Re-issuing Classic Chemistry
by Jeremy on May 07 2009 (2332 Views)I recently bought a 2009 re-issued copy of Pearl Jam’s first album “Ten,” originally released back in 1991. Those who know me well are also aware of my interest in Pearl Jam; I enjoy collecting demos or live versions of their music. Anyhow, their officially released re-issue contains a remixed version of their 1991 album and (in my opinion) parts of it sound distinctly different than the original mix. For you music buffs out there in internet land, Brendan O’Brien—the original producer—dumped the supplemental reverb applied to the original tracks in this newer version. As a result, the guitars and drums sound much cleaner and less wet (I recommend listening to both versions of “Why Go” or “Oceans” for a good example of the remixing).
Thinking about the whole concept of “re-issue” got me thinking about organic chemistry (big surprise). How often do scientists report fantastically optimized results, table the idea, and then revisit it at a later date (to make vast improvements)? Or better yet, how much “new” chemistry has derived from “re-issuing” processed developed in the late 19th or early 20th century? My PI calls refers to this particular phenomenon as, “teaching an old dog new tricks.” In writing my dissertation (an ongoing process) I had the pleasure of reading Lipshutz’s recent review about cuprate chemistry (Synlett 2009, 509-524; DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1087923). This personalized narrative discusses the Lipshutz group efforts and contributions to the field of copper(I) hydride chemistry.
This article is of particular interest apart from discussing it at length in the ‘ol thesis. A few months back, I had a conversation with a colleague of mine who claimed that since Stryker’s contributions, “conjugate reduction chemistry has (basically) fallen to the wayside.” I recall laughing out loud at his remark. “What about Lipshutz or Riant or even Buchwald,” I asked. He claimed, with a sense of arrogance, that their work was “just a new twist on Stryker’s original work.” Based off of this logic, if someone successfully synthesized Taxol from table sugar in three steps, would it be considered a new twist on Nicolau or Holton’s contributions? Arrogance aside, this idea of “re-issuing” is a common phenomenon in research chemistry. It’s done frequently, often to the tune of 10-20 additional printed publications (apart from the seminal contribution). Perhaps, it’s these instances that call into question the process of “re-issuing” chemistry.
That said, re-issued chemistry can result in significantly new discoveries and improvements on original methods. Taking the conjugate reduction example, Stryker’s catalytic reactions, performed under a high pressure of H2, were plagued with over-reduced products. In switching the stoichiometric hydride source from hydrogen gas to PMHS, Lipshutz reported a vast improvement in reaction times and overall yields (Tetrahedron 2000, 56, 2779-2788; doi: 10.1016/S0040-4020(00)00132-0). This change has spawned a whole new area of carbon-carbon bond formation, particularly in the field of reductive alkylation reactions.
While I’m genuinely interested in the idea of inventing new and exciting reactions, the thought of tweaked processes resulting in “re-issued” chemistry is largely appealing (when done responsibly). A prominent neutron chemist once told me that real chemistry lies in unexplored places. “We want to be doing things that others aren’t,” he said. I agree. But on occasion, it’s necessary to explore the landscapes previously claimed by others for the betterment of the (scientific) community as a whole.
it’s not often you see reviews with pictures of people’s dogs in them. cute!
Cool beans, Jeff Stryker is just up the stairs from my office. His students lend us dry solvents on occasion.
Never met the guy, though I’ve heard wonderful things about him (and his group).
Process Development/Scale-up Chemistry largely would fit in your category of “re-issuing” chemistry because often do not get to invent much new stuff in order to produce materials in quantity. Usually have choices of reaction pathways but funnel to tried and true procedures. At the same time can be exciting and very challenging as you can develop improvements (and find flaws/limitations) on the known reactions to make them practical beyond small bench scale. Even after one thinks really know the chemistry it take some good Engineers to get to truly usable levels.
From experience I know there is great pre-WWI chemistry (German & British mostly) and amazed what they could do without NMRs and the other tools we have had for decades.
In Science there is a time for standing on the shoulder’s of giants, and a time for running into the forest chasing leprechauns.
I’m impressed with the discussions on this blog – I think you might appreciate the information over at Science Database – http://www.scidatabase.com as well.