Not a surprise for some reason

Imagine reading an article on private spaceflight in New York magazine and coming across this interesting tidbit (emphasis mine):

Virgin Galactic’s CEO is a 39-year-old American named George Whitesides, who I met one evening after ISPCS. The son of a legendary chemist, he is himself a nonscientist who decided to devote his life to space one night in Tunisia, while studying women’s rights in the Islamic world on a Fulbright scholarship, when he found himself walking on the shore of the Mediterranean beneath an impossibly starry sky. He’s worked for Virgin for three years—recruited by Branson from NASA, where he served as the administrator’s chief of staff—but has been a customer for almost a decade: He and his wife, self-described “space geeks,” were among the first to set down a combined $400,000 for Virgin’s then-rather-speculative flights. It was meant, even at the time, to be a delayed honeymoon. 

George Whitesides (the senior?) is known to all as a character -- somehow not a surprise that his son would be radically different as well.

[The article is worth a read -- sounds like private spaceflight will be interesting and off-beat. I am, for the most part, a techno-optimist; I think that trends have always been towards popularizing technology that was initially only accessible to the very wealthy. All of that to say that I think that more people will be able to experience spaceflight than we ever imagined.] 

Daily Pump Trap: 5/21/13 edition

Good morning! Between May 16 and May 20, there were 51 new positions posted to the C&EN Jobs website. Of these, 2 (4%) were academically connected and 44 (86%) were from Kelly Scientific Resources.

Athens, GA: Noramco (a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary) is looking for a B.S./M.S./Ph.D. senior analytical chemist; 6+ years experience desired.

Aurora, Illinois: Aurora Specialty Textiles Group is looking for a M.S. chemist to be a senior coatings chemist. 10+ years experience desired.

Classic Kelly: "Bustling Lab Technician." (Crockett, ?) 

Ivory Filter Flask: 5/21/13 edition

Good morning! Between May 14 and May 20, there were 4 academic positions posted on the C&EN Jobs website. The numbers:

Total number of ads: 4
- Postdocs: 0
- Tenure-track faculty:  1
- Temporary faculty: 0
- Lecturer positions:  2
- Staff positions:  1
- US/non-US: 3/1

Abu Dhabi: New York University Abu Dhabi is looking for an assistant instructor for general and organic chemistry:

New York University has established a campus in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, and invites applications for several Assistant Instructor positions. We encourage applicants with experience in teaching, preferably at the undergraduate level, and in planning and conducting laboratory experiments in organic, physical and analytical chemistry. An M.S., B.S. or PhD with teaching and research experience in chemistry is preferred.

So what you're really saying is: we'll take anyone. (For those intrigued by this Abu Dhabi position, here's a recent write-up of the campus by New York magazine.)

Jupiter, FL: Scripps Florida is looking for a Ph.D. NMR core facility manager; why do they prefer local residents?

Memphis, TN: The University of Tennessee Health Science Center is looking for an assistant/associate/full professor of pharmaceutics:

The successful candidate is expected to have a strong research program in the areas of pharmaceutics, physical pharmacy, drug delivery, gene therapy, nanotechnology, nanomedicine, regenerative medicine, bio-imaging, biosensors, biomedical engineering, or other related discipline with focus on drug discovery and development. 

Casting a broad net, I see.

C&EN: Is it wise to do multiple postdocs?

My short answer: no. 

3 true things in that Beth Halford article, and one awesome industrial inconsistency

3 true things and one awesome inconsistency that I was glad to see in Beth Halford's article on the current state of the chemistry postdoctoral fellow in this week's C&EN:

It's the job market: From Kelly O. Sullivan, a very, very good point:

“The challenge that postdocs are facing is probably the same that everyone is facing: a weak job market,” says Kelly O. Sullivan, who manages the Linus Pauling Distinguished Postdoctoral Fellowships at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and is the current president of Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society.

I wonder if the senior industrial executives quoted in the article would be willing to admit that they were (or at least "the industry" or "the economy" was) part of the problem.

Hey, these salaries aren't so great: It's great to see a look at how inflation affects postdoc salaries:

Salaries reflect another disturbing development: Postdoc chemists seem to be making less money than they used to. According to the ACS survey, in 2005 the median salary for postdocs was $36,000. In 2012 it was $40,000. 

Although those numbers suggest that salaries are edging upward, they’re not when adjusted for inflation, says Gareth S. Edwards, senior research associate with the Department of Research & Member Insights at ACS. “Unfortunately, real dollar value—what that salary will buy you—is slowly decreasing, meaning that postdocs are earning less each year,” he says. From 2005 to 2012, salaries increased 11.1%, while the Consumer Price Index rose 16.1%.

I'll put my cards on the table and say that I am not one of the people who really buys into the "inflation is killing us!!!" theory of the post-recession economy and the Federal Reserve's activities. That said, inflation is still there, and it is interesting to note that like senior citizens, postdocs and other folks who rely on a stipend (that's not tied to merit, or subject to regular raises) are basically on a fixed income. Huh.

Life milestone opportunity costs: I found Jessica Breen's comments about her twin very interesting and true:

Because of the transient nature of the position, many postdocs end up putting off major life decisions, such as getting married and having children, until after they’ve finished their studies. “I have a twin sister, who I think is a good example of a normal person my age who is exactly like me but who isn’t a postdoc,” says Jessica Breen, a second-year postdoc at the University of Leeds, in England. “My sister is married. She’s got a mortgage and a house. She’s just had her first baby. I haven’t even thought about buying a house. I can’t even think about getting married because I don’t have money to do so.”

I wonder what would happen if people said, "if you do this postdoc, you're going to delay getting married or buying a house for another couple of years?" (For the most part, the answer would be, "beats starving, or continuing to be a graduate student.")

Check out this massive disagreement between Dow's Banholzer, DuPont and Vertex: Remember the Banholzer Award, where Dow's William Banholzer said this?:

But you'll notice that a history of postdocing is not among the characteristics that appear in Banholzer's description. "I don't think I need to hire postdocs," he told PCAST. A Ph.D. earned under an excellent professor is sufficient education, he says, because Dow provides newly hired scientists its own training for the work that they will be doing. "They sort of get their postdoc on the job," he notes. 

Here's what other industrial executives think:

Industrial employers’ opinions are more variable, but they still give postdocs an edge. “It is a slight positive but by no means necessary for our jobs,” says Gary S. Calabrese, senior vice president at Corning. “If there is a particular technical need we have and someone has the right skills, it does not matter if it came through their Ph.D. or a postdoc. Having said this, of course those with postdoctoral experience are by definition broader and have a greater chance of being a technical match for us.” 

Pat N. Confalone, vice president of DuPont Crop Protection, tells C&EN that although a postdoc isn’t a requirement to get a job at DuPont, it is a definite plus. “All things being equal, someone who has a postdoc is going to be more attractive to industry than someone without a postdoc,” he says. 

“The majority of applicants that we see have postdoctoral experience,” adds Mark Namchuk, senior vice president of research for North America with Vertex Pharmaceuticals. “A postdoc is not essential, but it is becoming the norm. Aside from the additional experience, it often provides diversification of a scientist’s skill set.”

First, I think "those with postdoctoral experience are by definition broader" is a potential stretch. What is the evidence of this? I think that graduate students and their doctoral and postdoctoral advisers are well-served to make sure that's true.

I think the true test is this: are chemists with postdocs paid more in industry or hired faster than those who do not? I think I have made the case before that there is a potential opportunity cost in salary to taking a postdoc; as I said then, if it helps you get you hired, then it's worth it.

Readers, what do you think? 

NAS study on academic chemical safety to begin

Also from this week's C&EN, a report by Jeff Johnson that the National Academy of Sciences is going to look into academic chemical safety:

Safety in academic and other nonindustrial chemical research laboratories will be the focus of a yearlong investigation by a National Academy of Sciences committee, which held its first meeting last week in Washington, D.C. The study will consider how safe lab practices can be promoted in academic and government labs, explained H. Holden Thorp, committee chairman, chemistry professor, and chancellor of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 

The examination sprang from numerous chemistry-related lab accidents, particularly ones at the University of California, Los Angeles, in December 2008, and Texas Tech University in January 2010. Since the Texas Tech incident, 65 accidents* (see update) have occurred at academic and government chemical research labs, according to Mary Beth Mulcahy, a Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) investigator who spoke at the meeting. Those accidents injured 136 and killed two.

Several speakers stressed anecdotal evidence indicating that industrial labs are safer than nonindustry labs. But little hard data emerged to demonstrate or explain the proposed difference. The committee will investigate if such differences are real, and if so, whether industry safety measures can be applied to nonindustry labs.

There have been two deaths in academic and government chemical research labs since TTU in January 2010. One of them is likely Michelle Dufault, the student who died in a Yale machine shop. The other? I am not sure. Anyone know which incident Dr. Mulcahy might be referring to?* (see update)

I'm looking forward to a statistical look by NAS on the differences between academic and industrial labs; I'm tired of the anecdotal evidence.

UPDATE: Jyllian Kemsley writes in the comments:

CJ, we erred in how we framed that statistic. It should be "65 accidents have occurred at academic, government, and industrial chemical research labs." We're working on correcting the story. 

Regarding the two deaths, Mulcahy doesn't count Dufault because the incident occurred in a machine shop rather than a chemistry lab. The two deaths are: 

- Adrian Martin, Membrane Technology & Research, gas cylinder explosion
- Unidentified Battelle contractor, Aberdeen Proving Ground, lab explosion and fire 

There's one more lab death that Mulcahy doesn't count, because it was microbiology rather than chemistry: Richard Din, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, bacterial infection contracted from the lab.

Thanks to Jyllian for the fast response.

BASF to expand its worldwide research spending

From this week's C&EN, an article on BASF by Alex Scott that might be good news for U.S. chemical-industry jobseekers over the next few years:

The Americas and Asia will each get 25% of BASF’s research budget and scientists by 2020 under a plan being advanced by Andreas Kreimeyer, BASF’s board member responsible for research. The company now conducts most of its research in Europe, but to get closer to its customers and work with the world’s best scientists, it must venture outside the Continent, according to Kreimeyer. [snip]

...BASF already increased its R&D spending outside Europe by 3% in 2012 with the opening of seven new labs and the extension of existing labs in Asia-Pacific and the U.S. For example, the firm launched its Innovation Campus Asia Pacific in Shanghai for up to 450 scientists. It’s also rolling out a research center for battery materials in Amagasaki, Japan, opening a mining R&D center in Perth, Australia, and has plans to introduce an R&D center in India. 

BASF has “substantially strengthened” its R&D efforts in the Americas, Kreimeyer said. Notable U.S. projects include a new lab in Wyandotte, Mich., for developing thermoplastic polyurethanes in cooperation with customers in the automotive, building, construction, and sports industries across North America. 

Also in the U.S., BASF, in association with Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of Massachusetts, recently inaugurated the American Center for Research on Advanced Materials. Over the next five years, the partners aim to develop microstructures and nanostructured polymers with new properties and come up with bioinspired materials.

Well, that's certainly good news for Michigan, it seems. The academic/industrial collaboration model seems to be alive and well these days, no? It will be very interesting to see how it works out for the industry over the next 5 to 10 years. 

Hey, that's not the right data!

Some of you may have seen this James Hicks article in The Scientist, where he shows a graph that seems to correlate high notices of retractions with low NIH grant success rates. Interesting idea, right?

Unfortunately, Nature reporter Richard Van Noorden (the collector of some of the data used in the graph) notes that Professor Hicks did not use the most relevant data for his retractions (i.e. US retractions, funded by the NIH) for his graph. When you do, the correlation is not nearly so clear.

I agree with Richard that the hypothesis is sound (i.e. as it gets more difficult to get funded, the incentive to cheat goes up), but it remains unproven. 

Man, I want to go to China someday to give a talk

From international political economy professor Daniel Drezner, a comment on being paid honoraria for speaking in China:

1) From a personal perspective, as the occasional visitor to China, I can confirm the wads of cash thing -- but it's a bit more complicated than Barboza suggests. First of all, for U.S. academics at least, the payment isn't in renminbi, but in U.S. dollars. Renminbi is sometimes dispensed for things like per diem reimbursements, but not for honoraria. After all, officially, the RMB is still not convertible to dollars outside of the country, so it wouldn't be very nice to get paid in a currency that is technically useless outside the People's Republic. 

There are two other qualifiers here. First, at least with respect to academic honoraria, it's not just China that pays in cash -- so does Japan, for example. Second, speaking as an academic who's received the occasional honorarium, it's friggin' awesome. At some point, someone takes you aside and gives you an envelope stuffed with bills. I know it's impolite to say, but every time it happens, I feel like I'm an earner in Tony Soprano's crew. It's soooooo much more satisfying than getting a check (as is the norm in the U.S.) or receiving a bank transfer three months later than it should be and only after haranguing someone a few times (as is the norm in Europe). 

Having just worked in the United States, I haven't had the pleasure of being paid in cash. (I've been paid in work experience and donuts -- why do you ask?) Whenever I go to the ATM to pull out a couple hundred bucks when we go on vacation, I always feel a little weird.

Readers, what's the best way you've been paid?

Awesome, enraging articles to read

This day has been busy (as you might be able to tell), but a few things to talk about:

• This C&EN article by Beth Halford on the current state of the postdoc and the problem of chemists taking multiple postdocs is definitely worth a read and worth further comment. I love the quotes from senior industrial folks; it'll be great to see how their opinions match with how their companies have been hiring. 
• Derek Lowe has a couple of great comments today:
• The first, about an Atlantic article that talks about the problems with getting Western pharmaceutical companies to address neglected/tropical diseases. Derek has some problems with the article, naturally. I do too, especially with the thought that the solution to the problem is getting the global (i.e. non-developed world's) pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity to solve the problem. 
• Coincidentally, the second great comment is about Fortune magazine's fantastic exposé of the quality issues and outright fraud that was happening at Ranbaxy's plants in India for about a decade. For example, they were using submitting bioequivalence data to the FDA using drug manufactured by brand-name companies or competitors. After reading that article, I am not sure how Ranbaxy has managed to stay in business. 

All three of these articles deserve your attention (and mine!)

It's a simple question: do you care about your people, or your career?

Nick Palmisciano is a former infantry officer in the U.S. Army. At the start of an interesting set of comments about being a new Army infantry officer (engagingly titled "Don't Be A Douche"), an interesting comment on caring about your people:

2.) Your guys are more important than your career.  

This ties in nicely with my last point, but it is worthy of its own bullet.  You’re all going to be civilians someday, no matter how much you love the military or how long you serve.  Years from now, the fact that you made Colonel or Sergeant Major won't erase the fact that you threw some unsuspecting subordinate under the bus to avoid punishment, and it certainly won't remove a stupid decision you made based on pressure from above that got someone killed or injured.  Every leader I've ever respected has been willing to stand in the Gates of Fire when it mattered.  If you're not willing to do this for your people, be honest with yourself and quit.  Join corporate America – you'll just annoy people, not get them killed, and you'll make more money.  Everyone wins.

I'm reminded of (former Marine commandant) Al Gray's comment to The Basic School in Tom Ricks' great book Making the Corps:

What bothers him most about today's military, he goes on to say, is careerism. It has eroded the other services  he warns, and is creeping into the Corps. The only thing you should worry about, he tells the assembled second lieutenants, is taking care of your people. In fact, he recommends adding one new little box to the officer evaluation reports: It would say, Does this officer care more about his career than about his troops? A "yes" mark would terminate that officer's career. 

Obviously, the evaluation criteria for officers in the military and managers in the chemical and pharmaceutical industries are very different. The military expects 'leadership' (a vague term, to be sure) out of its officers and senior non-commissioned officers as a primary responsibility; that's not necessarily the case for the business world.

However, I believe that direct reports can sense when supervisors and managers see them as valued members of a team (not, I note, just by referring to them as "a team") and not human data collection devices that will provide information/products/processes that will lead to greater corporate glory.*

I'm not naive enough to think that there isn't a mutual benefit aspect to this, of course. A good way to move up in the world is "make your boss look good." (Making your boss look bad, of course, is a good way to move down as well.) Direct reports are very, very good at sensing when that "mutual benefit" is out of balance, and they're even better at sensing when managers are actively taking credit for results and decisions that they did not make.

I agree with General Gray -- larger organizations should take note of the potential careerism of their employees and incorporate it into their evaluations of managers. I am, of course, hopelessly naive.

*This is probably where industry's long-time model for scientific administration may be failing. It is usually the case that the person at the top is some combination of "the smartest scientist" and "the most senior person" and "the person most likely to make good decisions." Somehow, that got translated into "to be a people manager/supervisor, you probably need a Ph.D." Academics don't teach leadership/mentorship skills to their graduate students, and I am not sure that they should. 

Daily Pump Trap: 5/16/13 edition

Good morning! Between May 14 and May 15, there were 15 jobs posted on the C&EN Jobs website. Of these, 2 (13%) were academically connected and 9 (60%) were from Kelly Scientific Resources.

Zeroes!: Vertex (Cambridge, MA) continues its run of hiring with a B.S./M.S./Ph.D. chemical development position. 0-3+ years experience for Ph.D.s, 5+ for M.S., 8+ for B.S. positions.

San Jose, CA: Energy Storage Stealth is a startup, doing something very interesting that I can't quite tell what it is...:

We are a new start-up, located in San Jose, California, that is working on a fundamental disruption in the field of energy storage. The company seeks to change the paradigm in energy storage by developing a completely new class of electrical energy storage device. If successful, the technology could revolutionize the industry. We are backed by top VC firms. 

Gotta love the buzzwords. Description of the position:

The candidate will own the formulation development process and scale up production of inks, slurries, and chemical process solutions.  The candidate is required to identify conditions and variables for formulation stability and quality, and undertake continuous process improvement using statistical DOE.  This person will develop a qualification process and a characterization infrastructure for formulations and must be familiar with SPC environment.  The candidate is expected to identify, specify, purchase, and implement process and equipment for scale up.  The ideal candidate is self-motivated, team oriented, can work independently and in teams, and is seeking an atmosphere conducive to learning and growth.

What's weird about it is that the pay is listed as $160-$180. What's that about? Oh, and this too: "Additional Salary Information: start-up so equity play"

A broader look: Monster, Careerbuilder, Indeed and USAjobs.gov show (respectively) 241, 730, 2751 and 14 positions for the search term "chemist." LinkedIn shows 99 positions for the job title "chemist", with 4 for "organic chemist", 14 for "analytical chemist" and 10 for "research chemist."

Bonus via LinkedIn: Nintendo of America is looking for a QC chemist, I think. 

Resolved: Applying to Advertised Postdoctoral Positions May Be Unwise. Discuss.

I would like to hear people's opinions about advertised academic (i.e. non-industrial) postdoctoral positions. Isn't it a truism to say that most of the desirable postdoctoral employers do not advertise, yet still manage to fill their labs with armies of fellows?

Aren't advertised academic positions basically saying, "We can't find anyone who wants to work for me unbidden?" Is there anything wrong with that? Assistant professors and such gotta start somewhere, right?

So it might be good for the professor to get experienced hands in the lab. Is it good for the postdoc? I'm not so sure. Even if they manage to do awesome science (and of course, they will), will their employer have the influence to get their postdoc a good next position?

Readers, what say you? 

Wrong sample causes retraction

From Retraction Watch, a very interesting explanation from a Chinese group (Yang, UST-China, Hefei):

We recently published a paper entitled “s-wave superconductivity in Ba-doped phenanthrene as revealed by specific-heat measurements.” The sample studied in that paper as Ba1.5-doped phenanthrene is now found to be La-doped phenanthrene. This error was caused by mislabeling the La-doped phenanthrene sample as Ba1.5-doped phenanthrene. During our experiment, we synthesized La- and Ba-doped phenanthrene in the same furnace because both of them have the same sintering temperatures and procedures. The mislabeling occurred when the samples were taken out of the furnace with incorrect records. In addition, it is now found that both Ba- and La-doped phenanthrene show similar superconducting transition temperatures. 

In an earlier paper, we reported superconductivity in Ba-doped phenanthrene. At that time, we had not yet begun synthesizing La-doped phenanthrene samples, so it was impossible to have made a similar mislabeling error. Furthermore, we burned the superconducting Sr-doped and Ba-doped phenanthrene samples reported in the earlier paper at 750°C in air for 2 h and found that the final products were SrCO₃ and BaCO₃, respectively, which definitely proves that the samples in the earlier paper, indeed, have the composition reported there. 

We are sorry for this error, and we ask that the paper not be regarded as part of the scientific literature. The data in the retracted paper with the correct reanalysis may be reported in a different paper, and the conclusions could be considered valid for La-doped phenanthrene.

Assuming that this is an accurate reporting, I am in some amount of sympathy with the authors. Mislabeling of samples happens -- but it shouldn't make it all the way into a paper.  

Daily Pump Trap: 5/14/13 edition

Good morning! Between May 9 and May 13, there have been 59 new positions posted on the C&EN Jobs website. Of these, 5 (8%) are academically connected and 28 (47%) were from Kelly Scientific Resources.

This job is probably awesomer than yours: From NASA (Greenbelt, MD):

The Astrochemistry Laboratory, in Greenbelt, Maryland, is seeking a research scientist to provide expertise in studies of trace materials in complex organic compounds of astrobiological and cosmochemical interest.  You will serve as a Research Physical Scientist in the Astrobiology Analytical Lab, a state-of-the-art analytical laboratory that specializes in the characterization of organic and biochemical materials that could precede the development of life or that could be derived from fossil life either on Earth or throughout the solar system. 

Studies include analyses of natural samples of amino acids and other organic materials extracted from meteorites, interplanetary dust particles, material returned via NASA missions, and analog samples utilizing chromatography and mass spectrometry.  Work also includes development of advanced in situ methods and organic detection instrumentation for future planetary missions.  Research requires the analysis of small and precious samples and careful techniques to understand and limit organic contamination. 

Requirements: A record of successful planetary proposals and peer-reviewed publications is required.  Bachelors degree required, PhD in a relevant field is preferred.  Candidates must have experience in characterizing organic and biochemical materials to investigate questions of astrochemical and astrobiological interest related to the Origin of Life using chromatography and mass spectrometry, method development for the analysis of small organic compounds, and handling of precious, often irreplaceable samples.  U.S. citizenship required. 

The kicker: $89,033.00 - 136,771.00 offered. (Best wishes to the 4 or 5 people who are qualified for this position...)

Midland, MI: Dow Corning is looking for a M.S./Ph.D. chemist to be a product development chemist; experience in silicone synthesis and coatings desired.

Waltham, MA: Alkermes is looking for an analytical postdoc for solid-state pharmaceutical chemistry.

Akron, OH: Bridgestone America is looking for materials scientists towards tires:

Researchers at this location are primarily dedicated to the development of new materials for tires and other applications and are working cooperatively with scientists and engineers at our three major Technical Centers in Akron, Tokyo, and Rome. For the Materials Scientist position, qualified candidates are preferred to have a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering, Polymer Science, Physics, Materials Science and Engineering, or a related field with desired experience in the polymer/soft matter area. Solid academic training, creativity, and problem-solving abilities are essential for the position. 

Could be interesting.

Shimadzu: They're on a relative hiring spree, with 7 new positions across the country.

Iowa City, IA: It's abundantly clear that P&G wants a Q.C. experienced A.A./B.S. chemist to do more quality control work in a plant. Why not just write that instead of 100 words of nonsense?

Oh, Kelly: When you start a sales job ad with "no cold calling!", it's gonna be a good one. 

Ivory Filter Flask: 5/14/13 edition

Good morning! Between May 7 and May 13, there were 9 academic positions posted on C&EN Jobs. The numbers:

Total number of ads: 9
- Postdocs: 1
- Tenure-track faculty:  5
- Temporary faculty: 0
- Lecturer positions:  2
- Staff positions:  1
- US/non-US: 7/2

Cleveland, MS: Delta State University is hiring an assistant/associate professor of biochemistry. (Wasn't there some sort of vaguely famous restaurant in that town? I saw it on CBS Sunday Morning a while back.)

Princess Anne, MD: The University of Maryland - Eastern Shore campus is hiring an assistant professor of medicinal chemistry.

Savannah, GA: Armstrong Atlantic State University is hiring an assistant professor of organic chemistry.

Saudi Arabia?: This little ad from the University of Akron is pretty fun:

University Innovation Ventures (UIV) in cooperation with The University of Akron Research Foundation is seeking highly qualified candidates with demonstrated leadership and elastomer teaching capabilities to instruct at a new world-class English-based vocational training institute in The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). The High Institute for Elastomer Industries (HIEI) opened in September 2012 training technologists to work in the nascent elastomer industry in Saudi Arabia: http://www.hiei.edu.sa/DefaultE.aspx.

 Sounds interesting, mostly. Might be an adventure...

What are the economics of rare disease research?

Also in this week's C&EN, Lisa Jarvis has a series of very interesting stories on rare diseases: their funding models, the regulatory hurdles and the families that have become advocates in Congress and in industry for their children. The story starts with a very affecting anecdote about some boys getting some medicine:

The boys have Hunter syndrome, a rare and fatal genetic disease caused by a deficiency in an enzyme that breaks down sugar molecules. The missing enzyme is just one of more than 100 housed in the lysosome, the cell’s waste bin. Today, some 50 different inherited diseases—known broadly as lysosomal storage diseases—are caused by genetic mutations that disable one of those enzymes. In Hunter syndrome, which affects only boys, the buildup of sugar molecules over time causes symptoms such as stiff joints, enlarged spleens, and difficulty breathing. For children like Justin and Jason, who have a form of the disease that affects the brain, the accumulation also causes a rapid decline in mental function. And it’s rare—just one in 155,000 boys are born with the disease. 

Elaprase replaces the missing enzyme, iduronate-2-sulfatase, buying the boys valuable time by shrinking their spleens and helping their heart and lungs function. Yet it won’t save their lives. Elaprase can’t get past the blood-brain barrier, the cellular security gate that protects our most complex organ, so it can’t stop the mental deterioration that will cause the boys to lose their ability to walk and talk. Most boys with Hunter syndrome die by age 15. 

Elaprase is also breathtakingly expensive. As his sons run in circles through the kitchen and living room, Jeff Leider holds up a small glass vial filled with clear liquid. “That’s, like, $10,000 right there,” he says, eying the bottle with a mix of awe and disbelief. Having two kids with Hunter syndrome who need several vials per treatment, the Leiders’ annual bill approaches $1 million. Deena’s insurance covers the bulk of the cost, and Shire, the drug’s manufacturer, takes care of the rest through a patient assistance program.

First, I cannot imagine what these parents are going through. Wow -- my heart breaks for them.

Second, I wonder how the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance companies will manage to work out this delicate interplay for these rare diseases. How can insurers bear these very high costs for modern pharmaceuticals, which seem to be astronomically expensive? Jarvis does note that the insurers seem be playing ball for now...:

But the naysayers were proven wrong. The Food & Drug Administration approved the drug in 1994, and Genzyme charged an unprecedented $200,000 per year. Although insurance companies balked at the cost, they eventually agreed to cover it. Companies like Genzyme ensured patient access by introducing assistance programs that helped families with potentially high copays.

Insurance companies are not exactly some of America's most loved corporations. That said, one wonders how long that they'll be able to afford these sorts of treatments -- especially if governments keep broadening mandates for insurance coverage and (perhaps rightly so) limiting their ability to extricate themselves from covering undesirable, unfortunate policyholders who happen to have rare diseases that are expensive to treat. (I suspect that, in reality, it's not a large enough group to put a hole in their margins too badly.)

Also, with this rare disease stuff, I wonder if this means that we're going spend more time and resources curing the rare diseases of the families who have the social capital to advocate for their sick loved ones than those who don't. Something tells me no. I suspect the overlap between "rare diseases of people who can advocate well" and "rare diseases that are tractable to modern pharmaceuticals" is very, very small and no larger than the overlap between "tractable rare diseases" and "rare diseases of people with little social capital." Probably a good thing, that.

This week's C&EN

Lots of interesting random items in this week's C&EN:

• The survey of the top 50 chemical firms seems to indicate optimism from Wall Street, even though the fundamental numbers are sort of meh. (by Alex Tullo)
• There has got to be historical data for ocean pH, right? 
• Professor Geraldine Richmond and Dr. Celeste Rohlfing talk work-life balance.
• Beth Halford writes about chemistry classes for non-majors; they sound fun, for sure. 

Sheets of aluminum foil

A list of small, useful things (links):

• I found this article on the health effects of chronic exposure to flavoring chemicals to be thought-provoking
• I learned a lot from this John Spevacek post on plastics recycling.
• Vittorio is definitely the best video maker in the chemblogosphere.
• Does America need a science laureate? If so, who?, asks See Arr Oh (I dunno, really.)
• Th'Gaussling has some tough news -- go and wish him well.
• Kenneth Hanson's series on getting a faculty position is pretty great.
• How do you hold your spatula?, asks Brandon Findlay.
• Deborah Blum, on a cyanide death in Pittsburgh.
• Chad Jones does a nice job debunking quack Joseph Mercola. 
• Tom Barton wants to hear from you on fracking. 
• This little comment on the effects of anti-coagulants was horrifying. (Perhaps I am squeamish.)
• This is the funniest comment I've read all month -- shows a real knowledge of that genre. 

Readers, did I miss anything? 

Have a great weekend!

A sad, puzzling #altchemjobs anecdote

From Sam Stein of The Huffington Post, an interesting anecdote in a story about young scientists and their issues with the current federal funding climate:

One particularly jarring example of this brain drain, recounted by two independent sources, took place in the summer and fall of 2012. A young researcher in the Midwest with a Ph.D. in chemistry from a prominent state school had been left unemployed after the project on which she had worked didn't get a follow-up grant. Three months of attempting to find research or academic work produced no results. With no other options, she rewrote her resume, stripping it of any mention of her Ph.D., and began applying elsewhere. Within a week, she had secured a job as a secretary at an auto parts company. 

The Huffington Post tracked down the researcher, "Rebecca," who asked that her real name not be used out of concern that it could jeopardize her current employment. Rebecca confirmed her story. Now an executive at the auto parts company, she recalled the abrupt end to her previous career as a "depressing" moment, filled with uncertainty. 

"It is possible that I could have gone to another college and gotten another post doc, but that's a temporary position," Rebecca said. "When I started way back in the day, this was the field to go into ... it is a much different field today."  

Despite 11 years of education (five as an undergrad, six for her Ph.D.) and aspirations of being a chemist, Rebecca said she has left science for good. She is happy with life outside the lab. Her company takes good care of her. 

"They are already scared I'm not there to stay because they know I'm bright," she said. "They just don't how bright."

I wonder what pushed her to make this decision? It very clearly sounds like Rebecca wants out of science, which is understandable. Well, here's hoping that she is happy with her current position.

[One notes that the current funding climate wasn't so great in summer/fall 2012, but the sequester didn't start until 2013.]

Best wishes to her, and to all of us. 

Patrick Harran pleads not guilty on 4 felony counts, LADA adds one more count to previous 3

From C&EN's Michael Torrice, the latest from the #SheriSangji case:

University of California, Los Angeles, chemistry professor Patrick Harran was arraigned today on four felony charges of violating the state labor code. A Los Angeles County judge entered a not guilty plea on Harran’s behalf for all four counts. The charges stem from the death of research assistant Sheharbano (Sheri) Sangji from injuries sustained in a 2008 fire in the professor’s lab. 

Another judge ruled last month that Harran should face trial on three charges, each citing a violation of a separate state safety regulation: failure to correct unsafe workplace conditions and procedures in a timely manner, failure to require work-appropriate clothing and personal protective equipment, and failure to provide chemical safety training to employees. The Los Angeles County District Attorneys added a fourth charge that essentially expanded on the clothing and protective equipment charge. 

The new charge is for violating occupational safety regulation 3383(a), which states “body protection may be required for employees whose work exposes parts of their body, not otherwise protected as required by other orders in this article, to hazardous or flying substances or objects.” The original charge cited part (b) of that regulation: “Clothing appropriate for the work being done shall be worn. Loose sleeves, tails, ties, lapels, cuffs, or other loose clothing which can be entangled in moving machinery shall not be worn.”

The fourth charge is new and interesting news; one suspects that it is the district attorney playing hardball in plea negotiations.

The next court date (to determine how much time both sides need before the trial) will be on June 27.