Process Wednesday: solids blending and segregation

A child's delight, a manufacturer's problem.
Credit: zoomdoggle.com

From the pages of Chemical Engineering, an interesting and hilarious demonstration of the difficulties of mixing solids on large-scale by Thomas G. Troxel:

In other applications the sample size subjected to scrutiny is not as clear cut. Take, for example, a box of cereal. In one specific example a manufacturer produced a cereal with a cereal particle and a marshmallow candy particle. The packaging line filled boxes from a series of conveyors that fed a mixture of two components into a gravimetric packaging machine that dispensed the required weight of the blend into each package. The two components of the mixture were of similar size and density and the only blending that occurred was in the handling system along several conveyors and in a surge hopper. Each component was meter onto the conveyor system, at the correct ratio, but there was not a discreet blending process. The manufacturing plants fine tuned their systems to get an acceptable mixture into each box.  

In this case, each box was always within weight tolerance for the stated package quantity, but there was no direct control of the components in any box. In an effort to improve quality, a new packaging line was installed that handled each component individually up to the packaging head where each component was weighed in a series of weigh hoppers, and then each box was filled from several hoppers of each component, selected by the packaging system controlled, to control both the proportion of each component and the total weight in a box. This would seem an ideal solution since it would guarantee both accurate package weight and composition. From the producers point of view, they had improved quality by insuring that every package met their quality standard.  

However, to everyone's surprise, consumer complaints from packages produced at this plant went up. What the plant had gained in compositional accuracy they had sacrificed in uniformity. Consumers found that individual bowls of cereal poured from the new packages had much wider variations of the two components than boxes filled from the old filling line. ...The new system allowed only about one second from the time the ingredients were separate until they were combined in the package. There was very little opportunity to do any blending, and the result was that some boxes were well-blended while others were segregated. 

This doesn't have a ton to do with "classic" process chemistry (how often are raw/fine chemical manufacturers blending solids?) -- I just thought it was kinda funny.

UPDATED: Added "raw/fine" and "classic" to clarify. Formulation and drug delivery, of course, does a lot of solids blending. 

Daily Pump Trap: 10/9/12 edition

Don't call it a comeback, but the Daily Pump Trap has a serious backlog. I'll work my way through it somehow. Between October 2 and October 8, there were 138 new positions posted on the ACS Careers website. Of these, 35 (25%) are academically connected and 84 (61%) are from Kelly Scientific Resources. 

Holy cow!: There's just a lot of faff in the ACS Careers mix these days, with relatively few actual industrial positions, which is disappointing. 

Richmond, VA: Eurofins Lancaster Laboratories is looking for a postdoc to do GC/MS/MS. I am curious how much of this is a run-of-the-mil analytical method development position, and how much is actual novel research. 

Cambridge, MA: Vertex is looking for an experienced process chemist -- any level of education desired, at least 4+ years in pharmaceutical industry needed. 

West Chester, OH: The Shepherd Color Company is looking for a Ph.D. inorganic chemist "to work in a creative and collaborative atmosphere to conceive of, formulate, and scale-up new colored inorganic pigments or other mixed-metal oxide materials." Sounds like it's entry-level, but hard to say. 

Los Alamos, NM: The Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies at Los Alamos National Laboratories is looking for a postdoctoral fellow for work in metallo/biopolymers. Sounds interesting. 

The human and institutional impact of #AnnieDookhan

From this week's C&EN, Carmen Drahl writes up the Annie Dookhan story:

Credit: Chemical and Engineering News

According to a police report obtained by the Boston Globe, Dookhan told investigators that she forged coworkers’ initials on reports for mass spectrometer calibrations, intentionally contaminated samples, and engaged in “dry-labbing”—identifying narcotics by sight rather than by chemical analysis. In interviews with police, several colleagues said they’d expressed concern to supervisors about Dookhan’s unusually high productivity. Her résumé lists a master’s degree in chemistry from the University of Massachusetts, Boston, but she does not hold that credential according to school officials. 

“This is a calamity,” says Justin J. McShane, a defense attorney in Harrisburg, Pa., who is closely watching the case. Because the evid­ence Dookhan allegedly mishandled was more than likely destroyed in the normal course of business, no traceable information exists to correctly characterize samples in thousands of drug cases, he explains.

I think it is worth noting that the impact that the Annie Dookhan scandal has had, and will have on both individuals and institutions is pretty huge. (It easily rivals the Sheri Sangji case with both its breadth and depth of impact.) It sounds like people went to prison (or went to prison longer) because of Ms. Dookhan's misdeeds -- what a travesty.

Got a chemistry degree? Wanna be a cop? No? How about a winemaker?

From a random Google search, this Seattle Weekly story on an odd alternative career for chemists:

Here's an arresting story: A full-time Lynnwood police sergeant who is also a full-time winemaker and winery owner. And not just any police sergeant--a police sergeant with a degree in organic chemistry. This odd scenario is the thread that weaves the exhausting life tapestry of Jerry Riener, the owner of Guardian Cellars in Woodinville.... 

SW: How did you end up a police officer? 

I got my degree in chemistry. I was going to become a doctor. That's all I ever wanted to be. 

SW: Did you go to school here? 

UW and UCLA. 

After graduating, I started on the police force. Then in about 1999, I started volunteering at a winery. ...And then with my chemistry background I'd ask a lot of questions. I offered some suggestions, "Have you ever thought of doing this?" and processes that came easy to me, like the lab work and calculations--stuff I could just do in my head. I'd make little corrections once in a while. It was kind of funny because everyone there knew me as an officer and would just look at me like, "How the hell do you know this?" They'd be like, "Nothing personal, but you're a cop" and then I'd tell them about my degree in organic chemistry and they just told me to have at it. 

SW: What do your co-workers think of your winemaking career? 

They think it's cool. The funniest part is that the police officers go, "Wait, you're also a winemaker?" and the winemakers go, "You're a cop?" Actually, the police officers don't understand why I chose to become a cop after getting my chemistry degree.

That's not a combination you hear about very often, but it always seems that police officers have a job that they plan to transition to, after they leave the force.

*Can you get a degree in organic chemistry as an undergrad? Sounds like a bachelor's degree is what he has, but maybe I'm wrong. Also, if he got a graduate degree in organic chemistry, it's even more CJ-worthy.

Sales as an option for unemployed chemists?

After reading this story on a struggling swimming pool salesman in The Washington Post, I have no real desire to become a salesperson. That said, it's a desperately important position for any private company (I've never begrudged the sales folks their commission -- my personal motto? "If they eat well, we eat well.").

So it's with some level of interest and amusement to read this letter in this week's C&EN:

A recurring topic in the letters section is the angst of losing gainful employment in our beloved science. When I held my last lab position in 1989, I was always aware that in business parlance, R&D is a cost center, while sales and marketing are profit centers. Cost centers are expendable, underfunded, and typically have pay ceilings well below profit centers. Being fluent in math, we should all realize the importance of this equation and react accordingly. 

My career plans changed when my company was bought out by a larger player in our market. We were promised that our great little lab and production facility would remain untouched, but it appeared to me that would not be the case. My fight-or-flight sense kicked in, and I left for a career in chemical sales before the inevitable closing of our beloved facility. 

I had never worked in sales before, and it was a scary move. As scientists we have technical expertise that one typically doesn’t find in business majors. I found that I was an invaluable asset to my customers, and I had the opportunity to practice my craft in a wide variety of industries. 

I was learning and teaching while getting paid better than any chemist. It was a lucrative symbiosis for all parties. I know it’s a trite expression but it’s true: Everyone is in sales. When you apply for a job, you’re selling yourself. When you’re pushing to get funding, you’re selling your idea. 

And yes, rejection is part of the territory but it’s a big territory and there are other starfish in the sea. On a personal level, sales has pushed me through my many “oh nos” and “I can’ts.” So, to all the many downsized professionals out there (and there seem to be more and more every day), I advise you to consider furthering your talents through sales. You might be surprised by what awaits you in the vast unknown. 

And yes, we should still encourage students to pursue degrees in the sciences lest we contribute to the growing and dangerous pool of science illiteracy. Look around you and notice how many of us are working in fields different from our B.S. or M.S. degrees. 

There is hope and opportunity just as there are lemons and lemonade. 

By Mark D. Ryan
Seattle

Gotta say, I'm not convinced by Dr./Mr. Ryan's reasoning on why more people need science degrees (they should get a science degree because we have science illiteracy. Why not make them take "physics for poets"-type survey courses? Does how many students will be forced into P-chem so that we will have a more educated polity? Is it worth it?)

All of that said, it is true that some of us (myself included?) should be less nervous about talking to customers and perhaps getting them to buy some of our stuff. It wouldn't hurt too much.

Chemistry personals

I think this might just work as well:

Unemployment down 0.3% to 7.8% in September

Credit: Calculated Risk

Fresh electrons from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: the unemployment rate is down 0.3% to 7.8% in September. The broader U6 measurement was unchanged at 14.7%.

114,000 new jobs created, which will be the focus of the news reports this morning.

Thanks, as always, to Calculated Risk blog for the graphic. 

Job candidates, references lower expectations before interview

CHEMISTRYTOWN (CJ Press) -- In an unusual move, accomplished graduate student and job interviewee Lisa Brown has decided to lower expectations for her upcoming interview at MegaPharma. When informed of her on-site interview, she informed her site host, "Wow -- what an opportunity! I am so excited to talk about my work at Fancy Pants University. But interviews and public speaking is really hard, and I haven't really had time to practice. I just hope to do my best -- I hear other candidates are very impressive speakers."

When her graduate school adviser was called by the interview committee, Professor F.M. Jones also downplayed Ms. Brown's chances of success at the Megapharm interview. "Lisa is an excellent chemist and an accomplished scientist. However, I understand that Megapharm interviewers ask very difficult questions. Powerpoint slide transitions are unusually complex, though -- I think Lisa will have her work cut out for her in front of that very tough audience."

Surprisingly, Matthew Chang of Elegant Institute of Technology, another interviewee for the same position at Megapharma also downplayed expectations for his upcoming talk. "Lisa is a tremendous communicator of science and her work has really had a lot of impact in the community -- I just hope not to trip over myself on the way to the front of the room." Mr. Chang's adviser, Professor L.E. Levelle was also modest in his comments: "Matt's 5 JACS communications are nice work, but nothing really earth-shattering -- I'm sure that Lisa will have more impressive work to show."

Megapharma scientists and managers are somewhat bemused by the breakout of modesty amongst their interview candidates, but are hoping to be pleasantly surprised.  

Process Wednesday: why not transfer hydrogenation?

Kilomentor asks a good question -- why don't we use transfer hydrogenation?:

...Transfer hydrogenation is here discussed as it relates to scaling up a hydrogenation step. Chemists who are more accustomed to working in the laboratory are overwhelmingly more familiar with reactions with hydrogen in the presence of a catalyst and much less with the transfer of hydrogen atoms from a donor reagent to a substrate under catalysis. Yet this latter, transfer hydrogenation, is cheaper and safer both because no free hydrogen is used and because it does not require a special reactor, special stirring, or special gas handling auxiliaries. Indeed, the benefits of transfer hydrogenation  seem to be well understood by seasoned process chemists from the evidence of descriptions in process chemistry monographs but still far  too unfamiliar to new graduates, university scientists, and discovery chemists. 

Since transfer hydrogenation most often use relatively expensive supported palladium catalyst, an important consideration is whether the hydrogenation using molecular hydrogen or the transfer hydrogenation using a donor  results in the higher catalyst expense. I can find no generalized finding comparing the methods on economic issue. A related question is whether there is any increased or decreased tendency for traces of noble metal catalyst to be trapped in the isolated products using or the other of the two methodologies. Again this would be important because a disadvantage of catalytic hydrogenation in all its forms is the risk of residues of toxic heavy metals that can tenaciously adhere to the isolated product. From what I have seen of the literature this difficulty is neither reduced or enhanced using transfer hydrogenation....

[snip] Although other useful reviews have been devoted to transfer hydrogenation these have not been from the perspective of scale-up advantages. I have seen little that answers the general question of what makes a hydrogenation convertible to transfer hydrogenation and how one might predict situations where it is unlikely to work? A tentative rule might be that if the hydrogenation cannot be done using either palladium or a soluble catalyst it is has a reduced likelihood to work with transfer hydrogenation.

I don't know why more people don't use transfer hydrogenation. I suspect that there are solubility issues involved (w/r/t cyclohexene concentrations). Also, is there a difference in speed between transfer hydrogenation and regular hydrogenation? There's gotta be, right?

Readers, what do you think?

How long does an academic candidate have on the market?

From the humanities, a rather terrifying notice for faculty candidates from Brian Leiter, via Marginal Revolution:

Philosopher Daniel Weiskopf (Georgia State) calls my attention to a quite startling ad for a job in English at Colorado State University, which requires that applicants have earned the PhD since 2010!  As the linked post notes, given the state of the humanities job market, everyone knows there are lots of very good candidates with PhDs from 2009, 2008 and, horrors, even 2007 who still haven't found suitable appontments.  This ad promises to consign them to the discard pile without even looking at them.  Hopefully we won't see such ads in philosophy.

Haven't seen such ads in chemistry, but I am sure that readers will point them out.

UPDATE: Astute commenter Anon100220120537p notes that the ad has been changed after the outcry. From Inside Higher Ed:

The revised posting does not have the previous requirement, and instead specifies that the job is “entry-level.” “In light of the response to our initial ad, we examined how we could better describe the parameters of our search. We posted an updated position announcement that informs applicants that the position is entry-level and removes the restriction on date of degree. We invite all qualified and interested applicants to apply for the position," said Louann Reid, chair of English at Colorado State, in an e-mail to Inside Higher Ed.

In other words, there now, we won't be honest anymore.

Faculty positions in organic chemistry, courtesy of Arash Sohelli

Courtesy of Arash Sohelli (proprietor of the @Total_Synthesis page), the different organic assistant professor positions available this fall:

October 5th Deadline

DePaul University (Undergraduate)
MIT
University of Washington
University of Mount Union (Undergraduate)

Click on the jump for more info:

Chemist faces charges for "dry-labbing"

Following up on the case of Annie Dookhan, she has been officially charged and arrested:

Dookhan faces more than 20 years in prison on charges of obstruction of justice and falsely pretending to hold a degree from a college or university. She testified under oath that she holds a master's degree in chemistry from the University of Massachusetts, but school officials say they have no record of her receiving an advanced degree or taking graduate courses there.

Last last week and over the weekend, more details of her case have arrived. From the AP:

Chemist Annie Dookhan was "Superwoman," a colleague at a Massachusetts state crime lab used to joke. She seemed unstoppable in her quest to please prosecutors, police and her bosses, testing two to three times more drug samples than anyone else, working through lunch and not bothering to put in for overtime. "The kind of person, if you owned your own business, you would want to hire her," a supervisor would later tell police. 

Beginning about four years ago, suspicions arose about the way she seemed to plow through so many cases so fast. After that, a supervisor complained he never actually saw her in front of a microscope. But her superiors let her work on. Now, the startling explanation has come spilling out: Dookhan told investigators she faked test results on drug samples and cut other corners.
Dookhan's alleged confession and the missed warning signs were detailed in state police reports obtained this week by The Associated Press. As early as 2008, a supervisor noticed Dookhan's testing numbers were high. He spoke to her superior, but nothing happened. In 2009, the supervisor took his concerns to another superior, saying he never saw Dookhan in front of a microscope.  

Dookhan was handling a staggering number of samples. An average chemist could test 50 to 150 samples a month, but Dookhan was doing more than 500, according to monthly reports, a lab employee told police later. At one point in 2011, a top official even gave Dookhan a special project to try to slow her down. Other lab employees worried about their own jobs and their prospects for promotion because their productivity wasn't as high as Dookhan's.

She was eventually suspended from lab duties after getting caught forging a colleague's initials on paperwork in mid-2011. Dookhan resigned last March as the Public Health Department investigated. Over the summer, police interviewed Dookhan at her home, and she admitted faking test results for two to three years, forging signatures and skipping proper procedures, according to the reports.  

Dookhan said she cheated by "dry labbing," or identifying a drug sample as a narcotic by looking at it instead of testing it. She said she routinely tested only five out of every 25 samples, and deliberately turned a negative sample into a positive for narcotics a few times. At least one defense attorney has also accused her of overstating the weight of some of the seized drugs to expose defendants to heavier penalties.

From the Boston Globe, a fairly detailed look at some of the tests she was accused of faking:

But the State Police report suggests Dookhan herself may have, at times, served in another quality assurance role, as the lab’s quality control chemist, who typically runs daily tests to ensure scales are calibrated and machines are running properly.“These machines could have been used by other chemists, who did not even know that the machines were not properly verified,” said Workman.

That possibility, Workman said, would call into question a much larger universe of drug tests beyond the 60,000 Dookhan is believed to have run during her tenure.... 

A one-page overview of the lab’s routine procedures, provided to the Globe from someone familiar with its operations before it was closed in August, indicates that a primary chemist is assigned a sample from the lab’s evidence room, weighs it, and performs testing to preliminarily identify it. That person then prepares vials of the substance to send to a secondary chemist, known as the lab’s GC/MS person, who analyzes the vials in a machine to confirm the identification. 

That process, known as gas chromatography–mass spectrometry, first separates drug samples into their component parts. For instance, it separates cocaine from the baking powder, laxatives, or other substances drug dealers typically cut the drug with to inflate its weight. Next, the machine analyzes the chemicals and prints out a characteristic pattern, similar to a bar code, that is used to identify a sample. For instance, it compares the pattern for the sample of presumed cocaine being tested to the pattern of a known sample of cocaine. 

The GC/MS chemist analyzes the printout and records the results on a control sheet, which is initialed by that chemist and the primary chemist on the case, and then the primary chemist returns the original samples and all documentation to an evidence officer. “The GC/MS [machine] produces a printed, recorded analysis of the sample, but unless you are highly trained you may not be able to know if it’s traceable to a specific sample of evidence,” said Justin McShane, a Pennsylvania criminal defense attorney and senior instructor in gas chromatography-mass spectrometry at the American Chemical Society, a trade group of more than 164,000 chemists. 

Because of the complexity, and lack of cameras recording the preliminary tests, McShane said, it is possible for an unscrupulous chemist to dupe colleagues and prosecutors and defense lawyers, who depend on the work but are rarely given more than a simple card that indicates whether the evidence was positive or negative for ­illicit drugs.

McShane said he routinely hears “horror stories” from chemists he trains about unrelenting pressure to test more samples. Dookhan allegedly confessed to State Police that she forged colleagues’ initials and contaminated samples to “get more work done,” according to their report.

“You are judged by numbers in the lab,” McShane said. “There is a culture of pressure to get it done with no new ­resources. But there is no ­excuse for [cheating] at the end of the day.”

I think my concerns about overproductivity are bearing out. (Of course, as readers would note, that is not immediate evidence of pencil-whipping. A pink flag, not a red one, I say.) More soon.

Sanofi cutting 900 jobs in France

From this week's C&EN:

Sanofi will eliminate 900 jobs in France by 2015 as it refocuses R&D efforts in its home country. The cuts are significantly fewer than the 2,500 job losses predicted by trade unions in July, when Sanofi said an overhaul in France was imminent. 

The pharma firm has made significant changes to its internal R&D network since 2009. In addition to selling R&D sites in Porcheville, France, and Alnwick, England, it closed research labs in Malvern, Pa., and Bridgewater, N.J. 

Sanofi CEO Christopher A. Viehbacher said in the company’s second-quarter earnings conference call that the layoffs in France are not driven by its larger efforts to cut costs. The moves are prompted by the firm’s ongoing attempt to improve the R&D process, an effort that Viehbacher notes has worked for the firm in other countries. Viehbacher pointed out that the French research operations have failed to invent a new drug for two decades. 

Despite fears to the contrary, the majority of the company’s French research sites will remain open, although activities at some will be refocused.

Best wishes to them, and to all of us.

Is Tritan estrogenic?

I've always found the BPA issue to be a bit of a tempest in a teacup. [That said, I made the decision in my family to go with glass bottles for our children (me a chemist, my sainted wife a health care professional -- we're not going to drop the bottles.) All the kid stuff is BPA-free, so actions speak louder than words, ya know?]

Anyway, I've been following the Eastman Chemical versus CertiChem/PlastiPure kerfluffle with some interest, which is why I'm bringing this article from this week's Chemical and Engineering News by Alex Tullo:

An obscure conflict over a plastic is raising big issues in the field of material safety assessment. Two related Texas-based firms, PlastiPure and CertiChem, are accusing Eastman Chemical of trying to “squelch” science they say shows that Eastman’s Tritan polymer exhibits estrogenic activity. In turn, Eastman charges that the two firms are trying to malign its product for commercial gain. 

The controversy hits at one of the selling points of Tritan—that it is free of bisphenol A, an estrogen-disrupting compound. Tritan is a copolymer of dimethyl terephthalate, 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol, and 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol. Eastman designed it as a clear, tough, dishwasher-safe polyester that could compete with polycarbonate, which is made with bisphenol A. 

Eastman introduced Tritan in 2007, just when the controversy over bisphenol A came to a head and retailers led by Walmart were banning polycarbonate in baby products, such as bottles and sippy cups. Tritan got a lift as a ready replacement, but the claims by PlastiPure and Certi­Chem now pose a challenge to its success. 

CertiChem, founded by George Bittner, a professor of neurobiology and pharmacology at the University of Texas, Austin, offers third-party testing of materials to detect estrogenic activity using an MCF-7 cancer-cell-line assay. Chemicals that bind to estrogen receptors in the cells cause them to proliferate. PlastiPure, also founded by Bittner, develops plastic compounds that are free of estrogenic activity, according to this test. PlastiPure’s work has received support from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

I've always wondered what could be estrogenic about Tritan -- neither cyclohexanedimethanol or a cyclobutanediol moiety could be problematic. (I'm pretty sure I got my wife a Tritan water bottle in the last couple of years...) But the terephthalate might be an issue? Hard to say.

Also, I'm less than convinced by CertiChem's technique of calling just about all plastics estrogenic by using the MCF-7 assay. But I'm no endocrine scientist... Readers, what do you think? 

Podcast: Chemjobber and Daniel Lametti

Daniel Lametti is a graduate student at McGill University and a writer for Slate Magazine. He wrote an interesting piece on science PhDs and how they do. As folks may remember, I took aim at the post and critiqued it. Dan and I decided to talk over Skype about our different views on the topic. The results (lightly edited for clarity and audio) are below:



Once again, my apologies for the audio and the lack of prettiness. Also, I apologize for the background noise, including my ice machine.

If you're looking for two people yelling at each other (or me yelling at Dan, and Dan giving up, Perry Mason-style), don't bother. If you're looking for two scientists talking about their differences rationally and holding their own, feel free to give it a listen. (For what it's worth, I think I could have represented "my side" better, but I don't think I acquiesced too much.)

Selected highlights:

0:00: Introduction of CJ and Daniel and the topic
4:00: Daniel and I talk alternative careers! transferable skills!
8:00: CJ argues that your late 20s are special, and people may not realize how much of a chunk of your youth graduate school will take
13:00: Daniel argues that graduate school is really fun and that should be taken into account.
16:00: Daniel talks about the varying reactions to his piece.
17:38: CJ and Daniel talk about older chemists and how they're hurting.
20:00: CJ asks Daniel, "Would you recommend the Vastag piece?" Daniel says "No."
22:00: Daniel argues for the importance of a good Ph.D. adviser.
25:00: CJ and Daniel talk about whether it makes sense that biologists and chemists become business consultants.
28:00: CJ talks about how chemistry is special, especially with respect to the working world.
30:00: CJ and Daniel talk about whether policy should be changed to discourage Ph.D.s.
36:00: CJ and Daniel agree on how student debt is undesirable.

Some needed levity

NFL context here, hexacyclinol context here.

(Readers, I'm sure you can do better than me. Try it here.) 

Glenn Ruskin clarifies his statement

This morning, I send the following e-mail to Glenn Ruskin, director of the ACS Office of Public Affairs:

Dear Mr. Ruskin: 

I saw your recent comments in The Chronicle of Higher Education. I am writing to express my disappointment with your statement about blogs and other forms of electronic communication. I have also written on it in my blog, Chemjobber.  

I sincerely hope that you were somehow misquoted. If not, I hope that I can convince you that your generalizations about the incivility of blogs were incorrect.  

Best wishes,  

Chemjobber 

P.S. I am an ACS member; if so desired, I can prove it. 

This afternoon, I received this reply:

Dear Chemjobber:

Good afternoon, and thank you for reaching out to me on this matter.

It was not my intention, nor the intention of ACS, to denigrate blogs or users/contributors of blogs.   My comment was directed toward the blog that was the subject of the Chronicle of Higher Education (CHE) story.  Unfortunately, CHE did not use the totality of my comment as I think it would have been clear that I was speaking specifically to the blog that was the point of the story.  Here is the totality of my statement (bolded section was omitted by CHE):

"We find little constructive dialogue can be had on blogs and other listservs where logic, balance and common courtesy are not practiced and observed.  As a matter of practice, ACS finds that direct engagement via telephone or face-to-face with individuals expressing concern over pricing or other related matters is the most productive means to finding common ground and resolution. Therefore, we will not be offering any response  to this blog posting or the conversation that has ensued."

I respect and appreciate responsible bloggers, those that thoughtfully engage on those blogs as well as those that utilize listservs.  No insult was intended, and apologies to those that interpreted the comment that way.  These outlets provide important avenues to further dialogue and collaboration and are valuable assets in the ever evolving digital age.

The individual responsible for the above cited blog certainly has the right to her opinion, but that does not excuse rude behavior or her use of profanity and vulgarity in addressing ACS or its employees. While not evident in the most recent postings, I won’t repeat what she has posted in the past.  But I think you would agree that vulgarity and profanity postings do not lead themselves to meaningful, productive and civil discourse, thus our decision not to engage any further with her on this topic.

I hope that helps clarify this matter and I thank you for reaching out to me to share your concern.

Glenn

I find this to be an interesting response (and assertion!), but there we have it.

This statement will be retracted, right?

From a Chronicle of Higher Education article by Jennifer Howard on the recent SUNY-Potsdam-stops-ACS-subscriptions kerfluffle comes a rather hot quote:

A spokesman for the American Chemical Society said that the group would not offer a response to Ms. Rogers's blog post or the conversation that's sprung up around it. "We find little constructive dialogue can be had on blogs and other listservs where logic, balance, and common courtesy are not practiced and observed," Glenn S. Ruskin, the group's director of public affairs, said in an e-mail message. "As a matter of practice, ACS finds that direct engagement via telephone or face-to-face with individuals expressing concern over pricing or other related matters is the most productive means to finding common ground and resolution."

There are two statements here, one of which is reasonable, in my opinion. The latter statement is basically "we don't negotiate on price very much, and we certainly do not negotiate on price through the press." Leaving aside ACS' pricing structure (a big thing to leave aside), that's a predictable "no comment."

As for the former statement, it's silly on its face. It seems to me that the most prominent communicators of chemistry are all communicating through blogs. It is no mistake that ACS' Division of Chemical Health and Safety runs a useful and quite civil listserv, and has been doing so for years.

I think that Mr. Ruskin generalized broadly and wrongly; I trust that he will clarify or retract* this statement soon.

UPDATE: The statement has been clarified.

*"or retract" added later. 

Process Wednesday: Continuous flow microwave chemistry?

Credit: Morschhäuser et al., Green Process Synth.

From this week's C&EN, a look at microwave chemistry from Stephen Ritter; the article ends with an industrial-scale appplication:

For example, Kappe has been engaged in determining how to translate the benefits of the high temperature and pressure of batch microwave reactions to microwave-assisted continuous flow. 

In collaboration with scientists at specialty chemical firm Clariant, Kappe recently used his model benzimidazole synthesis and carried out what he believes is the first reported description of microwave-assisted continuous-flow chemistry at the production scale (Green Process Synth., DOI: 10.1515/gps-2012-0032). The researchers used a flow reactor capable of operating at up to 310 °C and 60 atm pressure and at flow rates as high as 20 L per hour, which works out to about 1,000 metric tons per year. The reactants need to spend only about 30 seconds in the microwave-irradiated zone for the reaction to be complete. 

“For many researchers in the lab, microwaves have become the first choice and not a last resort,” Kappe says. “Now, in moving to microwave flow chemistry, we may be seeing a new game-changer in sustainable process chemistry.” 

Looks interesting to me. Obviously, capital costs and maintenance would be an issue, as well as the broad applicability of the specific setup.

[The concerns about safety and microwave leakage become really real -- does anyone remember the "Microwave Oven in Use" signs from the early 80's?]

[You can click through to the actual Green Process Synthesis article and download the PDF, stunningly.]

Want to be a professor of organic chemistry? (2012 edition)

The 2012 back-to-school edition of Chemical and Engineering News was almost two weeks ago, but I wanted to do my traditional listing of openings in the print edition for assistant professors of organic chemistry. I included all ads that had the word "organic" or "bioorganic", but none of the ones that said "any field." (Medicinal/drug discovery professorships were not included.) I've put an asterisk next to the universities that were looking for professors of organic chemistry last year.

Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA
University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS*
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN
Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
California Lutheran University, Thousands Oaks, CA
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
College of Charleston, Charleston, SC
DePaul University, Chicago, IL
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA*
Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY
University of Chicago, Chicago, IL
University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
University of Mary Washington, Fredricksburg (Fredricksburg! Fredricksburg!), VA
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY*
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
Berry College, Mount Berry, GA
Utah State University, Logan, UT
University of Houston, Houston, TX

12 slots of professors at PhD-granting universities among 19 advertised slots overall. Best wishes to all applying.