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.

One of the things I take pride in is the accuracy of the information posted to this blog. ChemBark has done a significant amount of original reporting on some pretty massive stories in the world of chemistry. We’ve publicly exposed scientific fraud, identified cases of ethical misconduct, shone light on peculiar hiring practices, and even reported the results of an ACS election before the ACS/C&EN.

The main purpose of this blog is to bring attention to interesting news in the world of chemical research such that, collectively, we as chemists can analyze the facts and improve ourselves. I try to pay special attention to the types of stories that—for whatever reason—C&EN chooses not to cover. There are people who consider some of these stories to be “negative” or even “gossipy”, but I will adamantly maintain that they are also interesting and important.

When stories may cast a member of our field in a negative light, I work especially hard to be fair and get the facts right. I work hard to maintain your trust, and ChemBark has a sterling—if not pristine—record of accuracy. The information posted here over the years rests on a foundation of hundreds of sources. These sources are the heroes of the blog, and we (as a community) owe them an immense debt of gratitude. It takes a great deal of guts to approach an outspoken blogger and share sensitive information, but the result is wonderfully democratic: thanks to the Internet, anybody in our field—not just those privy to private conversations—can participate in the discussion.

So, thanks again to all of you who have passed along or verified information for the blog. Your contribution is greatly valued.

The academic hires thread from yesterday was a good example of the importance of having a variety of sources. I was able to start from a decent base of knowledge, but the bulk of information arrived later, pouring in via hallway chats, e-mails, tweets, and blog comments. Having personally applied to many of the positions on the list, I am fascinated by all of these data. Whom did each school end up hiring? Was each successful candidate more organic/inorganic/biological? What research do they work on? Are there any trends/patterns? How many schools advertised openings but elected not to hire?

There is a wealth of information in that thread, but I am also a little disturbed by some of the comments. I really don’t like when people write about something as if they are certain when they are not. The statement:

“Professor A was granted/denied tenure.”

is very different from:

“I think/heard Professor A was granted/denied tenure, but I’m not sure.”

Please try to avoid playing fast and loose with the facts, because it sidetracks and erodes the validity of the discussion. Also keep in mind that we are talking about real people’s lives. If you are going to talk about whether someone was denied tenure or is leaving a school, you had better be right, because this info has the potential to do things like scare away prospective students.

I sign my name to all of the information I post to the blog. If I am uncertain about the validity of a piece of information, I will say so (but, usually, I’ll just avoid writing it). And you can probably tell that I am not too shy of a person, but whenever I am uncomfortable sharing my opinions about a subject, I will keep the opinion to myself. While I don’t comment or post anonymously, maintaining the ability for readers to comment anonymously is important because it represents a completely open system for keeping me in check (i.e., anyone is free to attack what I post). It also helps foster discussion (because I know some of you fear that your opinions may be held against you). Please do not abuse the system by asserting uncertain information as hard fact. Also, I encourage all readers to treat the facts reported in anonymous comments with a healthy amount of skepticism.

The same goes for all of the comments regarding Stoltz. I have heard all sorts of rumors and have attempted to figure out what, if anything, is going on. I don’t have anything useful to report, other than to say that most of what people are saying is pure speculation or incomplete fact. I suppose anyone is free to speculate, but as I said above, you should remember that real people are involved. When I write stuff, I sign my name to it. If you are not so confident of your facts as to be comfortable enough to do the same, perhaps you should hold off on grinding someone through the rumor mill? Just a thought.

I have immense respect for journalists and all the effort it takes to do a solid job of reporting. It pains me greatly to see the dissemination of crappy information, especially in a comments thread here.

First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then they join you,
then everybody wins.

Mahatma Gandhi posted that piece of advice on his blog shortly before his death in 1948, and it still holds true today.

After admitting that chemistry faculty typically roll their eyes at blogs and that he personally doesn’t have time for them, Phil Baran—or, more precisely, the Baran Lab at Scripps—has established the newest chemistry blog on the Internet. Baran and his lab are at the top of the game of organic synthesis, so this is a major development for academic chemistry. Their participation can do nothing but lend legitimacy to an activity that has been robustly and repeatedly poo-pooed by the respected Old School of our field.

The establishment of the Baran Lab’s blog fell out of the ongoing post-publication review of IBX-promoted benzylic oxidation at Blog Syn, a relatively new site that focuses on checking synthetic procedures in the vein of Organic Syntheses. Post-publication peer review is something familiar to the chemical blogopshere. Previous examples include the questioning of the science in the “Arsenic Life” paper, the exposure of duplication by Breslow in the “Space Dinosaur” saga, and the experimental investigation into the oxidation-by-NaH paper in JACS. Blog Syn takes post-publication review of synthetic procedures to the next level by coordinating replication of the procedures among a group of bloggers who compile and compare their results for all to see and discuss.

Last month, Blog Syn decided to examine a method for IBX-promoted benzylic oxidation published as part of Baran’s graduate work in K.C. Nicolaou’s lab. What started as a straightforward effort to test the (questioned) reproducibility of the reaction quickly evolved into a vigorous and thoughtful discussion of both the merits of anonymous bloggers’ questioning peer-reviewed research and of the reaction itself. Baran and the first author of the paper have participated actively in the generation of data and its analysis, and the most recent development appears to be improved mechanistic insight as to how the reaction might work.

Those interested in this specific reaction can check out the discussion for themselves, but all chemists can appreciate the value that blogs and other Web 2.0 venues offer in terms of advancing scientific knowledge and enriching our understanding of chemistry. While blogs may often engage in journalism that is a little rough at the edges, the ease of online publishing has helped to provide open venues for meaningful discussion, to give voice to important ideas, and to democratize power in a field where many grumble that power is overly centralized. What Blog Syn has started is a great service to the field of organic chemistry, and I look forward to the wealth of material that the Baran Lab can bring to the table in its own addition to the blogosphere.

Great stuff!

Edit to add: This great post by Rich Apodaca at Depth First places Blog Syn in historical context among similar experiment-based efforts in the chemical blogosphere. The post also offers an interesting analysis of the role that blogger anonymity plays.

Edit: Another (similar) great analysis and comment thread in this post by DrFreddy at C&EN‘s blog.

The annual ScienceOnline 2013 conference is taking place in North Carolina, and chembloggers Carmen Drahl and Dr. Rubidium are running a session tomorrow on chemophobia. You can follow updates on Twitter labeled with the hashtag #chemophobia.

Personally, I think the greatest failure of our field over the past three decades has been the steady decline of the public image of chemistry. Our “brand” has steadily deteriorated from an apex of “better living through chemistry” in the 1970s to the ever-worsening current climate where “chemicals are bad” and products are nonsensically advertized as “chemical-free”.

There certainly are cases where specific chemists and chemicals have had horrific consequences for the public (e.g., thalidomide or the Bhopal disaster), but surely these cases are balanced by the numerous ways that chemistry has improved modern life: from countless new pharmaceuticals that improve health to a wide array of new materials that make modern technology possible. That’s all “chemistry” and “chemicals”, but the average person-on-the-street would probably not associate these advances with our science.

Of course, this is a blog for chemists, so there’s no sense wasting time here celebrating all of the benefits of chemicals and chemistry. Rather, why don’t we focus on how utterly stupid our field is with regard to communicating these benefits? Despite the manifestly dire state of the public image of chemistry, chemists continue to do nothing to correct the problem.

But, Paul…is it really a problem? Who cares if the public dislikes chemicals? So long as chemists know better, we will continue doing good science. Why should we be distracted by general ignorance?

The problem with that argument is that we live in a democracy. For a democracy—where the People govern by voting—to function efficiently, the electorate must be educated and informed. The steady decline of chemistry’s public image is a massive problem, because it erodes support for our field. Taxpayers fund our research, and if they are convinced that not only is chemistry not helping the world, it is hurting it, then what is going to stop politicians from cutting funding? This is already occurring. Look at how many Americans vilify scientists who support the highly (un)controversial theory of evolution. We also spend many, many times more money on the DoD than scientific research because the public is generally much more concerned about the threat of foreign dictators than the combined threats of insidious disease and the global energy crisis. Seem stupid? Well, turn on the news tonight. What are people talking about, the Middle East or cancer? And what’s worse than people not knowing anything about chemistry is when they “know” incorrect negative information about chemistry. That’s basically where we are.

Hey Paul, isn’t this something the ACS should handle?

Yes! Actually, it is something all of us should take responsibility for handling to some degree, but the ACS should be at the forefront. This brings me to the point: WHAT THE HELL HAS THE ACS BEEN DOING FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS? As far as I can tell, very little in the public-image battle, and the miserable status quo is all the evidence you need that our professional society has failed its mission in this regard.

OK, wise guy, what should the ACS be doing?

I can think of a number of things, but let me give you two: one from the executive level and one from the grass-roots level. First, the ACS needs to get a handle on misinformation in the media. When someone blurts “chemical-free” into a microphone or opines about the hazards of a compound with zero supporting evidence, the ACS should have someone step up and provide a rebuttal. We need a “war room” at ACS headquarters that monitors all major media outlets and contacts editors and producers when something is wrong. The war room should have experts trained in public communication who are camera-ready 24 hours a day and a TV studio on-site for satellite interviews. Reporters are getting lazier; we must adapt. At the grass-roots level, the ACS needs to do a better job organizing outreach efforts and coordinating volunteer chemists to run these programs. More on that below.

Whoa. Volunteer chemists and outreach programs? What are you talking about?

I think it is important that every chemist spend some time engaging the general public for the purposes of education and promoting the benefits of our field. Let me toss out a ball-park figure: 5% of your time allotted to chemistry.

You want me doing what, exactly?

Pretty much anything where you are bringing science/chemistry to a population not already intimately involved in the field. I am not talking about writing essays for Angewandte or leaving comments on In the Pipeline. I am talking about: (1) judging kids’ science fairs, (2) writing letters to the editors of newspapers to correct misinformation, (3) running or volunteering at a local science club, (4) explaining your research at a science cafe, (5) volunteering to talk to a middle-school science class, (6) developing a lab exercise for high schoolers based on your research, (7) making a science Web site for a general audience, (8) making YouTube videos pretending you are “Phil Nye the Chemistry Guy”, (9) editing Wikipedia, (10)…   need I go on? Anything. Anything! There are thousands of possibilities. If you don’t think you have a good idea, other people should have plenty of ideas in need of volunteers.

You think this will work?

Yes. I believe it will help. I think that education and outreach, or “E & O” in NASA parlance, is exactly what kept a largely overpriced set of shuttle missions in operation for so long. Spacemen realize that they need the public on their side, so they appeal to the public. I assume astronauts on space stations have more important scientific activities they could be doing than giving interviews to the yentas on The View, but NASA has the big picture in mind. If NASA could keep the space shuttles up so long, think about all of the additional funding we could bring to a field of science that is much more successful at improving people’s lives.

What’s in it for me?

Lots of things: (1) you’ll become better at communicating and teaching technical material, (2) you’ll feel good having taught someone something, (3) you’ll be giving back to society – was there a role-model or teacher when you were young that made you want to pursue a career in science?, (4) you are making the world less dumb, one person at a time, (5) in thinking about fundamental concepts and how to explain/teach them, you will invariably come up with new ideas. Sometimes it’s nice to think about areas of chemistry outside your focus of research, (6) you will help to improve the funding climate by persuading voters chemistry is valuable.

Bah. Those are worthless. I can’t list those on my CV!

Actually, you can list outreach activities on your CV. They may even make you seem human, you robotic hardass.

Seriously, my boss/advisor won’t care. Actually, I’ll get in trouble because he views them as a waste of time.

Public engagement should be a shared responsibility. Perhaps the reason almost nobody pitches in is because “why should I do it if the guy over there doesn’t?”  We need to find ways to incentivize desired behavior. Maybe a small outreach component for Ph.D. theses? Maybe make it part of tenure packages?

But Paul, I went through 11 years of university training to become a high-powered research machine. I am God’s gift to chemical research. I can think of nothing more inefficient than removing me from the bench to muck around with third-graders. Can’t we just hire professional outreach people so I can be left alone?

First, you are going to be able to bring things to the table that an education professional would not. Second, if you are truly “God’s gift to chemical research”, then you are a rock star. People love rock stars of any field. That is why we are willing to watch events like curling in the Olympics. You will be a great help! Also, get over yourself! Astronauts frequently give interviews while working in space. I assume there are probably some experiments they could be doing, but NASA recognizes the importance of education and interacting with the public.

Paul, I am too busy, go away.

What if everyone were too busy? Everyone is too busy! You can make a little time for this. C’mon.

Paul, I am still unconvinced this is actually worth my time.

Fine. You are a selfish jackass. I hope there are enough good chemists out there who can make up for your dereliction.

Folks, if we don’t start getting serious about addressing chemophobia, we are going to find ourselves in a bad, bad place as a profession, and the consequences for mankind won’t be pretty either.

The efficient operation of any democracy depends on the participation of an informed electorate. The Founding Fathers of our country believed so strongly in this point that they felt compelled to begin the Bill of Rights by protecting the freedom of the press. A few citizens in power must never be allowed to control the flow of information to the greater citizenry.

The American Chemical Society is a democratic organization: its members elect a Board of Directors that, in turn, operates the society on behalf of the membership. Unfortunately, members of the ACS are woefully uninformed regarding even the most simple matters of society governance. A big part of this problem is that the pool of journalists who cover the ACS is either incapable or unwilling to provide anything more than superficial coverage of matters relating to the administration of our professional society.

You can start by blaming me. I am one of the few journalists outside of the ACS to cover the society, but I write stories sporadically and do not have time to cover issues in as much depth as I’d like to. I am one person; blogging is not my primary occupation; I don’t get paid a dime for it; and I’ve got a ton of other things on my plate. I wish I could do more, but I can’t. Sorry.

For better or for worse, most of the reporting associated with the ACS is paid for by the organization itself. The journalists at Chemical & Engineering News are employees of the society, and C&EN is the “official organ” of the ACS. Part and parcel with this relationship is that the bylaws and policies of the ACS limit what the magazine can cover. That is why coverage of the ACS elections is so superficial. Wouldn’t you like to see more than those vapid statements written by each candidate and published as a wall of text in the magazine? Where is the reporting? Where is the analysis? Where is the monitoring of accountability for campaign promises? It’s nowhere to be found. The result is that members of the ACS are uninformed about important issues that should be central to each ACS election, and voter participation is consistently atrocious (~15%). That’s right, only 15% of eligible members bother voting!!

Unfortunately, the coverage of ACS elections is not the only thing that has suffered from neglect by chemical journalists. One of the reasons behind the birth of ChemBark was the media’s dreadful lack of coverage of the Sames-Sezen misconduct scandal. You will recall that I began reporting the story three months prior to the first set of retractions in JACS, and that C&EN did not issue its first story until two weeks after the retractions—only a few hours before the New York Times was set to publish a story. I was forced to conclude that the decision to avoid coverage of the scandal was intentional—not simply an oversight—because JACS and C&EN are managed by the same division of the society, and C&EN reporters read JACS (so someone at the magazine had to have seen the retractions when they were published).

The latest important story to suffer consistent neglect from the chemical media is the ACS v. Leadscope legal case. My guess is that the vast majority of you have no idea what this case is about, because it has received only perfunctory coverage from C&EN. Unlike the Sheri Sangji story, which has been the focus of several detailed articles (1 2 3 all), the Leadscope case has received little attention in comparison. C&EN‘s reporting has been limited to short news stories announcing milestone events in the case (1 2 3 4 5).

The latest milestone event occurred yesterday—the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio issued a decision on the latest appeal by the ACS—but C&EN did not post a single item on its site or in its Twitter feed. The slip opinion weighed in at a whopping 75 pages of densely written legalese. Chemists cannot be expected to wade through such a document; we need the services of an informed journalist to provide us with the bottom line, paying special attention to the decision’s impact on the operations of the ACS.

Enter the blogosphere! Rich Apodaca has written several good primers on the case, including a summary of the IP at the heart of the dispute and a rough sketch of the history of litigation. Another good place for a concise summary of the case can be found in a news story written by the Office of Public Information for the Ohio Supreme Court:

The case involved a lawsuit filed by ACS in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas alleging that the former employees who helped start Leadscope had breached employee agreements and misappropriated ACS’s intellectual property by using proprietary information they obtained while employed at ACS to develop a new software product for Leadscope that would compete with products marketed by ACS.

Leadscope and its principals denied all of ACS’s claims, and filed counterclaims seeking damages from ACS for unfair competition, tortious interference with business relations and defamation.  As the basis for its unfair competition counterclaim, Leadscope alleged that ACS knew that it had no valid legal basis for its intellectual property claims, and had filed its lawsuit for the purpose of impairing or eliminating Leadscope as a competitor by scaring away venture capital investors the new company needed to successfully launch its business.

Following an eight-week jury trial, the jury returned verdicts against ACS on all of its claims against Leadscope. The jury also returned verdicts in favor of Leadscope on its counterclaims against ACS for unfair competition and defamation. The jury awarded Leadscope and its principals compensatory and punitive damages totaling more than $26 million. ACS appealed. On review, the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment and damage awards. ACS sought and was granted Supreme Court review of the case, asserting in its briefs and oral argument that the Tenth District made multiple incorrect rulings in affirming the trial court’s decision.

A summary of some of the (heavy) costs associated with the case, including the damages, the legal fees for Leadscope, and the interest ACS is/was being charged on the damages and legal fees, can be found in a recent ACS financial statement (pointed out by Apodaca and a Nature News blog post):

In 2002, ACS brought suit against three former employees and the company they founded in a case styled, American Chemical Society v. Leadscope, Inc., et al., Case No. 02-CVC-07-7653 (Franklin County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas). Leadscope, Inc., and the individual defendants counterclaimed, seeking damages in excess of $50 million. Trial in this matter commenced on February 4, 2008. The jury rendered its verdict on March 27, 2008, rejecting the Society’s claims of breach of employment agreements and misappropriation of trade secrets, and finding against the Society on three separate counts: defamation, tortious interference with business relations, and unfair competition. The jury’s award to Leadscope, Inc. and the three individual defendants/counterclaim plaintiffs (referred to collectively as “Leadscope”) totaled $26.5 million.

Following the jury verdict, Leadscope filed motions seeking prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, and expenses. Subsequently, Leadscope withdrew the motion for prejudgment interest. Through the attorneys’ fees motion, Leadscope sought an additional $11 million. On February 6, 2009, the Trial Court awarded Leadscope fees and expenses of $7.9 million. Post-judgment interest on the $26.5 million judgment accrues at the rate of 8%. Postjudgment interest on the $7.9 million award of fees and expenses accrues at the rate of 5%. Both rates are “simple interest” and cumulatively, total approximately $ 9.0 million as of December 31, 2011.

The Society filed an appeal on November 20, 2008 to the Ohio Court of Appeals, Tenth District (the “Appeals Court”). On June 15, 2010, the Appeals Court issued its opinion affirming the trial court’s judgment, i.e., the Court did not grant any of the relief ACS had sought in its appeal. See American Chemical Society v. Leadscope, Inc., Slip Op., 2010 WL 2396544 (Ohio. App, June 15, 2010). ACS filed a Notice of Appeal and Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction with the Ohio Supreme Court on July 30, 2010. On October 27, 2010, the Ohio Supreme Court, exercising its discretion as to whether to hear the appeal, granted the Society’s request to hear the case. See American Chemical Society v. Leadscope, Inc., 126 Ohio St. 3d 1615, 935 N.E. 2d 854 (2010) (Table). Accordingly, the full seven-member Ohio Supreme Court is reviewing all of the issues raised by ACS. All of the briefing has been completed and the Court conducted oral arguments on September 7, 2011. It is not known when the Court will render its decision.

In yesterday’s decision, the Ohio Supreme Court overturned the verdict against the ACS for defamation, but upheld the ruling against the ACS for unfair competition against Leadscope. The bottom line is that the ACS is still on the hook for $26.5 million in civil damages.

That’s MILLIONS, folks, and it doesn’t include the legal fees, either.

So, here is your American Chemical Society at work: some underappreciated employees from the Chemical Abstracts division go off and start a successful company, someone at the ACS haphazardly launches an overreaching lawsuit to vigorously defend the society’s intellectual property, the company countersues and wins a multi-million-dollar judgment, ACS loses two appeals in a row and half of the latest appeal and is now on the hook for $26.5M. Great =/

Of course, we know where this money comes from: the fees our schools and companies pay ACS Publications in exorbitant subscription rates to access the journal articles that we write, fund, and referee for free. Don’t get me wrong…I’m not one of those open-access crusaders that C&EN hates—I believe the ACS should make a profit off of its journals—but the situation has gotten ridiculous.

A Tweet yesterday by Apodaca puts the money issue in perspective. (See also: “Why ACS Must Come Clean on Journal Publication Costs”)

$26.5 million + interest as settlement to Leadscope would be ~6% of ACS sales of e-services, 200% of dues in 2011: bit.ly/Pwoew1

— Rich Apodaca (@rapodaca) September 18, 2012

For the record, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the ACS issued a statement on the matter, including a note that:

Today’s ruling will not impact ACS member dues; ACS products, programs or services; ACS staffing levels; or the ability of ACS to achieve its mission.

The statement is posted on the ACS Web site, where few people will bother to notice it. Such placement is consistent with what we’ve already seen: due to a lack of quality journalism regarding the Leadscope trial, ACS members are not informed sufficiently to appreciate the implications of this case, which would seem to have important financial repercussions for the society.

Beyond a detailed, multi-page story on the events that transpired to precipitate this case, I would like to see the following questions answered:

1. What is the total cost of this case to the society? Beyond the civil damages awarded to Leadscope, how much has the ACS paid in legal fees?

2. What are the costs associated with continued litigation of this case? What information went into the decision of making continued appeals versus simply paying the Leadscope people after each verdict?

3. Does the board of directors consider $26M (+ legal fees) to be a significant sum of money? Where does this money come from? How can this much money not “impact ACS member dues; ACS products, programs or services; ACS staffing levels; or the ability of ACS to achieve its mission”?

4. Has the person responsible for pursuing the malicious litigation been disciplined by the ACS? Who made this decision and what is his/her annual compensation from the society?

5. Has the ACS changed any internal policies regarding the public dissemination of potentially defamatory statements? What is preventing the ACS and its employees from making similar costly errors in the future?

6. Does the Board of Directors believe it is appropriate for a non-profit, scientific organization to protect its intellectual property this aggressively/haphazardly? Isn’t part of our society’s charted mission the “promotion of research in…industry”, increasing the “diffusion of chemical knowledge”, and “aiding the development of our country’s industries”?

While I love C&EN dearly, in matters like Leadscope and ACS elections, the magazine appears hamstrung. If any of you want to don a reporter’s hat and tackle some of these items, I will promote the hell out of you and your blog. If you want to post your efforts as original reporting here, we can do that too. But somebody has got to get to the bottom of these important issues, because sadly, we can’t count on C&EN to do it for us.

I would love for C&EN or Chemistry World to produce a hard-hitting, chemistry news show, but I doubt it will ever happen. Making a regular program would be a lot of work, assuming you could even find guests to show up. That said, a boy can dream, can’t he?

So, while I am not especially proud of this effort, I’ll throw it out there as food for thought:

Blergh! Go ahead and add “a nice voice” to the list of things I wish I had. Also, my deepest apologies to Jyllian Kemsley, Neil Withers, Rudy Baum, Derek Lowe, and E.J. Corey.

(And for those of you who have no idea what this post is about, watch this.)