Intermediates are important, too.

Photo credit: Washington Post/TWP, Popserious.com



In Derek Lowe's post on SixSigma! (snerk) in drug discovery and how chemists tend to work as individuals instead of a team, Kay writes:

The problem with working on a "group" project is that the person who makes the final compound often gets the credit for the work, since their name is on the compound. If you are a lower level chemist, you may get shuttled off to do scale-up, and if you stay there long enough, it can derail your career. You may be doing work that is crucial for the team, but it tends to be invisible work that may not be recognized when it comes to raises and promotions. At the small company where I worked, it led to a lot of competition and infighting among the chemists.

I hate to admit it, but I have also found this to be the case. The person who does all the intermediate steps, purifications and chromatography often seems to be little more than a lab sherpa, humping molecules through a five step synthesis for the med-chem glamor folks. The person who tacks on a head-group with a Suzuki and registers the compound seems to be the important one. (N.B. I am obviously oversimplifying here.)

This is not quite right, in my humble opinion. Armies can't fight without their logisticians, and medicinal chemistry teams can't make new drugs without that gal down the hall who did the 100 gram Sonogashira. I think there's a lot to be said for the team approach to chemistry projects, but until people learn to really, truly share credit, it's going to be every man and woman for themselves. (And just putting their name on the obligatory acknowledgements slide just doesn't cut it, all you Powerpoint chemists.)

UPDATE: Okay, okay, it wasn't the first hit, it was the fourth hit. What, you want dejected Patriots? No, these are hard-working chemists I'm trying to analogize here! You want linemen! and blocking sleds! (even if they are terrible....)