ChemBark

A friend on Facebook brought my attention to a very interesting article from NBC News:

People always worry about pee in the pool, but number two is the No. 1 problem, government health experts say. They found plenty of evidence that someone’s pooping in the pool. It’s not only disgusting, but it’s evidence that people are not following basic hygiene rules, says Michele Hlavsa, chief of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Healthy Swimming Program.

“It is time to stop treating the swimming pool as a toilet,” Hlavsa told NBC News. “Nowhere else except for the pool is it acceptable to poop in public or pee in public. In other places if we did this in public, we’d be arrested.”

The pool-poo expert went on to say:

“The average person has about .14 grams of feces on their rear end,” Hlavsa said. “If that rinses off into the water, the amount from one person might not be that much. But as more and more swimmers introduce it that much, it does become an issue.”

She’s actually done the math.

“Let’s imagine 1,000 kids go to a water park. They have as much as 10 grams of feces on their rear ends,” she said.  “We are now talking about 10,000 grams or 10 kg. That translates to 24 pounds of poop in the water.”

I am willing to grant Hlavsa’s obscenely high estimate of 10 grams of poo per bottom—which does lead to 10 kg of poo per 1000 bottoms—but that does not equate to 24 pounds! The correct conversion factor for poo (or any other substance at the surface of Earth) is 2.2 pounds per kg.

I am immensely relieved her hypothetical pool contains only 22 lbs. of poo.

Tom Barton won last year’s ACS national election for President (and was kind enough to answer our questionnaire about important issues facing the society). Yesterday, President-Elect Barton asked that I share this message with the readers of the blog:

In my ACS presidential year of 2014 I’m considering hosting a symposium on fracking with, of course, emphasis on the involvement of chemicals.  I would appreciate hearing from anyone suggestions for particular areas for inclusion, and potential speakers.  I seek a balanced set of presentations from experts in the various aspects, and would certainly be interested in any germane research.  I myself am not an expert in this arena, but I am trying to get smart in it.  In advance, I appreciate your assistance.

Feel free to weigh in using the comments. I will leave the first…

The big news on Friday was that a California judge denied UCLA chemistry professor Patrick Harran’s motion to dismiss or reduce the charges against him relating to the death of Sheri Sangji in a tragic tert-butyllithium accident in Harran’s lab. C&EN and the LA Times both had reporters in the courtroom. Chemjobber and Jyllian Kemsley are curating lists of links.

I’ve weighed in on the subject before, and my views have not changed. There is plenty of blame to go around. Should Sangji have taken more precautions in running her experiment, the most important of which would have been wearing a lab coat? Certainly. She had to have known better, but she paid the ultimate price. Now, it’s past time to decide what responsibility Harran bears in the accident. I think the judge made the right decision in allowing the case to go to trial, and unless the sides strike a plea bargain, a jury will now decide if Harran broke the law. I don’t like Professor Harran’s chances in front of a jury. While most people who’ve been in grad school may recognize the lax oversight by Harran as “normal”, that doesn’t make it legal.

And while Harran faces the possibility of 4.5 years in prison, I still don’t think a prison sentence is warranted should Harran be convicted. The most effective and relevant punishment would be something that specifically limits Harran’s ability to run a laboratory. What I also find distressing is UCLA’s “unwavering” support of Harran. (Side note: Does that include Harran’s claim that UCLA never trained him properly?) UCLA is sending a bad message here; schools should make a point of requiring that professors take their responsibilities in managing labs and training students more seriously.

It looks like someone is using the deadly nerve agent sarin in the ongoing civil war in Syria, which may very well draw the United States into the conflict. I did a project on sarin for a class in my sophomore year of college at NYU. Here is the handout I prepared to accompany my talk.

Looking back on the document, a few things stand out:

1. It’s amazing how simple of a compound sarin is.

2. I had bizarre taste in fonts.

3. I’d forgotten I had written about Osama bin Laden a full year before the attacks on 9-11-01.

A little-publicized vote at this week’s National Meeting of the American Chemical Society in New Orleans could have serious implications for the nature of the office of ACS President. Amendments to the ACS’s Constitution and Bylaws are formally called “petitions,” and on Wednesday, the Council will vote on a petition to alter the method by which candidates for the ACS presidency are selected.

The recent blurb on the subject in C&EN does not touch upon the underlying implications of the petition and the major behind-the-scenes contention regarding the vote, so let’s examine the subject more closely…

Under the current system, the Committee on Nominations and Elections (N&E) recruits four nominees for ACS President-Elect and presents them to the Council. Each Councilor then votes for two of the nominees, and the top two finishers advance as the candidates for that year’s national election (in which all ACS members can participate, but only 15% bother). In addition to the top two nominees, other candidates may be selected by petition of the wider ACS membership (0.5% of all ACS members must sign the petition).

The amendment to be considered in New Orleans eliminates the power of the Council to narrow the field of nominees. Instead of selecting four nominees to face the Council, in the new system, N&E will select two candidates to automatically advance to the national election. The power of the Council to strike candidates is removed, though the Council may vote to place additional candidates on the ballot by petition of the Councilors (50 votes required). The ability of the wider ACS membership to add candidates by petition will be retained.

Why would N&E want to bypass the Council? Because some heavy-hitters in chemistry were getting dissed. The most recent high-profile loss by an N&E recruit was Barry Trost in 2013 (to Tom Barton and Luis Echegoyen). In 2010, N&E could only recruit three candidates. Many successful/famous/proud chemists turn down N&E’s calls to become nominees because they don’t fancy getting embarrassed by the Council, even though they’d be prohibitive favorites in the national election.

Dennis Chamot, a former member of the ACS Board of Directors, summarized his support of the petition in an e-mail obtained by ChemBark that is circulating behind-the-scenes among Councilors:

Briefly, here are the major problems, and what the petition calls for to solve them.  First, N&E must spend several months identifying four people who would accept nomination.  They receive many turn-downs.  Then the four go before Council and two are eliminated – in the past Council rejected a Nobel prize winner, and another person who later went on to be awarded the Priestly medal, the Society’s highest honor.  Time and again I have seen very impressive people, especially from industry, who are routinely rejected by Council.  In every one of these cases, the people I refer to were rejected primarily because councilors did not know them; they had not been active in ACS governance.  But president is a special position.  Activity in governance, getting tickets punched, is not a requirement for eligibility.

Another problem, and one that is getting more serious, is the extreme length of time of ACS elections.  This is driven by the requirement to announce nominees before the spring Council meeting and to run the election after the fall meeting.  Busy people with jobs have more to do than be in a constant state of running for office.

ChemBark hears that the idea for this petition may have originated with Chamot, a long-time power-player in Society governance, but he did not respond to ChemBark‘s request for comment (sent last week). His circulating e-mail went on to state, “this is not a power grab by N&E”, which is exactly where the criticism of the petition is focused. By allowing the approval of nominees to bypass the full Council, many councilors fear that candidates who lack important qualifications such as familiarity with ACS governance will advance to the national election. Recall, the President is attached to significant political power, as she gets to vote with the Board of Directors, the body that has ultimate control of the Society.

Attila Pavlath, a past President of the Society, has also penned e-mails to councilors in advance of the vote. Pavlath tells ChemBark that he is “conducting an information campaign among the councilors to show why the petition is faulty.” The following excerpts come from a document Pavlath authored titled “The fallacies of the petition to diminish the Council’s power”:

The ACS President should not be a figurehead. It is not an honorary position given as recognition for scientific accomplishments or industrial leadership. The Presidents should be able and willing to give considerable time to the activities of the Society not just in Washington and Board meetings but to meet the members nationwide in Local Sections.

A President with scientific or industrial excellence might create more publicity in newspapers but in legislative circles their influence is not much more than a President with lesser such credentials. Realistically, the Presidents of the autoworkers or teamsters union have much more effect. The greatest influence of an ACS President can be on Local Sections, Divisions and individual members to inspire them to create and support activities benefiting the members, the profession and thus fortifying the Society.

Councilors are elected by the members to represent them. The Council created N&E for the purpose of searching for nominees to various positions on the ACS Board. The job of N&E is to provide adequate and meaningful information about the nominees so that the Council can evaluate their fitness for the position and make its choice. While nothing is perfect, certainly 400+ councilors’ decision is statistically more valuable than that of 15 persons on N&E.

The nominees and candidates should be willing to face the electorate at various ways and places showing their capabilities for the position and reveal their plans if elected. If someone is not willing or unable to find time for this, how will that person have time to carry out the arduous duty of the President.

So, the vote on this petition transcends the esoteric selection rules it is designed to change. Perhaps the real question that should be asked is, “what do we want in an ACS President?” Supporters of the petition would seem to favor star-power by recruiting candidates for President who are superior chemists known for high achievement in academia/industry/policy/law, even if it comes at the expense of those who are familiar with ACS governance. Opponents of the petition would argue that it is very important for the candidates to be known to the Council and involved in Society governance, as the office is not a figurehead position—the winner will serve on the Board for three years. Ultimately, one wonders if this question is one to be posed to the full membership of the Society rather than just the Council. Also, one can easily think of possible alternatives/compromises, such as removing the Presidential succession (Elect/Current/Past) from the Board, or having the full Council give each nominee an individual up-or-down vote to advance to candidacy.

Two-thirds of the Councilors present in New Orleans on Wednesday must vote in favor of the petition for it to pass, and there is already significant opposition rallying behind the scenes. It would seem that the smart money would bet against the success of this petition.

Edited 10 April 2013 to add a response received by Dennis Chamot by e-mail this morning:

You have somewhat distorted the intent of the petition.  When I noted that this was not a power grab by N&E, I meant just that.  I have never been a member of N&E, and I believe that several members of N&E in fact do not support the petition.  I am also not in favor of the ACS presidency being simply an honorific position, nor am I overawed by “stars” – I run into quite a few in my day job.  Rather, I want to EXPAND the possibilities for bringing good people into ACS leadership.  Time and again over the years I have seen intelligent, thoughtful, articulate people – not generally known stars by any means – routinely knocked off the ballot simply because they were not involved in governance and not well known to a lot of Councilors.  So the current process offers the membership LESS choice than what the petition would permit.

For example, a couple of years ago, three of the four nominees were sitting board members and the fourth had rotated off the board only the year before; this was not by design, but rather a result of the inability of N&E to get anyone else to accept nomination.  This year, three of the nominees have been very active insiders, and the fourth has also had committee service.  All are good people and have served well, but the board has 15 voting members, only three from the presidential succession.  12 are usually people with significant governance experience in any case.  Nowhere in the constitution and bylaws does it say that a qualification for president is required governance service, but it appears that few without extensive governance experience, especially in the alternate non-academic years, care to put their names forward within the current system.  I think this is a loss for the Society.

(By the way, I might note that N&E is an elected body – all of its members are councilors and they are elected to the committee by the members of the Council.  While there were abuses in the past, times have changed quite a bit, and I have full confidence in the integrity of the members and staff of N&E, even if we may have some differences of opinion).

Edited to add: The petition was defeated in Council on 10 April 2013.

I was amused by a news story out of Florida, where a pair of disc jockeys were suspended after going on the radio Monday (April Fools’ Day) and reporting that the local water supply had dihydrogen monoxide in it. Unaware that dihydrogen monoxide is H₂O, and H₂O is water, many residents went crazy:

 

As if we needed any more evidence that science education in this country is absolute crap.

What’s more, the DJs might face felony charges. From a legal standpoint, I’m interested in seeing how this one turns out. I haven’t heard any direct quotes from the broadcast, but can you charge someone with a crime for stating a scientific fact? I’m assuming they were careful and said something along the lines of “there’s dihydrogen monoxide in the water” as opposed to “the water is poisoned with dihydrogen monoxide.” Anyway, I suppose the DJs went in with a fair amount of mens rea; what else did they expect to happen?