ChemBark

Happy New Year!

The close of 2012 means that we must decide who will take home the ChemBark Chemmy Awards for excellence (and the opposite) in chemistry. This year’s categories are the same as the last two years’:

Outstanding Achievement/Paper in Organic or Biochemistry
Outstanding Achievement/Paper in Physical, Materials, Inorganic, or Analytical
News Story of the Year
Chemical Hero(ine) of the Year
Chemical Villain of the Year
Accident of the Year

The award winners will be announced later in the month. Please use the comments to make nominations. Here are some of my preliminary thoughts on contenders:

Breslow and the Spacedinos duplication scandal
ACS Publications vs. Jenica Rogers and other Librarians
The settlement of ACS v. Leadscope
Arsenic Death
UCLA/Harran/Sangji

What say you?

Hello, sports fans. Tune in tonight for a very special episode of ChemBark, in which I will be liveblogging the announcement of the 2012 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Admire my audacity in predicting who will win based on the committee member tasked with making the announcement. Watch in horror as I try to translate Swedish and get a jump on the English-speaking press. It’s going to be grand!

ChemBark’s Official List of Odds for the 2012 Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Liveblog entries after the jump…

(more…)

We are exactly one month away from the announcement of the 2012 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, so it’s time for ChemBark to commence its traditional rampant speculation.

Presented below is the official ChemBark list of odds against winning the 2012 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. The list is a revised version of last year’s predictions, where I shamefully neglected to score the discovery that won. Quasicrystals seemed to come out of nowhere. It’ll never happen again; I promise.

Once again, the candidates are sorted below by discovery/invention rather than by scientist. The lists of scientists can get complicated. Some are listed more than once. In cases where someone not listed could easily share in the prize for the associated discovery, a “+” is listed. In cases where one of the scientists listed could easily not share in that prize, a “–” is listed.  The odds are reported in “odds against” format. Remember, this list attempts to address who will win the prize this year, not who should win the prize. There’s a big difference.

Odds Against Winning the 2012 Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Nuclear Hormone Signaling, Chambon/Evans/Jensen, 6-1
Bioinorganic Chemistry, Gray/Lippard/Holm/–, 7-1
Spectroscopy & Application of Lasers, Zare/Moerner/+, 8-1
Techniques in DNA Synthesis, Caruthers/Hood/+, 13-1
The Field (everything not listed), 14-1
Electrochemistry/Electron Transfer, Bard/Hush/Gray/–, 19-1
Biological Membrane Vesicles, Rothman/Schekman/+, 19-1
Instrumentation/Techniques in Genomics, Venter/+, 24-1
Molecular Studies of Gene Recognition, Ptashne, 24-1
Polymer Science, Matyjaszewski/Rizzardo/+/– 24-1
Organic Electronics, Tang/+, 49-1
Solar Cells, Grätzel/+, 74-1
Nanotechnology, Lieber/Whitesides/Alivisatos/Mirkin/Seeman/+/–, 74-1
Transmission Electron Aberration-Corrected Microscopy, Haider/Rose/Urban, 74-1
Chemically-Amplified Photoresists, Frechet/Willson, 74-1
Protein Folding, Hartl/Horwich/+, 74-1
Mechanistic Enzymology, Walsh/Stubbe/+/–, 99-1
Lithium-Ion Batteries, Goodenough, 99-1
Development of the Birth Control Pill, Djerassi, 99-1
Molecular Modeling and Assorted Applications, Karplus/Houk/Schleyer/Miller/+/–, 99-1
Applications of NMR Spectroscopy, Waugh/Pines/Roberts/McConnell/+/–, 99-1
Development of Chemical Biology, Schultz/Schreiber/+, 99-1
Self-Assembly, Whitesides/Nuzzo/Stang/–, 149-1
Pigments of Life, Battersby/+, 149-1
DNA Methylation, Cedar/Razin/+, 149-1
Small Regulatory RNA, Ambros/Baulcombe/Ruvkun, 149-1
Eukaryotic RNA Polymerases, Roeder, 149-1
Contributions to Theoretical Physical Chemistry, Rice/+, 149-1
Metal-Organic Frameworks, Yaghi/Ferey/Kitagawa/+/–, 149-1
Bio- & Organo-catalysis, List/Lerner/Barbas/+/–, 149-1
Alternative Nucleic Acid Motifs, Rich/+, 149-1
Hydrogen Maser, Kleppner/+, 149-1
Drug Delivery/Tissue Engineering, Langer/+, 149-1
Assorted Protein Work, Levitzki/Hunter/Pawson/+, 149-1
Novel Cancer Therapeutics, Ullrich/+, 149-1
Combinatorial Chemistry/DOS, Schreiber/+, 199-1
Leptin, Coleman/Friedman/Leong, 199-1
Zeolites, Flanigan/+, 199-1
Fluorocarbons, DuPont/Curran/–, 199-1
Dendrimers, Frechet/Tomalia/+, 199-1
Organic Synthesis, Evans/Danishefsky/Nicolaou/Ley/Trost/Stork/Wender/Kishi/+/–, 249-1
Mechanical Bonds and Applications, Sauvage/Stoddart/+, 299-
Contributions to Bioorganic Chemistry, Breslow/Eschenmoser/+, 299-1
Understanding of Organic Stereochemistry, Mislow, 399-1
Molecular Machines, Stoddart/Tour/+/–, 499-1
Molecular Recognition, Dervan/+, 999-1
Astrochemistry, Oka, 999-1

Notes

1. This rundown is meant to approximate fair odds (without a built-in vig). In case you don’t know how this way of reporting odds works, the listed numbers (“m-n”) mean the associated entry has an expected probabilty to win of n/(m+n). Thus, 4-1 odds equates to a 20% expectation of winning. If your pick wins at 4-1 and you’ve bet $1, you get paid $5 ($4 + your $1 bet back) minus the house’s vig.

2. I’m not taking any wagers.

3. The (qualitative) criteria that went into assigning these odds were discussed in a previous post. Results from old predictions were also discussed in a previous post.

4. I don’t think any of the chemists on my previous list died within the past year (which is important, since awards are not made posthumously).

5. Lieber and Alivisatos make a huge jump up the rankings in the wake of receiving the 2012 Wolf Prize in Chemistry, but I am still skeptical about nanotechnology winning a Nobel until there is a monster, practical achievement. Ronald Evans took the 2012 Wolf Prize in Medicine, but the nuclear hormone receptor group has already been on short odds for quite some time.

6. Dan Shechtman is a professor of materials science and won a Wolf Prize in physics, not chemistry, which is probably why he escaped my notice. I’ve gone back through the list of Wolf Prizes in subjects other than chemistry and added the following discoveries: Transmission Electron Aberration-Corrected Microscopy (physics, 2011); giant magnetoresistance (physics, 2007); hydrogen maser (physics, 2005); novel cancer therapeutics (medicine, 2010); DNA methylation (medicine, 2008).

7. Alexander Rich, a past winner of the Welch Award, has been added for his work with nucleic acids.

8. The last five prizes have gone physical/materials (quasicrystals), organic (organopalladium chemistry), biological (ribosome), biological (GFP), physical/surfaces (Ertl). It has been a long time since something distinctly inorganic won, unless you are going to count organopalladium (2010) or Grubbs/Schrock (2005). Perhaps inorganic is due? Or perhaps it is time for chemistry to take a side step for biology again?

9. The Nobel Committee for chemistry this year is a pretty diverse group. I don’t think there is an obvious bias that would favor a prize going to one particular sub-discipline over another.

10. Who is my final prediction for the 2012 Nobel Prize in Chemistry (i.e., my one pick if someone were to put a gun to my head and say that a winning prediction was the only thing that would save my life)?  I’m going with the nuclear hormone signaling people, Chambon, Evans, and Jensen.  Last year was distinctly physical, so maybe biology is next in line? Also, these guys are getting up there in years, which adds an extra incentive for their recognition now instead of kicking the can down the road. They have won everything else, so their credentials are well established. I think this is the year it finally happens.

This post will be updated with links to other fresh (2012) predictions as they appear on other blogs.  For links to past predictions made by other sites, see the bottom of this post.

2012 predictions: Curious Wavefunction, Derek Lowe, Musings on Music and Life, Everyday Scientist, Brent Neal, Thomson-Reuters, Nanotella, Reddit Chemistry, Karin Bojs.

2012 press: Slate, Chemistry World Blog.

For more random #Nobel thoughts and chemistry banter, follow @ChemBark on Twitter.

The results have been tabulated, and it is time to announce the recipients of the Chemmy Awards for 2011! Following our centuries-old tradition, we begin by bestowing the statuettes on the winners of accident, hero(ine), and villain of the year.

Accident of the Year
The Boston College Thionyl Chloride Explosion

Yes, the tsunami-induced disaster at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant was a much bigger story, but like the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill of 2010, it had more to do with engineering than chemistry. And while the fatal lathe accident at Yale occurred in the chemistry department’s machine shop, that horrific story also seemed not to have much to do with chemistry; the deceased student wasn’t even a chemistry major. The nitric acid explosion at Maryland was certainly a chemistry accident, but it did not measure up to what transpired at Boston College last summer. It was at BC that a grad student injured herself in a minor explosion while working with thionyl chloride. Rather than call the authorities, she inexplicably fled the blood-spattered scene and drove home. Concerned labmates later discovered and reported the accident, and emergency crews were dispatched to the student’s apartment to decontaminate her and treat her wounds. The accident—and its needlessly convoluted/expensive/disruptive aftermath—made the local TV news in Boston (1 2) and led to a thoughtful discussion in the blogosphere about the safety of working alone (1 2). Unfortunately, I don’t believe a final post mortem (including the cause of the accident) was ever released, but the major lesson was clear: report accidents promptly so they can be dealt with in an efficient manner.

Hero of the Year
Dan Shechtman

I don’t want to fall into a trap of continually granting the award to the most recent Nobel laureate, but in the case of Dan Shechtman, the Chemmy for Hero of the Year is richly deserved. The story of Shechtman and quasicrystals is one of perseverance and vindication. Shechtman’s peculiar discovery of a material with ten-fold symmetry was roundly ridiculed by experts in the field of crystallography—including the venerable Linus Pauling—but in the face of this immense pressure, Shechtman stuck by his analysis and waited for the field to come around. Under this intense pressure, the director of Shechtman’s research group wanted him to leave for bringing disgrace to the team, and it took two years to finally get the seminal quasicrystal work published. It was then that the really intense pressure started, but Shechtman held firm to his ostensibly counterintuitive analysis, which ultimately withstood the scrutiny of the community.

Also in the running for hero of the year were John Schwab (a champion of organic-chemistry funding at the NIH who retired this year), Rosie Redfield (who took it upon herself to do some of the “arsenic life” experimentation that Felisa Wolfe-Simon should have done), and Ahmed Zewail (who assisted with the political revolution in his native Egypt).

Villain of the Year
Linus Pauling

Linus Pauling remained dead in 2011, but the Nobel Prize announcement certainly raised several skeletons from his past. Before I lambast the man, let me start by calling attention to the fact that I rank Pauling as the greatest chemist of all-time. That said, he had his share of spectacular failures. Pauling missed the structure of DNA, his work with vitamin C was pure medical quackery, and his unrelenting dismissal of Shechtman’s discovery of quasicrystals was outright wrong. What was so villainous with regard to Pauling’s behavior in the last case was that he used his bully pulpit in the crystallography community to personally disparage Shechtman alongside the idea of quasicrystals. Pauling famously said, ”There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists,” and he mounted a relentless, vocal crusade against the idea until his death. Shechtman’s idea would ultimately prevail, and he summed up the situation quite nicely to the RSC: “At first I was alone against the world. In the end, Linus Pauling was alone against the world.”

There were a number of other contenders for this award. In 2011, the release of the results of Columbia’s investigation into the misconduct of Bengu Sezen finally verified the egregious nature of her conduct, first reported (here) in 2005. The actions of Felicia Wolfe-Simon in the wake of the “arsenic life” story were also worthy of reproach. Finally, Andrew Wakefield’s fraudulent link of MMR vaccination to autism also came to light last year.

Next up: the Chemmy Awards for the biggest news story and best papers of 2011.

We have reached the end of the year, which means that it is once again time to decide who will take home the ChemBark Chemmy Awards for excellence (or the opposite) in chemistry. The categories are the same as last year:

Outstanding Achievement/Paper in Organic or Biochemistry
Outstanding Achievement/Paper in Physical, Materials, Inorganic, or Analytical
News Story of the Year
Chemical Hero(ine) of the Year
Chemical Villain of the Year
Accident of the Year

The award winners will be announced in the first week of January. Please use the comments to make nominations. I have jotted down some of my favorites in each category, but I’ll wait a couple of days to share them. You first!

LIVEBLOG OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE 2011 NOBEL PRIZE IN CHEMISTRY

ChemBark’s Official List of Odds for the 2011 Nobel Prize in Chemistry

T+00:40:00 — OK, I’m signing off. Time to wipe the tears from my eyes and take a nap.

T+00:38:00 — Incidentally, Sven Lidin is very well spoken and is doing an excellent job explaining what is interesting about quasicrystals and why the discovery is important. Given the esoteric nature of the subject, Lidin’s treatment is particularly valuable.

T+00:34:00 — I think (molecular) chemists are going to feel cheated here, but the argument that this subject isn’t chemistry is untenable. The subject also falls into physics and math, but there is definitely chemistry here.

T+00:27:00 — The winner of this year’s World Series is the San Francisco 49ers. Well, I’m sure quasicrystals are deserving. I mean, they sound interesting, but I really don’t know much about them. My class in materials chemistry in grad school never touched on them. Time for some reading…

T+00:22:00 — That’s it for the presser. No phoner.

T+00:20:00 — So….who’s excited about this one? Anyone? Bueller?

T+00:17:00 — Pointed question from the press about why other contributors  were not recognized.

T+00:15:00 — The Committee can’t get Shechtman on the phone.

T+00:14:00 — Field bet paid off at 11-1. ChemBark’s string of success in chemistry predictions is snapped.

T+00:13:00 — Shechtman won the Wolf Prize in Physics in 1999 and is a Thomson Reuters citation laureate in physics.

T+00:10:00 — Crystallography never seemed so fun.

T+00:09:00 — Did I get that date right? Wikipedia is saying 1984.

T+00:06:00 — Discovery took place April 8th, 1982.

T+00:03:00 — Physics just paid us back for last year.

T+00:00:00 — Daniel Shechtman for quasicrystals

T–00:00:00 — Sven Lidin in da house!!! Inorganic?!

T–00:00:00 — Zero and holding. Here they come!!

T–00:00:00 — Nobel clock registers zeros. Where are they?

T–00:02:12 — I should have used the restroom 15 minutes ago.

T–00:03:13 — My heart is aflutter. Is this the year I finally win?

T–00:04:26 — No name tags at the podium yet.

T–00:07:00 — Pay careful attention to who walks in to explain the science. Might tip off the sub-discipline of the winner.

T–00:09:10 — TV feed is live. The press has gathered.

T–00:13:50 — I’ve tuned into the Webcast to enjoy the trance music.

T–03:22:00 — If you don’t like ChemBark, then don’t hit the “like” button on the ChemBark Facebook page.

T–03:39:00 — Please, please, please not structural biology.

T–18:53:00 — How accurate are the ChemBark community’s predictions? Well, the top 10 favorites on the 2007 list included the 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 winners of the prize in chemistry as well as the 2009 winners in medicine.

T–19:04:00 — If you’re going to pick (mp3) Jean Fréchet to win the prize, you should know that his first name is pronounced like Jean-Luc Picard, not Billie Jean King.

T–23:22:00 — From the Nobel Web site, here’s the selection committee for 2011:

Lars Thelander (Chairman)
Professor Emeritus in Physiological Chemistry

Astrid Gräslund (Member, Secretary)
Professor of Biophysics

Jan-Erling Bäckvall (Member)
Professor of Organic Chemistry

Måns Ehrenberg (Member)
Professor of Molecular Biology

Sven Lidin (Member)
Professor of Inorganic Chemistry

Who walks in the door to explain the science will be the first big clue about the winner.

T–23:43:00 — Swedish TV reporter to Schmidt: “You were one of the favorites on the betting lists. Were you expecting this call?” Hooray for betting lists.

T–23:57:00 — Does this mean Hawking won’t be winning any time soon?

T–24:00:00 — Cosmology and supernova dudes

T–24:01:30 — Tension building.

T–24:04:43 — Watching the live Web feed for the physics announcement. I’m glad the Foundation has kept their signature house-trance theme music.

T–27:22:00 — The Nobel site has the countdown clock started for physics: 3 hours and 22 minutes to go. Plenty of time for a trip to Jack in the Box.

T–29:36:00 — I’m terribly excited about this year’s Nobel Prize in chemistry…so much so that I’m kicking off the liveblogging a day early. Anyway, there’s a good chance we can steal the physics prize again. Here is the time in Sweden.