Tips, angry comments, suggestions wanted

I don't often say this, but it's true. My e-mail address (chemjobber -at- gmaildotcom) is at the top left hand part of this page, and if you want to talk to me directly, feel free to e-mail.

I'm thinking of putting "coaching carousel" feature in the Ivory Filter Flask, to note the holes that are created by professors moving between schools. So, if you have gossip to share, I'm all ears. Confidentiality, of course, is guaranteed. 

Ivory Filter Flask: 10/30/12 edition

Between September 23 and September 29, there were 33 academic positions posted on the ACS website. The numbers:

Total number of ads: 33
- Postdocs: 2
- Tenure-track faculty:  29
- Temporary faculty: 1
- Lecturer positions:  0
- Staff positions:  1
- US/non-US: 29/4

Davenport, IA: The St. Ambrose University is looking for an assistant professor, looking mainly at the analytical side. 

Plattsburgh, NY: SUNY College at Plattsburgh is hiring an assistant professor of organic and general chemistry. 50k minimum -- woowoo! (Holy cow, never mind -- the median household income in the town is 28k. You should be just fine.)

Huntingdon, PA: Juniata College is looking for an assistant professor of physical chemistry.

Nanjing, China: It's rather interesting that Nanjing University is touting its new institute through ACS Careers, and its connection with a Nobel Laureate:

The Institute of Chemistry and BioMedical Sciences (ICBMS) which is led by Drs. Aaron Ciechanover (the 2004 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry) and Guigen Li, seeks applications for 4-6 tenure track and tenured faculty positions in chemistry and biology at all levels. 

When will the first name-brand US professor of chemistry get handed an institute in China? It's coming, I'll bet.

Router down; CJ cut off

Our wireless is not behaving. Back ASAP. DPT/IFF and more to come.

Best wishes to East Coast readers

...to all my East Coast readers, riding out Hurricane Sandy. Hope all is well, and that you and yours are safe. 

My one clever comment of the day: "Somewhere on the East Coast in a chemistry building, there's a foreign postdoc in the lab, wondering "Where is everybody?"

"Academic publishes anti-cancer tool compound, details at 11"

Just got my new copy of The Atlantic Weekly, with the "Brave Thinkers" section. In it, there's an interesting and slightly hagiographic short profile of Professor Jay Bradner, a physician and chemical biologist (emphasis mine):

Two years ago, after Jay Bradner made a remarkable breakthrough—the discovery of a molecule that, in mice, appeared to trick certain cancer cells into becoming normal cells—he did something unusual. Instead of huddling with lawyers to file for a patent on the molecule, Bradner simply gave his work away. Hoping to get the discovery into the hands of any scientist who could advance it, he published the structure of the compound (called JQ1) and mailed samples to labs around the world. The move, he says, felt like “the more efficient way to do science—and maybe the more honorable way.” 

The open-source approach Bradner adopted is revolutionary in a culture where discoveries are kept secret, often until they can be tested, manufactured, and sold as treatments—a cruelly long process in the face of the cancers he studies. 

The monopoly on developing the molecule that Bradner walked away from would likely have been worth a fortune (last year, the median value for U.S.-based biotech companies was $370 million). Now four companies are building on his discovery—which delights Bradner, who this year released four new molecules. “For years, drug discovery has been a dark art performed behind closed doors with the shades pulled,” he says. “I would be greatly satisfied if the example of this research contributed to a change in the culture of drug discovery.”

Walked away! A fortune!

I was even more amused to read a somewhat different description of the compound from C&EN's Carmen Drahl in 2010: "We consider JQ1 a tool compound,” Knapp says. “It allows us to study how these readers participate in the development of disease.” Dana-Farber has filed for patents on (+)-JQ1 derivatives that might inspire drugs to treat diseases." Recent readers of C&EN will remember that JQ1 has other bioactivity as well: "In a paper published last month, the scientists showed that JQ1 causes reversible infertility in male mice (Cell, DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2012.06.045). Now Bradner and Matzuk plan to use JQ1 as a lead compound to produce a second generation of compounds that are specific to BRDT."

I believe (and hope!) that most of the tone of this profile comes from Dan Morrell, the author of the piece, who may not be familiar with the unlikely odds and various hurdles (oral bioavailability issues, as noted in Prof. Bradner's TED talk on JQ1) that any one particular compound faces on its way to becoming a drug.

Prof. Bradner should be commended for his science and his willingness to rapidly publish his work*, but he need not be praised for walking away from a pile o' pharma cash. It may not have been there in the first place.

*As well as providing samples of JQ1! For one reason or another, this long-time aspect of biology (the mailing of plasmids and the like) has not penetrated broadly into chemistry. (Of course, it probably has something to do with our culture of I-can-make-it-myself.)

C&EN on flame retardants

This week in C&EN, a great set of articles on (drumroll) flame retardants. It makes for some pretty interesting reading, especially William Schulz's profile of Dr. Arlene Blum, one of the most prominent activists (and chemists -- she did her doctorate with Bruce Ames) against brominated flame retardants:

Fire-safety experts and other people who oppose Blum’s campaign—and who have called for a more reasoned analysis of the fire-safety science on flame retardants—say she brushes them aside as disqualified to provide expert opinion because of current, previous, or inconsequential chemical industry ties. They say Blum and her supporters shout them down at public workshops or refuse to engage in dialogue over the issues and the science. Worse, they say, Blum is promoting false information about fire safety from flame retardants via a high-visibility media campaign that stokes fear of chemicals that have been used for decades and have saved the lives of tens of thousands of people in the U.S. who have been the victims of home fires... 

[snip] Blum and other scientists insist that a growing body of evidence indicates that the brominated flame-retardant chemicals used in upholstered furniture may, in some cases, be endocrine disrupters or have neurological and other health effects that make them unacceptable for use in everyday objects like sofas and chairs. Such flame retardants, she says, tend to accumulate in tissues and have been detected in the blood of adults and children. 

“There are some 3,700 peer-reviewed papers on flame-retardant chemicals’ toxicity,” Blum says emphatically. Children especially, she says, should have very limited—if any—exposure to compounds that might damage their physical and intellectual development or leave them more vulnerable to other chronic health problems...

[snip] When asked if there could be differing interpretations of what is a large and complex body of data on the efficacy of flame retardants, Blum snaps, “I am not a fire scientist. This is such a broad field. There are about 10 disciplines involved.” 

Blum says that other ways to prevent deaths from upholstered-furniture fires—improved building codes, reduced cigarette smoking, and increased use of sprinkler systems, for example— undermine the case for using flame-retardant chemicals.

Similar to Dr. Blum, I don't really fully understand all the fire science behind flame retardants. Certainly, it would seem that both cigarette smoking and fire incidents are being statistically reduced over time, and that maybe flame retardant use could follow. It also doesn't help the situation when the chemical industry has resorted to less-than-honest tactics when promoting flame retardants.

However, I'm less than convinced by the evidence of toxicity (I would say that, wouldn't I?). But that hasn't stopped activists from making bold claims about neurotoxicity of flame retardants or making suggestions that sound like terrible tradeoffs (from Cheryl Hogue's article on EPA's approach to BFRs):

“Alternatives abound,” says Kathleen A. Curtis, national coordinator for the Alliance for Toxic-Free Fire Safety. The group is a coalition of activists who support techniques to reduce or eliminate the need to add flame-retardant compounds to products. Alternatives include increased use of sprinklers and smoke detectors, fire-safe cigarettes, and hiring more firefighters, she says. Improvements in product design are also an option, such as use of inherently fire-resistant materials—nonwoven polyester fibers, for example—or barriers between highly flammable materials such as foams and the outer fabric coverings of furniture, Curtis tells C&EN.

Urrrr? That sounds quite expensive, and unlikely to happen (what's the likelihood over the next 20 years that we (as a country) are going to be hiring more, as opposed to less firefighters?)

Readers, been igniting your couches recently? What are your thoughts on flame retardants?

Woodward's Last Route

(Context: Jeff Seeman's real and truly amazing collection of personal notes from famous professors of chemistry in Professor Tetsuo Nozoe's autograph books. Also, this.) 

Death of A Project

Does anyone have a good way to cope with the sudden loss of a big project? We all know that it can happen in this business: IP doesn't work out, if trials fail, or customers change suppliers. I am reminded (depressingly, of course) of Robert Scott's comments after he found that Amundsen has made it to the South Pole first:

It is a terrible disappointment, and I am very sorry for my loyal companions. Many thoughts come and much discussion have we had. To-morrow we must march on to the Pole and then hasten home with all the speed we can compass. All the day dreams must go; it will be a wearisome return.

Readers, what can I learn from the loss of a big project? Before I start tossing my samples in the Big Red Can, anything that I should be doing? Also, which Kubler-Ross stages should I be dealing with? (Kidding!)  

#ChemCoach: Over 40 entries!

If you haven't already, I really encourage you to go look at See Arr Oh's #ChemCoach carnival  It's been a really interesting mix of people, both students and people who have long since graduated. Here's Day 1, Day 2, Day 3 and Day 4. Don't forget a note from amazing chemist and chemical historian Jeff Seeman.

It has been interesting for me to note how many of these people are former, not current, Big Pharma-employed. Those personally affected by layoffs at some point in their career is non-zero (20%?); I'll bet the number that have seen layoffs in their organization is basically 100%. It's a sobering reality of the economic times that we live in.

[Of course, there's probably quite a bit of sampling bias going on here; it's heavy on folks who read blogs  or who are on Twitter, which is probably not representative of the overall population of working chemists.]

Also, friend of the blog Janet Stemwedel has made a good suggestion. Like any of the #ChemCoach entries? For each one you like, consider giving a $1 to the DonorsChoose Chembloggers challenge to further chemical education in K-12.

Again, if you haven't already, head over there and give it a read. 

Why "Change the Equation" is wrong-headed about its definition of STEM

Thanks to a posting from the Chemistry Grad Student and Postdoc Blog, I was introduced to the interesting organization "Change the Equation", which is dedicated to increasing U.S. standards in STEM education. I would have happily supported or ignored this older Huffington Post blogpost about the issue, except for these interesting comments from their CEO, Linda Rosen:

But for those with a science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) background the picture is much brighter. Across the STEM fields, job postings outnumbered unemployed people by almost 2-to-1. Even in a tough economy, STEM is where the jobs are. 

...The demand for STEM skills extends well beyond STEM-specific jobs, and the number of jobs requiring a STEM background is expected to have grown 17 percent between 2008 and 2018, far faster than the 10 percent growth projected for overall employment.

Ms. Rosen is referencing the data in their report "STEM Help Wanted", where they reveal an interesting and unusual definition of "STEM" (emphasis mine):

There is no single, universally accepted definition of what constitutes a STEM-specific job. Our definition is broader than some, in that it encompasses those healthcare and management occupations that require strong STEM skills. We feel this broader definition allows us to offer a fuller account of the demand for STEM talent. 

Our definition includes Computer and Mathematical occupations, Architecture and Engineering occupations, Life and Physical Science occupations, several Management occupations in STEM fields, and select Healthcare Practitioner and Technical occupations. In 2011, there were about 13.6 million people in these jobs, and they comprised about 11 percent of the total workforce.

I find this to be a terribly problematic redefinition. Here is their methodology table; I broke it down in this Google spreadsheet. If you look at the numbers of current STEM occupation holders, CtQ has basically doubled the size of the available pool, from around 7 million positions to close to 14 million. It should also be pointed out that it appears to me that their definition of STEM jobs in healthcare appears to encompass 85% of health occupation job holders.* Also, according to their own numbers (see above), the introduction of the healthcare field dramatically changes the ratio of STEM openings to STEM unemployed.

(Am I crazy, or is that a completely meaningless ratio? Am I wrong in thinking that, according to their ratio, an unemployed chemist is being measured against an job opening for cardiac surgery? It's also remarkable that they're associating job growth in some STEM fields (i.e. chemistry, or physics) with the completely ridonkulous increases in some health care fields that are going to be required to keep up with our aging population.)

I am sympathetic to people who are concerned about the quality of the American workforce and their level of STEM expertise. It seems self-evident to me that better STEM education is worthwhile. However, that doesn't justify questionable categorizing by Change the Equation, or the confusion that it will engender on the part of their audiences. While health care is important and contains some science and mathematics skills, I believe that it falls well outside the definition of "STEM."

*Look, you might need some math and some biology to be a licensed practical nurse (probably just solid arithmetic, really), but it doesn't make it a STEM job. 

Daily Pump Trap: 10/25/12 edition

Good morning! Between October 23 and October 24, there were 38 new positions posted on the C&EN Jobs database. Of these, 14 (37%) are academically connected and 16 (42%) are from Kelly Scientific Resources.

Memphis, TN: St. Jude Research Children's Hospital is searching for a B.S./M.S./Ph.D. research technologist; protein biochemistry expertise desired.

Columbus, OH: Ashland is looking for a principal scientist for polymer chemistry research; Ph.D. desired, but not required.

Naperville, IL: Cabot Microelectronics is looking for a senior research scientist; Ph.D. and 8 years of experience is desired. Also desired: "understanding the fundamental science of colloidal science, inorganic chemistry, surface science, particles, or polymers and their chemical reactions."

A broader look: Monster, Careerbuilder, Indeed and USAjobs.gov show (respectively) 249, 705, 2588 and 9 positions for the search term "chemist."

On earnings reports, DuPont, Dow to cut 4,000 jobs

After some optimistic comments, comes the reality of earnings season. From Chemistry World's Andrew Turley:

The chemical industry was hit by news of nearly 4000 planned job cuts, and multiple site closures, yesterday as two iconic firms, DuPont and Dow, announced dramatic restructuring plans alongside their financial results for the third quarter (Q3) of 2012. Sales from continuing operations fell 9% to $7.4 billion in Q3 as a result of weaker than expected demand in the markets for titanium dioxide and photovoltaic materials, said chief executive Ellen Kullman. 

DuPont said it would reduce its global workforce by 1500 (2%) over the next 12–18 months with the aim of saving $450 million (£280 million) in annual costs. The move will cost the company $152 million in 2012. 

[snip] Meanwhile, Dow said it would cut 2400 jobs, representing 5% of its global workforce, and close 20 manufacturing plants, in a bid to shave $500 million off its annual costs over the next two years. Sales at Dow fell 10% – 7% when adjusted for recently sold business activity – to $13.6 billion in Q3, with economic instability in Europe leading to lower prices cited as a key factor.

The DuPont press release does not mention the actual cuts to come, while the Dow press release actually delivers the butcher's bill:

Dow will shut down a high density polyethylene facility in Tessenderlo, Belgium, a sodium borhidrate [CJ's note: sic] plant in Delfzijl, the Netherlands, as well as a number of Performance Materials manufacturing facilities, including: an Automotive Systems Diesel Particulate Filters manufacturing facility in Midland, Michigan; Formulated Systems manufacturing facilities in Ribaforada, Spain, Birch Vale, United Kingdom and Solon, Ohio; and an Epoxy resins facility in Kina Ura, Japan. Additionally, the Company will record an impairment charge related to the write-down of Dow Kokam LLC’s assets, reflecting weak global demand for lithium-ion batteries; and will consolidate certain assets in its Oxygenated Solvents business, as well as shut down a number of other small manufacturing facilities. These actions are expected to take place over the next two years.

While I'd like to take a moment to kick Andrew Liveris in the shins a bit, I just don't have the heart to do that. Suffice it to say that it is broadly confusing to me what is going on in the global economy right now. Things in the US economy seem to be bumping along fine (for example, both consumer sentiment and the ACC's Chemical Activity Barometer are up), Europe is still more or less hurting and Asia seems to be slowing. I have my skepticisms about Paul Hodges and his economic predictions, but his insistence that we live in a world defined by uncertainty and unpredictability rings true to me.

To those people who are going to lose their jobs, best wishes to them, and to all of us.

Process Wednesday: the peril of scaling up catalyzed reactions

Kilomentor has a fascinating post on "catastrophic failure" in the plant and goes on this interesting tangent about the dangers of scaling up a catalyzed reaction: 

The probability of catastrophic failure is increased for catalyzed reactions of which, for example, enantioselective reactions are a prominent contemporary class. The special additional risk is that the catalytic system may be more easily shut down by small, even trace, impurities that are difficult to measure much less control. Put another way, a catalyzed reaction is susceptible to poisoning and this can lead to catastrophic failure of conversion with no easily identifiable cause.  

Catalyzed reactions are inherently less rugged than the uncatalyzed because the catalytic substance by definition is used in lower than stoichiometric quantity and so would be disproportionately affected by a particular quantity of a catalyst poison. Impurities in the inputs to a catalytic process can also accelerate reaction. When they are not added, as after a switch to a different source of an input, the performance may deteriorate or fail. Neal G. Anderson wrote in Practical Process Research & Development, First Edition, pg. 194: “The importance of trace beneficial impurities may become evident only by failure of the reaction when using different lots of starting materials, reagents, or solvents.” Thus the recommendation to perform laboratory experiments with the same materials to be used in the plant goes double for catalyzed reactions and this includes chemicals used to wash and prep the reactor.

That last part is a healthy reminder to me -- do I think that the plant uses Dawn soap and acetone to clean out the reactors? No? Hmmmm....

(What are examples of reactions that can be accelerated through impurities? I suppose there's the classic serendipity of the Nozaki-Hiyama-Kishi...) 

#ChemCoach: Process chemist

SeeArrOh is running a really excellent carnival over at his blog, Just Like Cooking. It's called #ChemCoach, and it's oriented towards showing people the different jobs that chemists have, and how they got there. (Does it really need a picture of Pete Carroll?) It's excellent, and I wish I had thought of it myself.

Here's my (very mundane) contribution -- I think you should go over there and see what others have to offer.

My current job: Process development chemist. I work at a small chemical manufacturing plant in the R&D department.

What I do in a standard "work day": Since we're such a small company, everyone does a little bit of everything. I try to think of myself  as a lab chemist first -- I have a hood, I run reactions, I work them up, etc. It's the pretty standard stuff. We try to develop processes for large orders of whatever organic compound our customers desire.

What is unusual about my job is that it's connected to a small chemical manufacturing plant. Because of this, we get to do all the things that would be usually handled by other departments. Once it is decided (and sometimes it is VERY quickly decided) that a process is ready to take to the plant, we write up our procedure as a batch production record, we edit it, send it through the approval process and train our operators to run the process. We are on call nearly 24 hours a day to monitor the progress and quality of the reactions and provide chemistry-related troubleshooting. (Ever been woken up in the middle of the night to have someone ask you about filtration? I have.)

The old saw about "long periods of boredom punctuated by brief moments of terror" really seems to apply to what I do. There's nothing quite like slowly, slowly watching the peaks show up (or not show up!) on the HPLC, or to input a bunch of data into an Excel spreadsheet and cringe while hitting "Enter" to see if your purity/assay is high enough. It can be just as intense as watching a kid being born (okay, maybe not.) That lots of money and lots of time ride on the results of in-process checks or quality analyses is something I'll never quite get over.

What kind of schooling / training / experience helped me get there?: I have an undergraduate degree and a doctoral degree in chemistry. Boooooring. What probably helped me get my current position is that I served a 2 year sentence worked 2 years at an even smaller company doing kilo-scale synthesis, quite often lugging the 20L rotovap bulbs and moving drums of hazardous waste myself. Want to know what it's like to help ship a couple thousand gallons of flammable waste by hand (and hand truck?) I'm your guy. Want to know what it's like to load a 55 gallon reactor with a double diaphragm pump like you're a man on a firehose? I'm your fella.

How does chemistry inform my work? Well, I'm a chemist, so it permeates everything I do. For me, the question should almost be written as "what somewhat irrelevant things do I get asked, because I'm a chemist and I'm the closest thing to an expert?" In that vein, I get asked about equipment a lot. Very rarely, I have a good answer. Mostly, I shrug and I ask the engineers.

A unique, interesting, or funny anecdote about my career: First, all the really excellent anecdotes about my very checkered career cannot be told on the internet.

There's a real joy to using the simple tools of chemistry to make decisions. A while back, I had the opportunity to change a process to make it work a little faster. To monitor the reaction in a 1000+ gallon reactor, we would pull a sample to check its progress. To do so, I would... run a TLC.

The reaction check finally came up in the batch production record at about 1 am (of course.) I was able to bring my TLC plates, chamber, mobile phase and run the TLC out in the plant, basically next to huge reactors actually doing the chemistry. It was funny to be doing a TLC in the middle of the night, waiting for this piece of 1930s technology to tell me what to do next.

Daily Pump Trap: 10/23/12 edition

Good morning! Between October 18 and October 22, there were 120 new positions posted on the ACS Careers database C&EN Jobs. Of these, 25 (29%) are academically connected and 73 (61%) are from Kelly Scientific Resources.

An announcement: Bannered at the top of the jobs database: "Starting October 22, the ACS Careers Jobs Database sports a new name and look. C&EN Jobs will continue to offer an extensive network of jobs and employment opportunities for chemists and scientific professionals around the globe. ACS members can continue to find valuable career resources—including career fairs, consulting, and workshops—at www.acs.org/careers."

(Folks, it's not really a new look (yet, anyway.) Why this change? I dunno.)

An announcement of my own: Blogging a database that's mostly irrelevant Kelly positions and academic jobs is no picnic. It's taken a while to realize that I really enjoy blogging ACS Careers C&EN Jobs (!) when it's a lot of positions that I know that people will be interested in, as opposed to quality assurance positions (nothing wrong with QA!) and professorships in Doha. I hope things turn around soon. If fall is corporate recruiting season, it is my sense that they are not going to ACS Careers.

Bucks County, PA: Polysciences is once again looking for a B.S./M.S. synthetic chemist. Hey, why are these people routinely advertising for the same position? Are they growing? No, they're just probably losing people. (Nope -- that's a different company in Illinois with a similar name. I have no idea why they're rehiring for the same position, then.)

Edwards Air Force Base, CA: ERC is a contractor at the Air Force Research Laboratory outside of Edwards Air Force Base; they're looking for a synthetic chemist. You're probably going to be working on "energetic materials" of some sort -- sounds like a fun job.

Albany, NY: The New York State Department of Health is looking for an experienced M.S./Ph.D. analytical chemist to do GC/GC-MS. Pay is 82-100k.

Ugh: Of course, the membership of the American Chemical Society has an experienced medical technologist who would like to work in Olivette, Missouri. I'm so glad you asked!

Ivory Filter Flask: 10/23/12 edition

Good morning! Between October 15 and October 22, there were 34 academic positions posted on the ACS Careers database. The numbers:

Total number of ads: 34
- Postdocs: 2
- Tenure-track faculty:  28
- Temporary faculty: 1
- Lecturer positions:  2
- Staff positions:  1

- US/non-US: 30/4

Davis, CA: The University of California, Davis is looking for an assistant professor of chemical biology.

Indianapolis, IN: The University of Indianapolis desires an assistant professor of chemistry; Ph.D. in analytical chemistry desired.

Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan is hiring for Dow Sustainability Fellows. Your postdoc will need to work towards sustainability, I assume -- the fields are broad. Pay is decent at 52k/yr for 2 years with medical and dental (amazing!)

Charleston, SC: The Citadel is hiring an assistant professor of chemistry. (Shouldn't some intrepid reporter find out what it is like to teach chemistry at one of the country's 9 or 10 uniformed undergraduate institutions? I hear you can't fall asleep in class at the Naval Academy.)

Daily Pump Trap: 10/16/12 edition

Between October 11 and October 16, there were 81 new positions. Of these, 29 (36%) were academically connected and 38 (46%) were from Kelly Scientific Resources.

Danbury, CT: Sealed Air is hiring a B.S. chemist (2+ years experience) for a research position in their Packaging Products division. Sounds like fun.

Pittsburgh, PA: PIA Innovations is a new startup; they're hiring a Ph.D.-level chemist to synthesize amino acid monomers. Sounds interesting. 70k -- how far would that get you in Pittsburgh?

Ivory Filter Flask: 10/16/12 edition

Between October 9 and 15, there were 29 academically related positions posted on the ACS Careers website. The numbers:

Total number of ads: 35
- Postdocs: 3
- Tenure-track faculty:  29
- Temporary faculty: 0
- Lecturer positions:  0
- Staff positions:  3

Des Moines, IA: Grand View University is looking for an assistant professor of organic chemistry and biochemistry.

Aliso Viejo, CA: Soka University of America is a school that's aimed at teaching students to interact with Asian cultures, looks like. They're looking for an assistant professor of chemistry. (Looks like you need to be able to teach a whole other subject...)

Stony Brook, NY: Stony Brook University is looking for an assistant professor of chemical biology.

Houston, TX: Rice University is looking for a postdoctoral fellow: "There is a Postdoctoral Research Associate position available in the Verduzco laboratory in the Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at Rice University in Houston, TX. The position is for the development of water-soluble polymers with improved stability in high-salt and high temperature conditions for enhanced oil recovery. The initial appointment is for a period of 12 months, renewable for up to 3 years, contingent on outstanding performance. The appointment can begin as early as November 1, 2012."

DuPont employee: "We’re going to be around for another 200 [years]."

In this week's employment article, Laura Cassiday covers biotech/chemical companies that are highly rated for employee satisfaction. Here's some DuPont Crop Protection chemists sounding hopeful:

“I’m always learning, which keeps my work really stimulating,” says Andrew E. Taggi, a synthetic organic chemist who works on fungicide and herbicide discovery. During his eight years at Crop Protection, he has gained experience in many fields beyond synthetic chemistry, including toxicology, plant pathology, and agronomy. Taggi notes that, should his research interests ever change, the diverse skills he’s learned at Crop Protection would facilitate his transfer to other chemical and biological divisions of DuPont.Crop Protection has a burgeoning pipeline and many scientists reaching retirement age, so [32-year DuPont veteran] Lahm anticipates a large hiring push over the next five years. “We’ll need new Ph.D.-level scientists, but we also need experienced chemists with bachelor’s and master’s degrees,” he says. “Sometimes people bring in skills learned in industry that can’t be picked up quite as well in graduate school or postdoctoral programs.” 

Taggi notes that many DuPont employees choose to remain at the firm for their entire careers. His father, also a synthetic chemist, retired from DuPont in 2010 after 38 years with the company. The large network of DuPont employees and retirees in the area helps foster a sense of community and stability. “DuPont has been here for more than 200 years, and you know we’re going to be around for another 200,” Taggi says.

Nice to know that DuPont might be hiring experienced chemists -- if true, that's welcome news. And that DuPont employees think the company will be around for another 200 years? Boy, for all of our sakes, I sure hope he's right.

Oh, Carl! Djerassi pours some serious cold water on male contraception

A couple weeks ago, Michael Torrice published an interesting article on the current state of research towards male contraceptives. Pretty mundane, right? Well, good ol' Carl Djerassi decides to weigh in in the letters section of this week's C&EN -- and boy, is he ticked (emphasis mine):

...The biggest problem is the fact that the reproductive span of a young man is two to three times longer than that of a 20-year-old woman, who, for instance, will not ask whether continued use of her Pill would affect her fertility at age 55 or even later, whereas many a 20-year-old man would require a guaranteed answer before he would reach for his Pill. 

Providing an epidemiologically valid assurance to this and other concerns, notably with respect to sexual potency, would be exceedingly expensive, time-consuming, and open to all kinds of litigious pressures because erectile dysfunction and prostate gland problems increase with advanced age and would be blamed by many men on their Pill rather than on the facts of life. 

This economic reality has led the pharmaceutical industry to totally abandon any work on male contraception. And it is invariably glossed over through shameless grantsmanship or shameful naïveté by academic scientists who in their animal research at times make some exciting scientific observation that they then prognosticate as a practical and reversible new male contraceptive in humans, ignoring the fact that such work would take easily two or more decades (thus cannibalizing any patent protection) and cost well over $1 billion in today’s dollars for realization. Who, exactly, would foot that bill? 

Carl Djerassi
San Francisco

Perhaps I'm a sunny-eyed optimist, but that something is simply not economically practical at the moment is no reason for the government not to throw a couple of megabucks at it, right? It's difficult not to see Dr. Djerassi's letter as a teeny-tiny bit of legacy protection. That said, he's far wiser, experienced and knowledgeable about this subject than I will ever be... so there's that.