesis cannot be seriously considered as a practical and economically workable solution to supply a complex target (be it medicine or whatever), but why must total synthesis be a (cheap) source of the compound for the public? As I see it the target is only symbolic part of the actual synthetic research, natural products are attractive targets since they offer no compromise, which makes the problem extra difficult and consequently this can bring better understanding of mechanisms, pushing the existing methods to the extreme, and development of new methods.

[Edited on 5-4-2008 by Sandmeyer]