From Bernard Langley
May I congratulate you and your colleagues on your splendid November issue of Chemistry World. The balance of topics, the quality of the writing, the enthusiastic spirit of the whole thing - from your editorial right through to that magnificent killer review of the green chemistry book (p74) - was a pure delight.
Chemistry is self-evidently the queen of the sciences, but ye gods, you do the old girl justice.
B W Langley CChem FRSC
Wilmslow, UK
From David Bradley
Radiation is not mentioned in Philip Ball’s article on the origins of life (Chemistry World, November 2007, p38) - perhaps that is the key to constructing the molecular ingredients of proteins, RNA and DNA.
It may also be worth another look at acetonitrile, which has been found in significant quantities in interstellar space.
Hydrogen cyanide and cyanogen are produced when this substance is irradiated with gamma rays in the gas phase. But when irradiated in the liquid phase, in the absence of oxygen, the principal products are hydrogen, methane, and a yellow, sweet-smelling oily semi-solid with an apparent molecular weight of 165 (D Bradley & J Wilkinson, J. Chem. Soc. A, 1967, 531 DOI: 10.1039/J19670000531).
The UV spectrum of this substance changes with time, but is consistent with a conjugated system indicating the presence of imine, cyano and amine groups. Hydrolysis and oxidation produce a variety of amino acids and other compounds similar to those identified by Urey and Miller in 1953.
D Bradley CChem FRSC
Formby, UK
From Brian Sutcliffe
Radiation is not mentioned in Philip Ball’s article on the origins of life (Chemistry World, November 2007, p38) - perhaps that is the key to constructing the molecular ingredients of proteins, RNA and DNA.
It may also be worth another look at acetonitrile, which has been found in significant quantities in interstellar space.
Hydrogen cyanide and cyanogen are produced when this substance is irradiated with gamma rays in the gas phase. But when irradiated in the liquid phase, in the absence of oxygen, the principal products are hydrogen, methane, and a yellow, sweet-smelling oily semi-solid with an apparent molecular weight of 165 (D Bradley & J Wilkinson, J. Chem. Soc. A, 1967, 531 DOI: 10.1039/J19670000531).
The UV spectrum of this substance changes with time, but is consistent with a conjugated system indicating the presence of imine, cyano and amine groups. Hydrolysis and oxidation produce a variety of amino acids and other compounds similar to those identified by Urey and Miller in 1953.
D Bradley CChem FRSC
Formby, UK
From Sam Logan
It may seem churlish to find fault with Colin Russell’s article on William Thomson (Chemistry World, December 2007, p60), but surely there was no role for the name Kelvin until he was made a peer. In any case, there was no reason for Thomson to identify with this river until after the University of Glasgow moved from the centre of the city to Gilmorehill, beside which flows this minor waterway. Had it not moved, the unit of temperature might well be the Clyde.
Years ago I heard a story about Thomson’s knighthood. While the professor was away to London for the investiture, his assistant, Mr Day, deputised at lectures. On Thomson’s return, when he went to the lecture theatre he found the students waiting, and on the chalkboard was inscribed:
Work while it is Day,
The Knight cometh when no man can work
S R Logan FRSC
Coleraine, UK
Ed: The implication that William Thomson took the name Kelvin after his knighthood was the result of an editing error. Our apologies to Colin Russell
From Howard Worth
David Jones’ comments on chemophobia in ’The last retort’ (Chemistry World, December 2007, p88) were music to my ears. I couldn’t have put it better myself - well done David.
H Worth FRSC
Mansfield, UK
From Alan Dronsfield
Readers stimulated to buy a copy of the book Joseph Priestley - a celebration of his life and legacy by Bill Griffith’s warm review (Chemistry World, December 2007, p66) may be unable to obtain it from local retailers.
It may be purchased direct from the Priestley Society for ?20 + ?4 postage. Write to 6 Beech Way, Birstall, UK, WF17 OEG.
It is also available from the Sussex University bookshop.
A T Dronsfield FRSC, Chair of RSC Historical Group
University of Derby, UK
From Mike Goldstein
The engaging article on expert witnesses (Chemistry World, November 2007, p58) identified some of the dangers of scientists giving opinion evidence in courts, emphasising that knowledge of the science is by no means enough to be a reliable expert witness. Sadly, there have been examples of such unreliability in the past, which have led to serious miscarriages of justice.
The Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners (CRFP) was set up in 1999 precisely to reduce the risk of this happening. It sets professional standards of competence for those practising forensic work, and assesses individual practitioners against these standards before admitting them to its register; and, of course, it deals with those who fail to continue to meet the specified standards. There are now nearly 3000 practitioners on the register, entitled to use the post-nominals ’RFP’, covering 26 specialties. Many are professional chemists, and indeed the RSC was very much involved in setting up the register.
Increasingly, courts and those engaging forensic practitioners are identifying the CRFP register as a mark of quality and reliability in relation to expert witness work. To find out more, go to www.crfp.org.uk
M Goldstein CBE FRSC, Chairman of CRFP
London, UK
From Malcolm Pick
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is increasingly being promoted as an answer to climate change and global warming by allowing us to burn fossil fuels without increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (Chemistry World, October 2007, p 42). However, it will have an effect on the worldwide collective dose from carbon-14.
Carbon-14 is produced in the atmosphere from the interaction of cosmic rays with nitrogen-14, and formed in materials used in nuclear reactors for electricity production. It is also deployed as an isotope in a range of radioisotope labelling applications.
The combustion of fossil fuels - which are virtually carbon-14 free, due to the geologically short half-life (5730 years) of carbon-14 - is acting to reduce the specific activity of carbon-14 per gram of carbon in the biosphere. As a consequence, the radiation dose from carbon-14 (which mainly arises from the carbon-14 in body tissues) is reducing as a result of fossil fuel combustion.
The adoption of CCS on a large scale will reverse this trend, and lead to an overall increase in collective radiation doses.
It might be argued of course that this is of minor consequence in the context of climate change and existing doses from naturally occurring radioactive materials.
Nevertheless, the adoption of nuclear power can make a significant impact on global warming by the reduction in fossil fuel usage, yet any small increment it has on radiation dose attracts great attention.
We need to have a level playing field in comparing the benefits and risks of various energy production schemes, and in this context the effect of CCS on radiation dose ought to be examined.
Malcolm Pick CChem CSci FRSC
Bristol, UK
From Michael H Abraham
Your recent article on open access publishing (Chemistry World, December 2007, p12) highlights some of the problems with the scheme, but says little about who will pay. In order for scientific papers to be published, someone, somehow, has to pay for it. Under the present system, funds for publishing come mainly from the public purse, through universities and government-funded institutions, together with funds from private industry, by way of the purchase of publications as hard copy or in electronic form. Under open access, funding is from authors themselves - although those funded by government will include their publishing costs in grant applications, and authors who work for private industry will expect the industry to pay. One way or another, funds for scientific publishing will come from the same sources as before.
Since open access does not apply to back issues of publications, the public purse and private industry will pay archive access directly as before, while paying for current papers indirectly via authors - a rather inefficient double method.
But who will gain and who will lose under open access? Those who gain are scientists who work in institutions that cannot afford access to current publications. However, any scientist who is connected to the web can Google ’Royal Society of Chemistry journals’, scan the current issues, and note any paper of interest. While it’s not possible to access the actual paper, an email to the author will, in my experience, always yield a pdf of the paper. This is more complicated than simply downloading a file, but the idea that scientists cannot access current literature seems tenuous.
Who will lose under open access? It will be those authors who are not funded by grants, or those not working for large private institutions. Such scientists might include junior lecturers, elderly or semi-retired lecturers, and private consultants. All these will have to pay for publication of a scientific paper out of their own pocket.
It would require quite a survey to determine the number of winners and losers under open access, but it certainly cannot be assumed that there are only winners - there might be more losers.
M H Abraham FRSC
University College, London
No comments yet