ChemBark

I’m always interested to come across instructional documents on chemistry professors’ Web sites. These documents can be great resources, because they often contain very practical advice about safety, direction on how to maintain instruments, and guidance on experimental technique from experts in the field. Taking the time to commit this information to writing also helps prevent “institutional” loss of memory when senior members of the lab graduate without having properly trained the next generation of students.

Unfortunately, you don’t come across that many lab manuals online. Perhaps this is because some of them are distributed in hard copy only. Perhaps, some professors don’t want to explicitly write procedures and safety guidelines in fear they might be used against them in court. My guess, however, is that most people can’t find the time to sit down and write out this information—or they don’t see the value in doing so.

Jim Tour’s “Guidelines for Research” is among my favorite documents. He gets very specific about some of the advice he doles out. For instance, all nitrogen bubblers left on overnight should have a flow rate of one bubble per second or less. Tour provides guidance on how he likes notebooks to be kept, and he also provides expectations about work ethic and vacations. Finally, there is the passage on personal hygiene:

Personal Hygiene: Although not customary in all countries, Americans generally bathe at least several times per week. As a result, many Americans are offended by the infrequent bathing habits of others (whether Americans or internationals). Thus, you may be leaving a negative impression of yourself without ever knowing it. Unfortunately, bad impressions are often difficult to overcome. Likewise, be sure to use an underarm deodorant since most Americans find body odor to be most offensive. I have seen people causing themselves to be ostracized by others simply because of poor personal hygiene habits.

It might seem trifling or overbearing to provide advice on this level, but the info is correct and I wish more people heeded Tour’s advice.

While the idea of writing a manual all at once seems daunting, I think that doing it in pieces seems quite reasonable. In fact, I think you can assemble some really good tidbits of advice from material that is already posted online. These documents are almost like official memoranda to members of professors’ labs. For instance:

The famous “How to Write a Scientific Paper” article in Advanced Materials had its beginnings as a type-written memo from George Whitesides to his lab.

There’s also Ken Suslick’s cool presentation on how to give a talk.

And I like how some professors provide specific instructions on how to ask them for letters of recommendation.

Anyway, before I go writing similar stuff in the future, I wanted to know if you all had come across any great lab manuals or memos. Leave them in the comments, and I’ll compile a list below.

Lab Manuals

Jim Tour’s “Guidelines for Research”
Melanie Sanford’s “Group Welcome Kit”
Dave Collum’s site
Bart Bartlett’s “Standard Operating Procedures”
Turro Group’s site
Watson Group Manual
Tolman Lab’s “Standard Operating Procedures”
Armen Zakarian’s site

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.

In today’s mailbag, an astute reader of the blog writes to bring our attention to a new post on the American Chemical Society’s Web site regarding some of the details of the ACS v. Leadscope case.

The post is written in a Q & A format that might be an homage to the “tough questions” survey that ChemBark recently sent to the candidates for ACS President. While it would appear that the ACS both asked and answered the questions found in the post, some of the questions match those posed in the presidential survey and in ChemBark‘s posts about the recent ACS v. Leadscope verdict and settlement.

First off, let me applaud the ACS for this giant leap forward in transparency. We, the members of the Society, need these details to help us function as an informed electorate. It is a pity that we’ve had to wait until the matter was almost completely resolved to get many of these basic facts.

So, what is new? Let’s start with the money. It seems that after losing the initial verdict, the ACS owed Leadscope $26.5M in damages plus another $7.9M in the defendant’s legal fees. By not immediately paying these sums as the Society pursued the appeals process, the ACS accrued another $11M in post-judgment interest. Thus, prior to the verdict in the Ohio Supreme Court, the ACS was on the hook for >$45M. After that verdict erased the defamation judgment but upheld the judgment of unfair competition, the ACS was still on the hook for >$26M. Leadscope and ACS soon settled for a $22.6M payment to end the litigation.

Now, how much of this does the ACS have to pay? Not all of it. It turns out the ACS has insured itself to reduce its financial exposure in these and similar issues, but it is unclear what is covered. From the post:

The ACS has a comprehensive suite of insurance, including primary commercial general liability and umbrella general liability coverage. As a result of this insurance, ACS has been reimbursed for over a million dollars in attorney’s fees. In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, we are working with our legal counsel to determine the amount ACS will be responsible for paying and then we will work with our insurance providers to determine what portion, if any, may be covered by insurance.

Of course, the ACS’s legal fees far exceeded $1M…they are over $9M for the case, and the ACS does not say how much it pays for their insurance coverage.

The ACS still claims that shelling out $22.6M is not that big of a deal, which is incomprehensible to me for a non-profit of their size:

ACS paid the settlement using funds from the Society’s substantial cash reserves and investments. Nevertheless, ACS recognizes that paying $22.6 million to settle litigation begun over a decade ago is a very negative outcome to this litigation.

One of the reasons why large nonprofits strive to maintain financial reserves is to cover large, unexpected financial losses. Members and others should be assured that the settlement in this case will not result in higher ACS member dues or increased prices for ACS products, programs or services. The settlement in this case will neither restrict ACS staffing levels nor impair the ACS’s continued ability to achieve its mission.

In a bizarre twist, the ACS tries to make the argument that the cost of the settlement is not that big of a deal by comparing it to the much greater sum that the ACS finds itself shelling out for post-retirement benefits plans:

The decline in the Society’s unrestricted net assets from 2008 to the present has been largely driven by accounting charges related to the Society’s postretirement benefit plans.¹ The plans have become underfunded due to historically low interest rates, which have caused the discount rate to decline. The discount rate is used to calculate the postretirement benefit plan liabilities. The rate has declined from 6.5% at December 31, 2007, to 4.0% at November 30, 2012, and resulted in accounting charges of $153 million during this period. If, as most observers expect, interest rates eventually rebound to higher levels, the accounting charges related to these plans will reverse and the Society’s unrestricted net assets will increase accordingly. Other factors impacting unrestricted net assets include the Society’s net from operations, investment gains/losses and non-operating gains/losses.

How on Earth is the ACS spending this much money on benefits? This seems like yet another matter that deserves more study.

And finally…

11. This whole case seems like it was a very bad idea. If ACS had it to do all over again, would it still file suit? Will there be management changes as a result of this outcome?

In hindsight, it is very easy to second guess the 2002 recommendations made by the Society’s in-house and outside lawyers and the Governing Board for Publishing, as well as the 2002 Board’s decision to file suit.

However, given the information available to ACS management and governance at the time and the advice provided by legal counsel, ACS elected to file a suit in an effort it believed was necessary to protect valuable ACS intellectual property. ACS and its in-house and external counsel believed that its claims were valid and supported by evidence. Prior to and during the pendency of the Leadscope case, ACS management and governance engaged in a robust and thorough decision-making process. Moreover, the decision to pursue this case was not made by any one individual but rather was authorized after a careful and thoughtful analysis of the nature of the Society’s claims by internal and external legal counsel, ACS senior management, and the ACS Board of Directors.

There will be no management changes as a result of the Leadscope outcome.

This is why we have elections, my friends. The people in charge at ACS answer to nothing else. They are free to do whatever they want, however carelessly, as long as we (the electorate) allow it.

On the heels of a split decision in the latest round of appeals, the American Chemical Society and Leadscope, Inc. have reached a settlement that puts an end to the decade-long lawsuit and results in the ACS shelling out $22.6 million to the company founded by three former ACS employees. As one would expect, the settlement brings appreciable benefits to both sides in the case. The ACS will get a discount on the $26.5M judgment handed down by the Ohio State Supreme Court, while Leadscope will be able to cash in its chips without having to worry about losing a larger chunk of its pending award (i.e., from another adverse decision on appeal). Leadscope also gets the rights to the disputed intellectual property involved in the case.

Here are excerpts from two statements issued by the ACS on the settlement:

The American Chemical Society, Leadscope, Inc., and its three founders have reached a settlement of the litigation between them dating back to 2002. As a provision of the settlement, the parties have agreed that all right, title, interest, and ownership in the Leadscope software and products that were the subject of the litigation belong exclusively to Leadscope. ACS will make a payment of $22,633,377.00 to settle and resolve all claims. Each party is pleased to put an end to this longstanding dispute.

and

The ACS Board of Directors, comprised of the elected representatives of the Society’s members, authorized the filing of this case more than a decade ago. In reaching its decision, the Board considered recommendations that ACS file suit from its Governing Board for Publishing (overseeing CAS and ACS Publications) and two law firms, one with nationally recognized patent expertise. Although ACS believed in the merits of its suit, the Columbus Ohio jury that heard the case during the nearly eight-week trial in 2008 found against the ACS on its claims. In addition, the jury found in favor of Leadscope and its three founders on three counterclaims against ACS. By the time of the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision, the value of the trial court’s judgment, including the jury’s verdict, interest, and fees, exceeded $45 million.

In this settlement, the parties have agreed to resolve this dispute and to release each other from any further liabilities.

As a result of prudent financial stewardship, ACS is able to satisfy the full settlement amount with a portion of its cash and investments. Therefore, this payment will not impact the Society’s member dues; extensive products, programs, and services advancing chemistry; staffing levels; or the ability of ACS to achieve its mission.

ACS appreciates and acknowledges the strong support it received in the Ohio Supreme Court through briefs submitted on ACS’s behalf by the State of Ohio, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, the Ohio State Bar Association, the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association, and the Ohio Council of Retail Merchants.

ACS remains committed more than ever to achieving its vision of “Improving people’s lives through the transforming power of chemistry.”

There are a couple of things that should be highlighted from these statements, as well as some omissions. First, note that the ACS’s Board of Directors had the ultimate authority to pursue this lawsuit. This is a great example that elections have consequences, and the Board members are who should be held accountable for throwing away $22.6 million (and risking much more). It should also come as quite a surprise that a loss of $22.6M “will not impact the Society’s member dues; extensive products, programs, and services advancing chemistry; staffing levels; or the ability of ACS to achieve its mission.” How is this even possible? When did $23 million become a drop in the bucket for our non-profit society? Something does not sound right, and I can’t believe that $23M wouldn’t have done a lot of good in terms of improved ACS programming.

C&EN, the official organ of the ACS, ran a story that did little more than parrot the official statement. I wish a reporter at the magazine would take the elevator upstairs and find out where this money is really coming from—or at least find out how a $23M loss can do nothing to impact ACS programs. But I won’t be holding my breath for another story. Instead, I’ll just lament the limitations of state-run media.

Finally, it should be noted that $22.6M just covers what the ACS is obligated to pay Leadscope. The question of how much the ACS has shelled out in legal fees remains unanswered. After ten years of litigation, including multiple appeals, I imagine the legal fees add up to a pretty penny. Of course, whatever astronomical figure they amount to, I’m sure the cost will not impact “the ability of ACS to achieve its mission.” Right?

=/

Earlier this week, I sent a questionnaire to the two current candidates for ACS President-Elect. The first candidate to respond is Tom Barton, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at Iowa State University. I have posted his responses below, in full.

Thank you, Professor Barton, for responding and engaging the online community of chemists on these matters of great importance to the society!

Response of Prof. Tom Barton, Candidate for ACS President-Elect

Hi Paul,

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to take a shot at these important questions.  You will see in my responses that I don’t have the complete picture on any of them.  If elected I would plan on spending a significant portion of the first year getting that picture and probing membership on their views on these and other concerns.

Tom

1. What are your thoughts on the ACS vs. Leadscope case?  Do you believe that society records pertaining to the lawsuit—including legal fees—should be made public?

For those who are not up to date on this case, as I wasn’t when first asked about it, there is an excellent summary by Marianna Bettman, an Ohio law professor to be found at http://www.legallyspeakingohio.com/2012/09/merit-decision-am-chem-soc-v-leadscope-thumbs-up-on-unfair-competition-claim-thumbs-down-on-defamation-claim/.  I found it to be an excellent discussion.  As only a candidate, I do not know the intimate details of how and why ACS got into this, nor of the situation that they face at the moment.   Thus, I must reply with the general statement that I have always believed and always have acted on the principle that openness is the best policy.  In my lifetime, the most dramatic examples of the dangers of secretiveness were perhaps in the behavior of the Atomic Energy Commission, who wrongly believed and operated under the premise of “the public doesn’t need to know”, when in fact the public had a desperate need to know.  There are many more examples where secretive behavior by parts of government ultimately created situations far worse than complete openness would have produced.  Thus, as ACS president I would want to see all the history and strive to make all that was pertinent and not legally encumbered available to the entire ACS membership.  Yes, that includes legal fees.

2. What is your stance on the ACS’s executive compensation packages?

I have received a number of enquiries as to my views in this arena, and conclude that a lot of people feel rather strongly about this issue.   In tracking down the actual numbers I found different ones in different sources but they are all awe-inspiring.  It is important to remember that executive compensation operates within a market.  If your compensation is not competitive, there is real risk that you can lose the type of talent that you need for the organization to succeed.  That said, the membership of ACS has every right to request and get an explanation for the magnitude of these salaries.  There is an annual process by which the salaries are set and thus, the ACS can provide the rationale(s) involved and report to membership (via C&EN) why the salaries are what they are.  Said report should provide examples from similar societies, keeping in mind that ACS is not only the world’s largest scientific society, but certainly the most complex (and D.C. is hardly the least expensive place to live).  I would support a policy that in the future, salary histories of all employees making over some minimal level would be annually reported to the membership in C&EN.  Again, this is a simple matter of openness.  If one is not prepared to justify how one is spending someone else’s money, one should not spend it in that fashion.

I would add that where I have worked for the past 45 years, Iowa State University, all faculty and staff salaries are published annually in the newspaper (now on paper’s website).  The only time this has bothered me is when I was not included because my salary did not reach the minimum!

Lastly I would note that I do not see the logic in giving everyone a bonus every year.  The only reasonable justification for a bonus is that the employee exceeded your expectations.  If you are giving bonuses every year, you need to rethink your expectations.  Once again, if there are good reasons, all that is needed is to inform membership of them

3. What is your stance regarding the fees that ACS publications charges companies and universities to access journals?

I don’t have the data to take a reasoned stance on this at this time.  I’ll have to get it, however, as I have had a couple of interesting emails about this in the past few days, which have caused me to have some potential concerns.  It is hardly unreasonable for users to be concerned about the costs of necessary materials, and ACS needs to be sensitive to the real fiscal constraints in the budgets of their members/subscribers.  Using profits resulting from ACS publications to fund other parts of the operations, considered to be of significant value, up to a point seems reasonable to me.  I can see no reason not to inform membership of the details, specifics and magnitudes, and then try to get feedback via the local sections.  Once again it is a simple matter of openness.  If you are not proud to tell people what you are doing with the money, you need to rethink what you are doing with the money.  Actually I imagine that ACS has an admirable story to tell here.  As I said, I don’t have enough information to provide a detailed answer at this time, and that is largely because such information is difficult to obtain.  There clearly is considerable concern about pricing out there (e.g. www.attemptingelegance.com and www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/12/02/acs ) but “tiered pricing”, “value-based pricing” and confidential negotiations with individual institutions have made it difficult to see a clearly defined pricing picture.  One group truly stands out as having serious problems and that is small liberal-arts colleges with quite small chemistry departments, who have to pay what to them are very large sums of money to subscribe to the number of credible chemistry journals required for ACS accreditation.  With the fiscal situations of these institutions being often dire, it has become difficult if not impossible for them to comply.  I strongly believe that we need to work on a solution to this problem.  I also believe that there must be solutions, as our reason for existence is to serve our members.

A question I have, and have not yet found an answer, is has there been an accounting of the actual costs of publication now versus the pre”technology-revolutionized” costs.  Surely the costs have been lowered by electronic publishing, and one might have expected that to be reflected in subscription costs.  Maybe it has been, or perhaps the loss of revenue from individual subscriptions has more than offset any savings.  I don’t know, and I’m sure many members would like to see a C&EN article addressing this situation.

4. What one specific item would you, as ACS President, make your first priority to improve the public perception of chemistry?

I would prepare a series of profound video vignettes of the great successes of chemistry which have benefitted the world (and the U.S. economy) to be shown via every possible media outlet, and to be used for workshops for Congressional legislative staffs.   The purpose is to help the general public, and quite importantly, lawmakers understand that support of chemistry is an investment with a long history of success.  This is of course not a new idea, but is the best one of which I know.  A key will be how to find affordable ways to get the message out.  Purchasing commercial broadcast time is very expensive, so leveraging new media like social media and the blogosphere would have to part of the answer.  While I don’t consider the public’s perception of chemistry to be quite the problem that once was the case, this effort to get the word out that ours is an enabling science will always be with us.

5. What one specific item would you, as ACS President, make your first priority to improve the employment situation for chemists?

I realize that it is comforting to hope that there is one silver bullet or some magic pill that will make everything alright again, but it just isn’t going to happen.  In recent months I have spoken and written about my belief that it is entrepreneurship which has the best chance of building a new employment base for chemistry in America.  However, for this narrowly focused question I would try to address the issues that have caused and are still causing our jobs to depart our country.  Although I am usually loath to address a problem with a meeting, I would propose a summit meeting of the industrial leaders of chemistry to develop a list of factors that make leaving America attractive; kiss off the ones we really can’t deal with (e.g. lower wages elsewhere) and get to work on the ones we can.  Understand that lower labor costs are not the only issues in this game.  As I discussed a bit on my website, there is no surer route to moving jobs out of America than to impose unreasonable regulations on American industry.  This may be an unpopular subject to raise, and I am sure will engender some cries of anguish, but if there is anything within the bounds of ethical behavior that can be done to produce and protect jobs for American chemists, we must do it.  The health of the American chemical industry is of utmost importance to us and we must not forget this.

6. What is your favorite element and why? 

Hey! I thought the softball question is supposed to come at the beginning of an interview.  That having been said, I’ll answer it.  Silicon.  Why?  Because it is so close to carbon, yet so far away in its behavior.  I am particularly enchanted by the richness of its thermochemistry as compared to that of carbon.  For example, the isomerization of the carbene analog, R₂Si:, to a silene analog of an olefin, RHSi=C<_, is essentially isothermal!  Or that SiH₄ thermally decomposes to H₂  +  :SiH₂  in a single concerted step.  Compare these observations with the drastically different cases in organic chemistry.

Note: Any response provided by Prof. Barton’s opponent in this election, Prof. Luis Echegoyen, will be posted within a day of its receipt.

A couple of posts ago, I brought up the fact that voter turnout in ACS elections is abysmal. Judging by the spam that I’ve started to receive, the election window is upon us once again. This year’s contenders for ACS President-Elect are Luis Echegoyen and Tom Barton. I’ve read their statements and a few interviews (E B, KTEP), but once again, all of this information is generally vague and not helpful in terms of drawing a distinction between the two candidates. Either gentleman seems more than capable of representing our field by smiling while doling out ACS awards, but where do they stand on key issues that threaten our society and profession?

Below, I have listed several questions I’d like answered with respect to ACS governance. Please feel free to suggest more in the comments. I’ll send them along to both candidates and post their responses, verbatim, unedited.

Questions for the 2012 ACS Presidential Candidates

1. What are your thoughts on the ACS v. Leadscope case? Do you believe that society records pertaining to the lawsuit—including items like legals fees—should be made public?

2. What is your stance on the ACS’s executive compensation packages?

3. What is your stance regarding the fees that ACS Publications charges companies and universities to access journals?

4. What one specific item would you, as ACS President, make your first priority to improve the public perception of chemistry?

5. What one specific item would you, as ACS President, make your first priority to improve the employment situation for chemists?

6. What is your favorite element and why?

Now, what have I missed?