Archive for the ‘Government’ Category

Plastic-Free Plastic Bags

Monday, August 1st, 2011

Just last month, the county of California in which I live enacted a sweeping ban of lightweight plastic grocery bags.  Now, whenever you go to the supermarket or pharmacy, you must:  (1) remember to bring your own bags, (2) carry all of your loose items out of the store by hand, or (3) pay the store 10 cents for a paper bag.  Ugh.

We can debate the environmental impact of paper vs. plastic bags at some other time.  I think a far more pressing concern is what Pasadena’s large homeless population will use as toilets now that the ubiquitous plastic grocery bags are no longer available.

Just yesterday, I happened across this lovely scene outside an Albertson’s grocery store in Calabasas:

The whole parking lot was littered with those red and white signs touting “NO PLASTIC BAGS”.  Of course, when you go inside, this is what they are peddling:

Those look like bags to me.  (They are sold as “reusable” bags, but please tell me what type of bag is not reusable.)  The one on the left was purchased from inside the Calabasas store.  The bag on the right is from a rival grocery chain, Ralph’s.  So, if not plastic, what is the magical substance from which these bags are constructed?

Polypropylene.  Not just good-ol’ SPI resin identification code No. 5 polypropylene, but virgin/non-recycled good-ol’ SPI resin identification code No. 5 polypropylene.

Chemists, please note…effective immediately,  “plastic” = polyethylene.  Polypropylene is “all natural”, “organic“, “reusable”, and “eco-friendly”.  Basically, everything but “plastic”.

Remind you of anything?

Corny Energy Policy

Wednesday, July 20th, 2011

Chemical Ed VomitsThis post is Day 3 in the CHEMisperceptions chem-blog roundtable.  Day 1 was at ScienceGeist, Day 2 was at Chemjobber, and Day 4 will be at Leigh’s blog.

Energy.  It’s kind of important.  I’m not going to sit here and bother writing out the hackneyed warnings that you’ve all heard before.  I won’t cite the growth of the world’s population, industrial emergence of less-developed economies, and expanding requirements of new technology as key factors that will multiply our already high demand for power for years to come.  I also won’t repeat the obvious truth that these factors, coupled with the problems associated with the generation of electricity from fossil fuels, necessitate that we develop new ways of providing energy to power all of these applications.

How the world fuels its growing appetite for energy is a problem that involves many stakeholders, but the subject most relevant to the discussion might be chemistry.  The problem falls squarely within the realm of chemical research, but that hasn’t stopped politicians from espousing positions that don’t pass chemical muster.

A blog post on public misperceptions about energy could easily turn into a book.  (My new favorite is from a conversation I recently overheard that high-octane gasoline is “premium” because it burns more cleanly and gives you better fuel mileage.)  While you can find people that believe just about anything, I’m sure that all of us—scientists included—have misconceptions about energy that are based on ignorance, counterintuitive phenomena, and misinformation.  But that’s not my concern today.  My concern is the bigger picture and how our government (not just a few random people) is putting its weight behind ideas that don’t make a whole lot of sense.

Perhaps the worst example has to be the growing use of ethanol from corn as a fuel.  The United States has already invested and is continuing to pour a hell of a lot of money into working more ethanol into the fold of the fuel we use for transportation.  Acts of Congress have ensured the growth of the technology by setting minimum levels of ethanol production, and the Government provides tax breaks for domestic producers and places tariffs on imports.  These subsidies are a signal that ethanol technology is not something that makes the most sense economically, but government intervention can be a good idea for fledgling technologies that show promise for the future.  Is that the case for corn ethanol?

It is very hard for me to believe.  The only real advantage of ethanol is that it removes some of our dependence on oil, whose price is essentially controlled by a cartel run by unfriendly countries.  I appreciate the desire to wean ourselves from “foreign” oil, but ethanol is a drop in the bucket in the energy picture and it introduces considerable costs for (questionable) short term gain.  First, we eat corn, so its use to produce ethanol places a higher demand on the crop and drives up food prices.  This problem will only get worse as the population increases and demands for ethanol fuel grow. Next, we don’t have the infrastructure for using ethanol.  As used today, expanding ethanol production is going to require new distilleries, and increasing the percentage of ethanol in fuels is going to require things like engine modifications and different fuel pumps to support it.  (Congress has already allocated money for getting more of these pumps installed.)  These projects and similar ones would, perhaps, be reasonable investments if ethanol were a long-term solution, but it doesn’t seem to be (for reasons discussed below).  Finally, corn ethanol is woefully inefficient in terms of harnessing energy, even relative to other forms of ethanol production (e.g., sugar cane).  Distilleries are still largely powered by coal, and the best estimates are that when you consider all of the factors that go into producing corn ethanol, it only reduces greenhouse gas emissions by ~25% versus gasoline.  The technology doesn’t quite live up to its reputation as “carbon-neutral”.

Yes, I know many people have made these arguments (and others) against corn ethanol before.  That makes it all the more depressing that the technology continues to be a major focus of domestic energy policy.  Perhaps the better question to focus on is what strategies do seem viable to meet the energy demands of the future?

This is where things get a little depressing—even scary.  Nate Lewis (a professor at Caltech) has done some back-of-the-envelope calculations about how fast the global demand for power will increase and how realistic it is to meet these needs with various forms of energy production.  He’s published his analysis in several easy-to-read papers and he gives a great talk.

What does the analysis have to say about solving the “energy crisis” with…

Nuclear?  It’s “clean” in terms of CO2 pollution, but we’d have to build a standard-capacity uranium reactor every other day for the next 50 years to meet energy demand.  Or…nuclear chemists/physicists could finally invent a fusion reactor.

Hydroelectricity?  It’s really a pittance.  You could dam every river on Earth and not generate enough energy for today’s needs.  Furthermore, you’d flood a lot of people out of their homes.

Geothermal?  Again, there’s not enough that is practical to access.

Wind?  In regions with high wind velocity, this technology is definitely economical, but there’s not nearly enough accessible wind energy for everyone.

Biofuels (like ethanol)?  Unfortunately, photosynthesis is only ~1% efficient and CO2 only makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, which introduces severe mass-transport limitations on how fast plants grow.  If you used the most efficient crops and (impossibly) found a means to farm them without using energy, you’d essentially have to plant all of the arable land on the planet to meet what we’ll need in terms of long-term energy consumption.

Fossil fuels?  Fortunately, there is plenty of oil, gas, and coal around to last for many decades, but this does nothing to solve the problem of pollution/CO2.

Solar?  This is the only real option.  Well over 1,000 times more energy from sunlight hits the surface of the Earth than we need to meet even the least conservative estimates for what the world will need down the road.  Today’s best systems generate energy at ~4-5 times the cost of the same unit produced by burning fossil fuels, which is why solar is not yet a practical alternative.  We (chemists) need to improve the efficiency of these systems, find better catalysts, less expensive materials, and find a way to store energy so that we can run things at night.

I think all of these alternatives should continue to be the subject of research because they are interesting from the perspective of science and engineering.  But, to me, solar is the only thing that makes sense in terms of serious (big $$$) investment.  All of the focus on corn ethanol has been, and continues to be, a distraction and a waste.  The problem is that the public has been sold an incomplete story.

The Sezen Files – Part I: New Documents

Thursday, July 7th, 2011

ChemBark Investigates

Now that C&EN has blown the cover off of this story, I am rushing these posts to press.  I’m not sure when the next installment is coming; there is a ton of information to process.

ChemBark is now in possession of 167 pages of information directly pertinent to the finding of scientific misconduct against Dr. Bengu Sezen (formerly) of Columbia University.  The files relate to investigations conducted by both Columbia University (CU) and the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) in the United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).  In November 2010, ORI announced its finding that Sezen was responsible for 21 instances of scientific misconduct, and the organization subsequently barred her from receiving federal funding for five years.

The documents were obtained by ChemBark via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted on 29 November 2010.  The documents were finally sent on 22 June 2011—over six months past the date of the original request, but a mere two days after ChemBark mailed a friendly reminder to DHHS by U.S. Certified Mail.

The files have been heavily redacted by Carol Maloney, who is Director of the Division of FOIA Services at DHHS.  Very few names other than that of Dr. Sezen remain in the documents, including only one single instance of Dalibor Sames (Sezen’s advisor at Columbia and co-author of several retracted papers).  In making her redactions, Maloney asserted FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(c), which are intended to protect the personal privacy of parties involved in the investigation.  Statements within these 167 pages of documents allude to the existence of more than 10,000 pages of documents related to the investigation.  While the set of documents obtained by ChemBark has been heavily redacted and only represents a small sample size of the body of documents that exist, the information contained in them paints a vivid picture of what was unquestionably a sustained rampage of data fabrication by Sezen, and later, an equally egregious campaign by her to avoid punishment.  The depth of the deception and its tragic consequences are manifest within the investigatory record, and at times, the machinations of Sezen seem so far-fetched and desperate as to be comedic.

In this series of posts, ChemBark will go through the details of the case most pertinent to the chemical community.  The purpose of this endeavor is to inform the community of the details of the case with an eye on analyzing what transpired and learning from it.  Fabrication of data might be the most heinous crime that can be perpetrated against science, and while “negative” stories like this one often paint our field in a bad light, we cannot afford to ignore them.  Almost six years have passed since the first reports of key details about this case were published on the predecessor to ChemBark.  Unfortunately, the coverage provided by traditional outlets for scientific news has been superficial and woefully inadequate.  It has obviously taken an extraordinary amount of time to uncover the details of the investigation, but a few delayed blog posts are better than nothing.  I have long maintained in previous coverage of this story that there is plenty for the chemical community to learn from this case, and these documents verify that.

Associated Documents

3 December 2010 – Acknowledgment of receipt of ChemBark’s FOIA request
8 December 2010 – Denial of ChemBark’s request for expedited processing
20 June 2011 – Follow-up letter to DHHS FOIA Office
22 June 2011 – Cover letter from DHHS with Bengu Sezen Investigation FOIA Materials
22 June 2011 – FOIA Materials for Bengu Sezen Investigation


The Sezen Files – Part II: Unraveling the Fabrication
The Sezen Files – Part III: And What of Sames?
The Sezen Files – Part IV: Lessons and Lingering Questions
The Sezen Files – Part V: Wrap Up

Best. State of the Union. Ever.

Wednesday, January 26th, 2011

What a fantastic State of the Union address by the president.  In case you missed it, the word of the night was “innovation”.  You will recall that the word popped up repeatedly during our December roundtable on jobs and the future of chemistry.  It’s nice to hear the same sentiment rattling around the nerve center of our government.

When you are the economy in the lead, the only way to maintain your distance from the field is to continually develop new technology.  Doing so “grows the pie” such that you can sustain your own growth in the face of rising competition.  If we fail to grow the pie, other countries will eventually eat into our slice.

From the speech:

Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik¸ we had no idea how we’d beat them to the moon. The science wasn’t there yet. NASA didn’t even exist.  But after investing in better research and education, we didn’t just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs.

This is our generation’s Sputnik moment. Two years ago, I said that we needed to reach a level of research and development we haven’t seen since the height of the Space Race. In a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal.  We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology – an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people.

While there is certainly an undertone of gloom in this passage, I’d probably have been more explicit.  The truth is that if the solution to cheap energy is not developed in the United States, we are going to have big problems in maintaining our world superiority.  Big problems.  To me, research on clean energy technology is every bit as much about national security as it is about helping our economy or the environment.

Of course, the hard part falls to us: the people in the trenches.  That’s an exciting (and humbling) responsibility.  Speaking of excitement, I nearly soiled my pants when a mere 15 minutes into his speech, Obama let loose with this:

That’s what Americans have done for over two hundred years: reinvented ourselves. And to spur on more success stories like the Allen Brothers, we’ve begun to reinvent our energy policy. We’re not just handing out money. We’re issuing a challenge.  We’re telling America’s scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we’ll fund the Apollo Projects of our time.

At the California Institute of Technology, they’re developing a way to turn sunlight and water into fuel for our cars.

“Hooooooly Sh’t!!  That’s us!!”  Mom saw it and was pleased.  You can’t ask for much more than that.

Election ‘06 = Good for Chemistry?

Friday, March 2nd, 2007

This Web site allows you to search for political campaign contributions made by individual citizens.  Rack your brain for five minutes to see if your favorite chemists have their favorite politicians.

Some people are really quite active.

I am amazed by: 1) how many chemical celebrities have made large contributions and 2) how all of them seem to be to Democrats.  Can we take this as a sign that the last election was good for chemistry?