Successful Failures

by Kenneth Hanson on Apr 24 2011 (13267 Views)

Many, if not the majority, of research projects end up as ‘failures’. I use the term failure because the project simply fails to reach the pre-defined goals. Useful knowledge is usually still gained, such as why you could not reach the goal or why the goal is unreachable. Unfortunately, knowledge about what not to do is less publishable and therefore less likely to be shared.

It is a tragedy that this knowledge from failure is not shared with others and added to the compendium of human understanding. Without a method for capturing and disseminating this information, countless researchers in countless labs end up having to reinvent failures many times over. The same mistakes are allowed to happen because there are few if any forums for researchers to learn why their proposl might not work.

A few years ago I stumbled upon the Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine. In this journal biologists and biochemists share the results of their 'failed' experiments. After posting a link to this journal on the chemistry subreddit Mitch and I got into a discussion about starting a Journal of Failed Chemistry, an open access, peer reviewed journal to share failed chemistry projects and the too often underappreciated knowledge they produce. We decided to wait until we were more established in our careers before tackling the project because we wanted more credibility to support the journal.

I am excited to share with as many people as I can that someone beat us to it. The All Results Journals: Chem is currently accepting submissions in an effort to “compile and publish articles with undesirable results and their interpretations written up in common scientific format after a peer review process.”

All articles are written in standard journal format and each submission will be sent out to one or more reviewers as chosen by the editors. Every published article is available online free of charge in open access format to support a greater global exchange of knowledge.

While this journal is still in its fledgling stages I hope that everyone recognizes its importance and provides support. Its success rests on the shoulders of those willing to both submit and review the articles. Please take a look at the online submission guidelines to see if you have something fitting for the journal (I would wager that anyone who’s completed a Doctoral thesis has at least one chapter that fits the criteria). Also if you are willing and interested in being a reviewer check out the requirements and fill out an application.

For those of you who are interested, check out the other All Results Journals for Biology, Physics and Nanotechnology.

Related side note: I pass on the advice I was once given as a graduate student – while doing an original research proposal, like the one required during most qualifying exam processes, be able to answer the question “If you fail to reach the goals of your proposal, what will you have learned?” The most valuable proposals to the scientific community at large are not just the ones that present a unique way to go after a problem but also the ones that will help humanity better understand the inner workings of the universe.

Promoting Science One High School at a Time

by Kenneth Hanson on Mar 29 2011 (11417 Views)

I grew up in Foley, Minnesota, a small town (population: 1600 people) in the middle of nowhere. My early world view was shaped by a very homogeneous local population, television, and movies. For example, my isolated perspective made me think that Hollywood was a vision of wealth and fame. Then I moved to Los Angeles for graduate school and these visions were shattered in one fell swoop during my first trip to a shockingly crowded Hollywood strip that offered souvenir stands, sex-toy/lingerie shops, and shattered dreams.

Without meeting a scientist, a similar contrast between reality and imagination can also emerge. Impressions of science and scientists can instead be based on movies like Frankenstein, The Fly or others. For many, this impression can also be affected by anti-evolutionists and climate-change deniers who demonize scientists.

To help add reality into this equation I decided to do what I could, one talk at a time, starting with my former high school. At the beginning of March I was a visiting speaker for my former teacher, Dave Voeltz, in three chemistry classes and one physics class. This was my first attempt at showing the reality of being a scientist and, more specifically, the importance of science and chemistry.

Sam Mueller, my friend since high school, agreed to video tape my talk, cut together some of the more important points, and create a video. I am sharing this video with you with the hope of spreading the importance of science to an even greater audience. Here is the outcome of his 48 hour, video-editing binge (Thanks Sam). I apologize preemptively for my compulsive swaying. With much energy comes much movement.

 

 

If you are interested in more of Sam Mueller’s work check out the preview for his latest film Raising Sparrows, which is currently making the documentary film circuit.

Better Pranking Through Chemistry

by Kenneth Hanson on Mar 13 2011 (17598 Views)

“I have some news...I’m pregnant.” That’s my wife’s opening line on her yearly April 1^st telephone call to her mother. It’s not really considered an effective “fool” anymore, but at this point it’s a fun and expected tradition. With April 1^st quickly approaching, I’ve realized that chemists have a significant advantage over our non-chemistry friends when it comes to pranks (Unless they are diabolical engineers. I imagine that is a relatively even and terrifying match). I don’t have any April fools’ traditions, but it might be time to start planning some especially given the wealth of ‘fools” available to the average chemist.

Disclaimer time: If you choose to use your chemistry powers to prank either in or outside of the lab it is important to understand the associate risks and consider the safety of others as a priority. Always wear the proper protective equipment.

Ga Spoon

Gallium, while solid at room temperature, will turn into a liquid just above ~30°C (~86°F). That is a relatively low melting point, well below the temperature of a cup of coffee or tea. If one were to pick up some Gallium, heat it up above ~30°C, inject it into a spoon shaped mold, and ever so kindly offer it to a friend/coworker/significant other that was trying to stir a hot drink, it might result in a funny outcome.

*Note: Although gallium is not readily soluble in water it is probably not a good idea to drink the solution after the spoon melts.

 

Explosive Ketchup:

If we take a quick flash back to our 6^th grade science fair everyone remembers at least one baking soda and vinegar volcano. These demonstrations utilize the evolution of CO₂ bubbles after mixing sodium bicarbonate and acetic acid to create the eruption effect (reaction below).

Because there is a significant amount of vinegar (1-2%) in ketchup, the same concept can be used to create a ketchup volcano.

Be aware that pressure is being created in a closed system so only the minimal amount of baking soda should be used to create the desired effect.

 

Burning Money

Nothing invokes panic like taking a friend’s $20 bill and lighting it on fire right in front of them. The key to preforming this act, without getting a phone call from the Secret Service, is to cover the flammable dollar in a volatile solvent like ethanol. To do this you need to soak the bill in a 50/50 ethanol/water solution. You can add a little bit of table salt to change the color of the flame from blue to yellow/orange. Once you ignite the bill, the ethanol will burn away but the dollar will remain intact.

 

Liquid N₂ Rat

Most people have heard or seen of the chemistry magic show bit where a flower, frozen with liquid nitrogen, is smashed into a million pieces. Now (disturbing concept alert), imagine the same scenario but with a dead rat/mouse in a dorm room. It probably becomes very difficult to clean up when the pieces thaw. I do not personally know of someone actually doing this, but there is no doubt a special place in science hell for anyone that does. I am not going to link a video of someone smashing a rat but here is a video of a flower. You can use your imagination.

These pranks are just the tip of the chemistry-based tom-foolery iceberg. If you are going to try any of them, please enjoy, but be safe.

You Can Take the Chemist Out of the Lab but...

by Kenneth Hanson on Jan 09 2011 (12410 Views)

Synthetic chemists make a living by mixing together materials in the right ratios at the right temperature for the right amount of time.

This description makes the correlation between chemistry and cooking obvious, at least for those of us who have done synthetic chemistry. For those in the greater public, there have been a few recent efforts to draw attention to this connection.

One is the recent ACS webinar “Kitchen Chemistry: Combining Chemistry and Culinary Delights for the Holiday” on December 9^th.

A more mainstream example is the show “Good Eats” with Alton Brown on the Food Network.

In programs like this we see fundamental concepts like density taught through simple suggestions like measuring sugar by weight rather than volume. The video below is an example of Alton Brown loosely referencing chemistry to explain why onions make you cry, as well as techniques for preventing it.

I would have enjoyed seeing a few chemical structures in his explanation. For those who agree, here is the stepwise reaction:

While on the subject of cooking, I’d also like to explore an anecdote I’ve heard from more than one professor: when no longer doing wet work, their interest in cooking increased.

It has been six months since I made the transition from predominantly synthetic chemistry to pure spectroscopy and I can honestly say that, in spite of my wife’s greatest hopes, my disinterest in cooking remains.

Regardless, I have noticed that my knowledge of chemistry and my finely tuned stirring, pouring, measuring and other mechanical skills are helpful when I do. My experience in lab has also led to tendencies that may border on the obsessive compulsive – and I am not the only one. For example, over the years I have noticed that:

• I check the meniscus while measuring out a volume of milk.

• I wash my hands obsessively.

• After drinking a glass of orange juice, I feel the need to rinse the bottom of the glass with water and then drink the diluted solution in order to quantitatively transfer the juice to my stomach.

• After five years of washing glassware on a daily basis I absolutely loathe doing dishes.

• I have witnessed a friend (an organic chemist) finish a glass of water, pour and swirl a small amount of soda in the bottom, dump it down the sink and then fill the freshly washed glass with soda to drink.

I have no doubt that other chemists have lab-based quirks in (and out) of the kitchen. What are yours?

The Life Cycle of a North American Research Project

by Kenneth Hanson on Nov 05 2010 (31170 Views)

Simply reading a research article doesn’t provide any insight into how a project progresses from inception to fruition/publication. Sometimes projects start as a good idea. Other times they begin from interesting or unexpected results. Every so often, it is an accident.

These auspicious origins are further clouded by the tendency of authors to present their results as if they were intentional from the very beginning, even if they stumbled upon them. To a younger scientist reading these papers it can feel overwhelming to begin research. They may ask “how could I ever possibly get from here to there?”

A project that I started four years ago at the beginning of graduate school was finally published last week. It was by far my favorite project. Not only because of the content but also because of the journey. In response to a question posed by masterm on the chemistry subreddit, I am going to share my experience with the process between inception and publication for this project and hopefully provide some insight for the uninitiated.

My graduate career can be broken down into two categories: 1) research that pays the bills and 2) purely scientific research. In 2005 when I started graduate school my adviser, Mark Thompson, came to me with a not so simple request: “Find a molecule that exhibits efficient (>10%: more than 10 out of every 100 photons that are absorbed are then emitted) phosphorescence between 750 and 900 nm.” This project fell into category 1 because it had specific, short-term, grant dictated goals along with a long term goal of producing a commercially viable product.

Unfortunately/fortunately the number of published molecules that efficiently phosphoresce in that wavelength range is limited. During the years that followed my colleges and I (team IR) became entrenched in the idea of taking known molecules and extending the π-conjugation to red-shift emission. This strategy was based on a common tenet in small molecule photophysics that says if you extend the π-conjugation of a molecule (add more benzene rings) you will lower the energy of absorption/emission (changing from blue/high energy/shorter wavelength towards red/low energy/longer wavelength). It is a ‘particle in the box’ mentality. That is, if you extend the box you will lower the energy of the system. The words “let’s just add some benzene rings to it” became our regular chorus. With this mantra we had a considerable amount of success, adding benzene rings (benzannulating) platinum porphyrins. Attempts at benzannulating other systems were less successful in that they either did not shift the emission or they were unstable.

At the 2006 ACS meeting in San Francisco I presented my results on one of these “failed” pursuits. I also made an effort to go to as many talks and poster secessions as possible hoping that I would come across a new molecule/ligand that might help reach our goal. I kept seeing 1,3-bispyridylisoindole (BPI) ligand in various catalysis presentations. It caught my attention because it has many of the components that we have in our near-infrared emitters: a pyrrole like our iridium dipyrrins (λ_em = 672 nm) and platinum porphyrins (λ_em = 650 nm), an isoindole like platinum tetrabenzoporphyrins (λ_em = 765 nm) and phthalocyanines (λ_em = ~1000 nm). It is a simple concept in chemistry that, more often than not, if things look similar they will exhibit similar behaviors.

Before we ever go to the bench and synthesize a new molecule we first perform a DFT calculation to get an estimate of its phosphorescence wavelength (E_triplet-E_singlet or E_{HSOMO(triplet)} - E_{HOMO(singlet)}). In my hotel room that night I performed this high yield “reaction” (Titan: B3LYP, LACVP**) and inserted a platinum chloride into BPI and found the calculated emission wavelength was 675 nm. That is way out into the deep red but not quite to the 750-900 nm we were looking for. So what’s next? The chorus comes around again: “BENZANNULATE!” Adding three benzene rings (bottom right) to the parent structure (top middle) resulted in a modest red-shift in the emission wavelength from 675 nm to 697 nm. Needless to say, this was an anticlimactic result. I was disappointed and wanted to understand why there was only a small shift, so I calculated a series of these molecules (above). A clear trend can be observed, benzannulating the pyrrole ring results in a blue shift, benzannulating the pyridyl ring results in a red shift. The calculated blue shift is counter to the common expectation that benzannulation results in red shifted absorption/emission.

Between my advisers interest in the two molecules predicted to emit above 800 nm and his desire to find out if the calculations were correct, he gave me permission to pursue the project. Following published procedures or slightly modified versions of these reactions I was able to produce several similiar molecules. In both absorption and emission, the predicted trends were correct. In fact, even without taking a measurement it was obvious to the naked eye that the absorption and emission were blue shifting upon benzannulation of the pyrrole ring (left).

So now that we knew that the phenomenon was real, the question was “Why the blue shift?” Turning to literature we were able to find several examples of molecules that exhibit this behavior but the explanations given were either incomplete or molecule specific. No generalized explanation could be found.

So we had a mystery on our hands. Between our preliminary calculations, photophysical and electrochemical measurements we were able to conclude that an unchanging HOMO energy (similar oxidation potential) and a destabilized LUMO energy (increasing reduction potential) with each benzannulation was responsible for the observed trend.

Proud of our result and the conclusion we had reached at this point, I was excited to present the results at the Southern California Inorganic Photochemistry Conference (SCIP). I explained the story and results of the discovery and at the end of my talk Professor Jeffery Zink (UCLA) asked a simple but profound question that I was unable to answer: “Why does the LUMO go up?”

Reflecting on the question I experienced a flashback to constructing orbital diagrams in undergraduate chemistry classes. For the sake of people not to familiar with the topic, I will quickly review molecular orbitals. The interaction between two orbitals can be broken down into three categories: bonding, antibonding and nonbonding. In cases where the energies and symmetries of two orbitals are similar they will interact to produce a stabilized bonding and a destabilized antibonding interaction. The shape and energy of these bonding/antibonding orbitals will be dependent on the energies of the two interacting orbitals. In cases where the orbital energies are extremely unequal no interaction will occur. Similarly, if the symmetry of two orbitals are not similar they will not interact (example: p_x and p_y are orthogonal and thus will never interact).

Using thus basic principle to construct an orbital diagram of naphthalene from the combination of benzene and butadiene you will find that a HOMO_bezene-HOMO_butadiene bonding/antibonding interaction destabilizes the HOMO (increases the energy) and a LUMO_bezene-LUMO_butadiene bonding/antibonding interaction stabilizes the LUMO (decreases the energy), as shown below.

The HOMO destabilization and LUMO stabilization inevitably leads to a red-shifted absorption (smaller ΔE for the HOMO to LUMO transition) of napthalene relative to benzene. This type of orbital interaction is the reason behind the common expectation that benzannulation will red-shift absorption/emission.

Without an answer to the question (“Why does the LUMO go up?”) I presented these results again at the 2008 ACS meeting in New Orleans. At the meeting I had a chance to catch up with one of my closest friends and a fellow graduate from the St. Cloud State University's  chemistry department, Luke Roskop (St. Cloud State is a small university in Minnesota that you have probably never heard of unless you enjoy college hockey). It just so happens he was/currently is a graduate student at Iowa State under one of the world’s foremost theoretical chemists, Mark Gordon. After a conversation that night and permission from both of our advisers we decided we were going to combine our expertise and do our best to come up with an answer.

Over the several months that followed and through a combination of time-dependent DFT calculations, photophysical measurements and a bunch of reading we were leaning towards an argument that involved orbital diagrams. However, it was not until holiday break while both of us were back in Minnesota at Luke’s parent’s dinning room table that we had a break through. As a synthetic chemist, I often pigeon-hole myself into only thinking about molecules that can be made. In fact, I sometimes get an uncomfortable feeling when looking at a molecule that “feels” unstable. One of the things that I love about theoreticians is that if it can be dreamed of they can calculate it. Luke's ability to imagine the “impossible” became infinity useful on that particular day. Utilizing his remote access to Iowa States computing cluster, Luke just started making changes to the BPI motif to figure out the effects of structural changes on the HOMO/LUMO orbitals and energies. After looking at dozens of molecules a tremendous feeling of clarity hit me. It was one of those rare moments that all scientists search for. My internal conflict floated away and for a brief moment I felt as if the universe made sense. I turned to Luke and said “You are going to love this!” What followed was my tentative explanation of the phenomena and then a long discussion between us to iron out the details. By the end of the night we had outlined what as of last week became our publication.

Ignoring the importance of justifying the use of molecular orbitals (beyond the scope of this summary but is discussed in the paper) our rationalization can be reduced down to a simple molecular orbital argument. In the orbital diagram for benzene we find that a LUMO-LUMO interaction leads to destabilization of the LUMO of naphthalene as compared to benzene. In the system described here, the HOMO of (BPI)PtCl (middle) has very little orbital density at the sites of butadiene addition and as a result no mixing occurs and the HOMO energy/orbital remains unchanged.

The LUMO however, is energetically similar to both the HOMO and the LUMO of butadiene thus the type of interaction that occurs is dictated by the symmetry of butadiene addition. The nodal plane of the LUMO at the end of the isoindole ring of (BPI)PtCl is the same symmetry as the HOMO of butadiene (also has a nodal plane) and thus a bonding/antibonding interaction occurs that destabilizes the LUMO. The unchanged HOMO and the destabilized LUMO results in a blue-shifted absorption of the benzannulated product (right) relative to the parent molecule. Alternatively, the lack of a nodal plane on the pyridine ring at the sight of butadiene addition results in the expected LUMO-LUMO interaction resulting in a stabilized LUMO of the isoquinoline derivative (left) and red shifted absorption relative to the parent molecule. Similar arguments hold true for not only for benzannulating the other positions of (BPI)PtCl but also the previously published examples of blue-shifted absorption upon benzannulation.

In short, we found an unexpected but straight forward visual manifestation of molecular orbital theory.

We finished up the paper (an ordeal in itself), submitted it, and it was accepted after revisions.

Take home message from this project:

1. Go to presentations that are unrelated to your research/expertise.
2. Pay attention to your unusual results.
3. Gather knowledge. The more knowledge you have in a subject matter, the more likely you are to recognize something unusual.
4. Find an adviser that will let you pursue an interesting project (I have no idea how to make this happen other than word of mouth or just get lucky).
5. Don't rule out the imaginary molecules. Sometime they are exactly what you need.
6. Try not burn any bridges in pursuit of your goals; you might need help later.

Inquiring Minds Need Your Help

by Kenneth Hanson on Oct 17 2010 (33793 Views)

My current adviser has successfully managed a research group for more than 30 years. He has produced hundreds of publications and acquired a wealth of chemistry knowledge. Last week, when the group moved into a new lab, we boxed and unboxed the tools that helped build this knowledge: a grand collection of equipment, glassware and chemicals.

It has become abundantly clear that with much knowledge comes much glassware.

And not simply your everyday beakers or Erlenmeyer flasks, but unique glassware created for specific experiments. While this glassware once had high utility, it is now a fossil of long-ago projects gathering dust in the archives (and by archives I mean that drawer full of weird glassware that no one uses).

The graduate student or postdoc who preformed the long-forgotten experiment has moved on and taken with them the explanation of the glassware’s function.

The inquiring minds of my research group would like your help in identifying/explaining the five of the most interesting specimens.

1) The Immersion Condenser
The first item is an immersion condenser or cold finger with an o-ring connector and an inlet/outlet for cold water. The question is why does it have the weird tip at the end?

Since many of you are currently trying your hardest to come up with a funny/witty comment, I will make a preemptive, unclever strike: PENIS! PENIS! PENIS!

2) The Pitch Fork
Each of the glass rods in this image has a small (~1-2 mm) tube inside so it behaves as a four-way junction. Why this specific shape?

3) The Meth Pipe
This item has two openings. The smaller one has a long stem that encircles the larger opening several times until they both meet in a conical chamber. As you can tell from my label, our guesses on this glassware’s purpose were limited.

4) The all-in-one Reflux/Distillation/Addition Funnel Apparatus
The form of this item is relatively straight forward with the exception of the absent Teflon or glass stopcock just above the lowest round bottom flask. What is it for?

5) The Bubbler
This is the piece that I am most curious about. At first glance it appears to be a plain bubbler with a smaller inlet tube that runs to the bottom of the larger chamber which has an outlet near the top. Upon further inspection, we find that there is an additional, independent piece of glass in the inner tube that is free to move vertically (inset). The independent piece of glass is a sealed chamber either filled with a gas or is simply a vacuum. On the top of this piece is a ground-glass ball joint. The counter to this ball joint is a socket with an opening from the top inlet. Our best guess for this piece is that, unlike a normal bubbler, the inlet is reversed and is for liquid to flow directly into the larger chamber. As that chamber fills, the freely moving piece is buoyant and will continue to move upward with the solvent. Once the chamber has filled with enough solvent it will push the ball and socket joint together preventing the further flow of liquid. If this guess is indeed correct, what would you use it for?

Any insight you can offer is greatly appreciated.

$cience is Important

by Kenneth Hanson on Sep 19 2010 (25496 Views)

Last week Kei Koizumi, Assistant Director for Federal Research & Development for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, paid a visit to the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (my new home as of mid-June). The visit included a tour of several laboratories where everyone did their very best to convince him that our funding (e.g. my salary) is worthwhile as well as a presentation by Mr. Koizumi that outlined the Presidents plans/goals/vision for scientific funding.

On many occasions, President Obama has voiced his strong support of the sciences. In an address to the National Academy of Sciences on April 27, 2009 he emphasized the importance of science by stating “Science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, our health, our environment, and our quality of life than it has ever been before.” In addition to this type of powerful dialogue we have seen significant action.  Perhaps the most obvious example of this is the scientific funding boost that came through with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, purple block in the graph below). In addition to this quick funding boost there is a continuing effort by the administration to double the 2006 budget for the Department of Energy, the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the National Science Foundation by the year 2017. The approved 2011 budget continues with this upward funding trend as outline in the graph below.

So what does the future hold? Every year a memorandum is sent from the Office of Management and Budget to the major funding agencies requesting their budget proposals for the upcoming year. In this memorandum the current administration outlines how they intend to direct their funding. In the 2012 memorandum, the Obama administration emphasized the following six areas of focus:

• Promoting sustainable economic growth and job creation.

• Defeating the most dangerous diseases and achieving better health outcomes for all while reducing health care costs.

• Moving toward a clean energy future to reduce dependence on energy imports while curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

• Understanding, adapting to, and mitigating the impacts of global climate change.

• Managing the competing demands on land, fresh water, and the oceans for the production of food, fiber, biofuels, and ecosystem services based on sustainability and biodiversity.

• Developing the technologies to protect our troops, citizens, and national interests.

The proposal writing process is no doubt an exercise in balancing wishful thinking and self control. Along these lines it is not unusual for an agency to submit several versions of their budget (above, below and the same as the previous year). However, due to the recent economic issues, the administration was particular in asking all agencies to submit a funding request that is reduced by 5 percent relative to the previous year. As of Monday, September 13^th the new budget proposals for the 2012 fiscal year were due. Over the next several months negotiations between the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Science Technology Policy will determine the 2012 funding situation.  The 2012 budget will then be announced in the first week of February 2011. Although it is unlikely that every agencies budget will be reduced by 5% , 2012 is likely to be a tough year for many researchers.

tl;dr: All you have to do to guarantee funding in 2012 is submit a solid proposal for a commercially viable, bulletproof, CO₂ detecting solar energy converter that cures diseases while still maintaining the ecosystem.

Finding a Postdoc Position is a Difficult Journey but here are 15 Tips to Help You Along the Way.

by Kenneth Hanson on Jul 18 2010 (22923 Views)

My impression, from the anecdotes of others as well as my own experience, is that finding a postdoctoral position is a widely unknown and undiscussed process that one learns about via “trial by fire.” For example, Mitch wrote about the surprises he experienced during his interview last January.

Unlike applying for college or graduate school, there is no formal application process for obtaining a postdoc. From what I have been told it more closely resembles the job search process, but for further complication, many postdoc openings are not advertised and only become available when the right applicant inquires. In an effort to support future postdoctoral hopefuls, I am going to expand on Mitch's prior post with insight and advice I acquired through trial and error and gleaned from the stories of others. It is a long list but hopefully some of this information will be helpful.

Get your foot in the door…
1. Begin your search one to two years before graduation. A few professors shared this insight with me after they learned I began my postdoc search only nine months before my own graduation (oops). It makes sense now when I think about it because potential advisors need time to allocate money, resources and a project for your estimated date of arrival.

2. Find four or five research groups you are interested in working with. I focused primarily on finding groups working in the flavor of research I am interested in. Other searchers may prioritize location. Another variable, more important than either, is whether the lab you are interested in will serve as a stepping stone for your long-term professional goals.

3. Write a cover letter to each professor. This letter should include a brief overview of the research you have conducted and why you are interested in their work. I recommend subtly incorporating the skills, tools, and ideas you would bring to their research. I would also mention a willingness to pursue external funding sources or to request recommendations for any fellowships they may know that you could apply for.

4. Ask your advisor to send a short email on your behalf. It is not unusual for a top research professor to get several postdoctoral applications each week. Regardless of how good your qualifications may be it can be difficult to differentiate your email from the others. If your advisor is willing, have them send a truncated recommendation email saying something like, “I have a spectacular graduate student that is interested in being a postdoc in your research group and you would be a fool to pass them up. They will be sending you their CV and cover letter shortly.” If the professors know each other it can be huge advantage in your favor and sometimes this email is all it takes to get an offer.

5. Send an email with cover letter and CV attached. Example email text: “I am a fifth year graduate student in the .... research group at the University of .... This email is to express my interest in joining your research group as a postdoc starting in Month 201x. Attached are a cover letter and curriculum vitae. Letters of recommendation are soon to follow. I am happy to provide any other information you may find helpful.”

6. Send a hard copy of the cover letter and CV. Even if your email gets ignored you can pretty much guarantee that a physical letter will at least be opened and your name will cross the professor’s mind at least one more time.

7. Wait for a reply. Hopefully you hear back from the professor with good or at least a neutral (not no) reply. In the best case scenario you get a job offer or an interview. If they do not extend an invitation for a campus visit, you can insist on paying for your own visit and offer to give a talk. This option of course depends on how badly you want the position, as well as the state of your bank account. My theory is that it would be much more difficult to say no after a person has demonstrated that they are highly interested and competent (assuming you demonstrate these qualities). If you do not hear back in several weeks you should send a follow up email asking for an update on the postdoctoral position.

You have planned a visit. Before you go…
8. Do your homework. Looking into the research group’s goals and methods should be a no-brainer. It is unlikely that you will get a pop quiz on their research. However, your general dialog with the adviser and group members will flow much better and you will leave a better impression. Nothing says "I have a scientific mind" like asking a really insightful question. If possible, think of a proposal or direction they could shift their research. They might not want to pursue your ideas but it does show that you have them.

9. Have a one hour talk prepared. Instinctively you might feel the need to include as much of your PhD work as you can cram into an hour but it is much more effective to present a small subset of your research with a coherent storyline. This talk should also be tailored in a similar manner as your cover letter as to clearly demonstrate skills/tools/ideas you can bring to their research.

During the visit...
10. Consider how to dress. This is a point where I respectfully disagree with Mitch. If you are someone that is comfortable or enjoys wearing a suit by all means look more professional. However, I am not willing to sacrifice my comfort for appearance. The more relaxed I am the better I will perform in both my presentation and one-on-one meetings. For my postdoc interviews (and defense) I wore a nice pair of jeans and a suite coat.

11. What to expect. Your visit will most likely be comprised of a lab tour, possibly a short campus tour, a meeting with the adviser/grad students/postdocs, lunch and a presentation (either to the group or the entire department). Not necessarily in that order. If there are in-house collaborators, a meeting with them can be expected but thanks to Mitch I now know that you might also be asked to meet with other professors in the department.

12. Be prepared for a long, energy consuming day. You will likely be putting in an 8-hour day of constant discussions. I have heard rumors that when veteran professors are interviewing a candidate they will set up a meeting in the morning and one at the end of the day. The reason they do this is to first catch you in the morning to see how awake and energetic you are, and then at the end of the day to see if you are the same way. It is a method of finding out who you really are. It is very difficult to keep up a facade for 8 hours. Also if you can keep up your energy that entire time you are probably going to get a lot of work done.

After your visit...
13. Send a follow-up email. A few days after the interview I sent a follow-up email thanking the professor and their group members for their time, reemphasized my interest in their research group and closed by asking for updates on the position. If I did not hear back within a month I sent a second email asking for an update.

14. Funding. Even if you have received an offer that includes full financial support it is still a good idea to apply for postdoc fellowships not only for the money but also the prestige that comes with receiving a fellowship. Most advisors are willing to help you write a proposal based on their work or an original proposal idea. Whether or not you get the fellowship you will still learn a lot about your future projects.

15. Making a decision. Believe it or not, this might be one of the more difficult parts of the process. If you only receive one offer out of several attempts it greatly simplifies your decision. However, if you get a few offers it may be more difficult. This is the time to ask some honest questions about your future advisor and group members. Will they help you find a job? Do they like the area? What is it like working their? Many of us also have to consider the two body problem. Can my significant other find a job there?

The final advice I will give is that the process is so individualized that you should consult everyone you can that has undergone their own postdoc adventure. If others have any more information to share, please do so.

My Advice to First-Year Ken (Time Machine Availability Pending)

by Kenneth Hanson on Jun 14 2010 (18811 Views)

Having just successfully defended my dissertation and finding myself with spare time during a cross-country drive between Los Angeles to North Carolina, I have compiled a list of things that I did or, in retrospect, wish I had done at the beginning of graduate school. I hope that those who are just entering a program this fall will find it useful. One thing to keep in mind while reading this list is that I am primarily a synthetic chemist. Yet, I am optimistic that there is something useful to all chemists, no matter the flavor.

In no particular order:

1) Search through every nook and cranny of your lab. When you first start working you should look through every drawer/cabinet/fridge/corner in your group’s space just to get a feel for what is available to you. At some point you might need a unique item that you recall happening across during your initial search. Keep in mind that while group materials are often shared, some of the senior group members might not be happy if they find you going through “their stuff” so you might want to either ask them or do it at night when no one is around.

2) Have an extra set of clothing/shoes in desk. You never know when you will sacrifice an item of clothing on the alter of science (Ignore this point if you enjoy public nudity).

3) Use a numbering system for your files. Early in your graduate career you might be tempted to label your spectroscopic files (NMR, UV-Vis, IR, etc.) after the name of your molecules. However, unless you are going to list the full IUPAC name it will result in some acronym or abbreviation that could change over time. To avoid much frustration and ordeal while sorting through your first-year files as you write your dissertation it is much better just to name your files by notebook number or some systematic way that will not change over time.

4) Write down everything. I realize you are told this many times but you have no idea how difficult it is to recreate a procedure four years later with notes that are not up to par. If you are not motivated by the fear of your own personal frustration later on, do it for the next person that needs to recreate your results.

5) Always remain skeptical. It is very easy to convince yourself that there is a peak or signal or whatever when you want it to be there. Yet, no matter how much you want to have discovered a new phenomena or synthesized your final product, you have to double/triple check your results and use multiple measurements to be sure. If a result is to good to be true, it often is. There is nothing more devastating than to be “certain” of your results only to find out they are far from it.

6) Get a screw driver set. Although your research group may have public use tool, I strongly recommend keeping a personal set of both small and regular-sized screw drivers in your desk drawer. They will always be there and in good working condition when you need them (In consideration of point #1 – write your name on all personal items).

7) Buy Invest in a comfortable chair. Over the course of your graduate career (4-7 years) you will spend many hours in your chair, especially when writing up papers or your dissertation. Being physically sore due to a crappy chair does not help your mental well-being and thus can end up hindering your research.

8 ) Stagger your hours. No matter how close you are with your lab mates, make no mistake; you will be competing with them for lab space and equipment (rotovaps, spectroscopic machines, etc.). Although the idea of working from 6am to 4pm may not sound appealing, you can get a lot of work done when you have free reign over EVERYTHING.

9) Have a couple of 3 1/2” floppy disks in your desk. Working in a state of the art research facility does not always mean you are working with state of the art operating systems/software. In the event that you need to get data off of a machine without USB drives, running windows 98 it is handy to have your floppy disks readily available.

10) Screw up early and often and learn from it. You are going to make mistakes in lab. During your first year be prepared to fail. A lot. The key to success is to learn from your mistakes. As a senior group member I had no problem walking a first-year through a procedure or trouble shooting some issue, but if I had to do it three or four times I was less likely to help them in the future.

11) Pick and choose your battles. Although it is difficult to foresee what battles are important, especially when you are first starting your research career, the best advice I can offer is to ask yourself, “will this experiment support the narrative of my research/papers? Will it help me graduate?” For example, if you are not a synthetic chemist and only care about the properties of your final product it is not worth your time to optimize your reaction yields from 50 to 80%. If your product is valuable let someone else figure out an efficient way to make it. You should just worry about measuring pure product.

12) On your first day in lab figure out who the smartest member of your research group is and hit them with a lunch tray. Just kidding. Prison rules only apply 75% of the time in graduate school. But seriously, not every opinion from senior group members is equally valuable. Get a feel early on for who is able and willing to help you with your questions.

Want to get out of jury duty? Become a chemist.

by Kenneth Hanson on Dec 06 2009 (8749 Views)

A few months ago I received a jury duty summons from Los Angeles County. I was unhappy that I’d be out of the lab for several days if selected, but excited to have my first personal look into our legal system.

For those of you who have not yet been summoned, I’ll share with you a general description of my experience. The first step is to wait. I sat in a room with a few hundred other people for five hours before I, along with 60 other people, were called to a courtroom to begin the selection process.

Inside the courtroom sat the potential jurors, the prosecution/defense, the suspect, judge, bailiff and court reporter. They observed while I and the other potential jurors swore to answer all questions truthfully. Twenty of us, (everyone is assigned and referred to by a number. I was ten) were called to the jury box. The case involved a driving under the influence (DUI) charge and one by one the jurors were required to answer a series of general questions (Do you know anyone in law enforcement? What is your occupation? Do you have any strong feelings about the charges? Etc.). When asked my occupation I responded that I was a graduate student in chemistry.

After the general questions both the prosecution and defense asked additional questions, some directed to particular individuals. The questions attempted to uncover the jurors preconceived notions about the suspect and crime. One question asked by the defense sparked my attention. The attorney asked, “Does anyone know how breathalyzer works?”

Although a simple concept that can be grasped by any general chemistry student, the most common portable breathalyzer is actually a very clever use of electrochemistry. Inside of the device is an electrochemical cell operating at a constant potential:

At the cathode, oxygen is reduced in the presents of water to produce hydroxide ions.

O₂ + 2H₂O + 4e^- --> 4OH^-

At the anode, the ethanol in your breath is oxidized to acetic acid.

CH₃CH₂OH + 4OH^- --> H₃CCOOH + 3H₂O + 4e^-

Because this is a well defined 4 electron process, the current produced can be used to determine the amount of ethanol in your breath.

In response to the defense attorney’s question, I raised my hand, prepared to explain the chemistry behind the device. Unexpectedly, the lawyer turned to me and, as if already aware of my answer, dismissively said, “I will get back to you later.”

After 10 minutes the defense lawyer returned to me and delivered the following two questions:

1)  “It is the responsibility of a juror to leave any expertise at the door and make their decisions based only on what is presented by witnesses called during the trial.  This also includes not discussing your external knowledge with fellow jurors. Can you, even if you know the testimony of one of the experts is wrong, make your decision based only on what is presented?”

My answer: Yes. (Internal monologue: I can but I would lose sleep at night knowing I allowed a potentially innocent person to be punished.)

2)  “While hearing a testimony that contains information you know to be false you might instinctively think “that is wrong and this is why.”  Can you stop yourself from having these thoughts?”

My answer: No. (Internal monologue: Is that even possible?)

Following a meeting between the judge, prosecution and defense, the first three jurors were dismissed. I was one of them, along with a man who could not speak English and a woman whose best friend had been killed by a drunk driver.

In retrospect, it appears that I was dismissed from the jury because I am a chemist/scientist.  Despite not being selected, my jury summons provided a thought provoking experience and left me with several questions. I will now pose these questions to you, my fellow members of the scientific community.

1) Could you convict someone of a crime knowing that it is based on incorrect testimony?

2) We have spent years training our brains to critically analyze everything we think and hear. Can you shut that off on request?

3) In a system where those who testify swear under oath to tell the truth, is it hypocritical to expect those making the decision to suppress what they know to be true?

4) Why wouldn’t you want additional expertise on a panel of individuals deciding the outcome of a trial? Aren’t they the most qualified and as a result most likely to make the correct decision?

Chemical Spill or CHEMICAL SPILL!!

by Kenneth Hanson on Oct 17 2009 (7037 Views)

Some of you may have heard on ABC news about a “Chemical Spill” at the University of Southern California on 10/15/09.¹ Luckily, you get the inside story because the spill was in my research lab.

A post-doc in my research group was transporting a few chemicals in a plastic basket from one location to another.  The plastic was brittle due to gradual chemical exposure and cracked. Three bottles fell to the ground and broke. One contained lauroyl chloride, another an anthracene derivative (I don’t remember which one) and the third was a 100 mL bottle of tributyltin chloride. The first two are entirely inert and caused no concern.  The third chemical is an alkyl tin reagent which, in general, are known to be toxic.² Tributyl tin chloride has a high boiling point (170ºC) and a low vapor pressure compared to that of trimethyl tin chloride. To actually be affected by this chemical, you would probably have to lick the floor or rub it on your skin. However, it was a scenario where we decided it would be best to close the room and allow our on campus Hazmat team, composed of three guys and a truck, to clean it up.

Our lab safety officer soon learned, through USC Public Safety, that the Hazmat crew was unavailable due to a publicity event on the USC Health Sciences Campus. I am not exactly sure who was contacted next, but the response was big.  A building evacuation, two fire trucks, 10-15 firemen, several LAPD officers, and a Los Angeles county chemical spill response team later a news helicopter shows up. They were likely listening to the police radio and, once they arrived on the scene, started reporting the event on ABC news.

The chemical spill response team was no doubt baffled when they saw ~50 ml of clear liquid on the floor of our lab. This is the team called in when a chemical tanker flips over.

Eventually, the USC Hazmat team arrived and did the minor cleaning required from the beginning.

The image above is perhaps the best summation of how overblown the response was. It was used by ABC news to indicate a mass building evacuation.  The picture is actually of an on-campus engineering job fair that was happening a block away. Each white umbrella signifies a different visiting company.

Luckily, the media was distracted by a helium balloon, without which this overblown event may have been even further overblown.

Things I learned/re-learned from this event:

• Know what chemicals you are working with, how to clean them up and their toxicity.
• Find out who you need to call for both major and minor chemical spills.
• Don’t use dollar store plastic baskets for transporting chemicals (at least not long term).
• Don’t invite your Hazmat team to publicity events.

1) http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=7067340

2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1509475/

Hello my name is Ken and I am a science junky.

by Kenneth Hanson on Oct 11 2009 (3473 Views)

Since this is my first post on chemistry-blog.com I want to introduce myself with an explanation of why I am a scientist and, more specifically, a chemist.

Like most children, I was born with an insatiable curiosity to understand the world around me. This curiosity was expressed in an unending string of “why” questions. I recognize now that when adults did not have an answer for me they were uncomfortable simply saying, “I don’t know.” I found there are two common ways to get around the discomfort of showing a child your lack of knowledge. The first is the straight forward blow off of “It just is.” This answer only fueled my inquisitive nature and the voice inside my head responded with “They don’t know, maybe I can figure it out.” The second response is far more nefarious: the argument “You can’t really know anything.” Although there is some validity to this statement in the strictest definition, a deep epistemological conversation is usually not the intended outcome. The statement is instead a dualistic assertion that every claim has equal validity.

Is every claim equally true, just because we say it is? No. Reality simply does not work that way.

Living creatures accept that the universe has a systematic set of rules. We accept this basic premise, not because we want to or choose to, but because we have to. If not, every action you perform could result in any possible outcome. How would you function if you believed that flipping a light switch might change the density of water? Despite their best efforts no one really thinks that way.

A basic understanding of the inner-workings of the universe could be roughly described as common sense (don’t touch fire, what goes up must come down, etc.), but the process is much more formal than that. It is scientific method:

1) That is weird.     (Observation)
2) I bet it’s because of ...     (Hypothesis)
3) If I do ... then ... should happen     (Proposed experiment)
4a) I was right!     (Hypothesis supported.)
5a) Now how can make money off of ...?     (Create a new hypothesis)
or
4b) Crap!     (Hypothesis falsified)
5b) I bet it’s because of ...     (New hypothesis)

When I was a child there was nothing more enjoyable to me than looking at something and asking “how does that work?” I reveled in coming up with an explanation and then finding I was right. Even today, as a graduate student, the hours of experiments I conduct to test one simple hypothesis (the results of which sometimes ends up as a single sentence in a paper) are worth the effort for the elation I feel when the prediction is correct. I could be best described as “testable hypothesis junky.” My desire to get a fix is the reason I am a scientist. So, why chemistry?

After dabbling in several majors as an undergrad, I took organic chemistry. I fell in love with the atomic/molecular world. At the time I did not understand the draw of such a hated – even feared – academic pursuit (you have no doubt noticed the response when you tell people that you are a chemist). It is only now after years of research that I am beginning to understand the allure.

Of the hard sciences, chemistry is a unique field that allows us to understand the perceived world around us. Using our chemistry knowledge we can conceptualize why an egg yolk hardens when heated or why the Hope diamond is blue. Cell membranes, hand soap, and a layer of gasoline on water can all be associated in the mind of a chemist simply by understanding molecular properties. I started to make a list of more day to day things that are related to chemistry but I decided against it. After I wrote several lines, a photon emitted from the semiconducting material in a light emitting diode passed through the aligned molecules in the liquid crystal display of my computer, eventually hitting molecules in my eye causing a cis to trans isomerization setting off a cascade of sodium and potassium ion pumps which eventually resulted in the realization that the list was just too long.

I have come to understand the root of my passion and now it is my goal to share it with others. The key is finding a way to reignite the curiosity of everyone’s inner child. All it takes is a tidbit of chemistry that is useful and interesting to open a window for others and help them foster a new perspective and interest in our chemical world. I am a firm believer that everyone is interested in chemistry. They just don’t know it yet.