I have come to the realization that, after a career of avoiding it, I really dig physical organic chemistry. While I do have the synthetikkers love for developing a synthesis, I really enjoy taking the rare opportunity to do a focused study on a single transformation or compound. It is a stylized form of play that any developmental psychologist would recognize. Discovery is about learning, just like play, and many of the exploratory behaviors observed in play apply just as well to discovery (well, except for hitting and crying).
One way a scientist learns is by doing a search for boundary conditions. Where or how in parameter space does a thing change? What is the best solvent for the desired outcome? What effect does stoichiometry have? Does dry, inert atmosphere really make a difference? What are the best leaving groups? Yes, it’s just research. But there is more.
In order to claim that you have expertise with a substance or process, you must have an understanding of how a process or substance behaves under a variety of conditions. If faced with a product that is off spec and the prospect of having to rework or remake, it is very helpful to understand what conditions lead to the off-normal outcome. Either the chemist sleuths each upset for a cause, or the chemist goes in the lab and purposely exposes the process to off-normal parameters and analyzes the outcome, or both. After a while, patterns begin to arise and trends become apparent. This is play.
Seems bloody obvious. But in a production environment the opportunity to explore parameter space is often not possible. Favor almost always finds the more practical, though short term, fixes. Production managers are not always chosen for their focus on the long term. They are short term oriented- a necessary predilection for timely delivery of product on a tight timeline.
Part of a good process development program is a study of how the process behaves in various upset conditions. This is important for understanding the thermal safety issues, but it also is a good time to take snapshots of how the composition of the process system behaves when it is out of whack. A reaction profile under conditions of reagent mischarges or off-temperature can give many clues as to the operating window of the process. It can also tell you something about the best way to do an in-process check and define flags for particular types of upsets.
Many companies do this, but a good many find a way to gloss over such work.
Lamentations on Chemistry 
Dear Gaussling,
Those of us who have know you for years are happy that you have finally come to the realization that we had made long ago. We were never ashamed of your leanings toward Hammett and all things kinetic. It was a brave thing to come out of the closet publicly as you have.
My dear fellow,
Thank you for your support in this frightening step I have taken. I can only hope that my example here can help other closet biphasic chemists take the leap of faith and step into the light of day!
Your Pal,
Th’ Gaussling
Thanks for pointing out the chemical safety board accident reports earlier. For several of the reactive accidents, it seems like DSC studies of the thermodynamics of the alternative reaction pathways would’ve revealed problems in a number of the incidents. I definitely see how DSC studies got short shrift in my own education, and it was only my relation to polymer research that really got it included at all. Is this lack as common as I think it is or is it handled better at other chemical institutions? So is one of the reasons that the lack of thinking about the bounds of a reaction is due to the fact that most chemists haven’t been trained to look for them? You’ve talked about how physical organic chemistry hasn’t gotten much support earlier.
Chemists come out of their BA/BS programs with exposure to and some command of a fairly limited range of chemical practices. Most faculty I have spoken to express doubt that much more can be jammed into 4 years of study, given the requirements of the ACS curriculum. I cannot dispute this.
It is inevitable that post graduate education is needed to build upon the basics so that the student can go into the job market packing a greater diversity of skills. But the question I have is this- does the ACS curriculum really serve BA/BS graduates who wish to step out into the job market without post graduate work?
I would say that if the BA/BS chemist desires to be an analyst, the answer is yes. I would offer that the business areas of synthetic chemistry, polymers, formulation, and chemical business management are poorly served by the skill sets of fresh BA/BS graduates. The ACS curriculum is a mile wide and a foot deep.
Chemistry departments are structured to conform to ACS curriculum guidelines and staff and equip accordingly. So the opportunities for prospective faculty who are from the business world or from more fringe areas of endeavor are at somewhat of a disadvantage if their presence dilutes pre-health resources.
Most university chemistry departments have a substantial service role for pre-meds, pre-pharmacy, nursing, pre-vet, etc. I have taught at serveral schools and have lived it. Pre-health students are often the bread and butter for chemistry and biology departments. So, what ever else happens, chemistry departments are reluctant to adversely affect the goose that layed the golden egg.
As far as experience in the area of process development and safety, it will be an on-the-job training thing for a long time to come. There is just too much institutional inertia out there for the university teaching and research complex to change.
That’s real good learning and thanks for such an instructive post.
Good stuff…as a Ph.D. phys org chemist and 20 years in process, I agree completely. But, I would say that a majority of my knowledge base is experience.