Category Archives: CounterCurrent

A Few Conclusions and Refutations on Molecular Evolution

Summary:

What can a chemist possibly have to say that could be even marginally interesting about extraterrestrial life or evolution? Well, as far as extraterrestrial life and the search for it goes, I would say that all of the metallurgy, semiconductor fabrication, liquid hydrocarbon fuels, chemicals, transportation technology or polymers exploited in radio or optical astronomy, have some element of chemistry in their manufacture.

………………..

The quest to discover life beyond Earth captivates many in the broad field of space science. The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) has played a significant role in astronomy and space science communities. However, the search extends beyond intelligent life; any form of life or even the essential components and conditions conducive to life, are of keen interest.

It is widely accepted that the physics governing our planet and solar system likely applies universally. While this is a hypothesis, it is a reasonable one. If the physics are consistent, then the chemistry should be as well. Consequently, the behavior and limitations associated with matter would be uniform across the cosmos. This reasoning suggests that life elsewhere in the universe would be governed by the same chemical and quantum mechanical principles familiar to us.

The “Anthropic Principle” has caused much debate, with Wikipedia noting that “Anthropic reasoning is often employed to address the notion that the universe appears to be precisely calibrated for life.” The mystery of why numerous physical constants and their ratios needed to be exactly as they are for life to emerge on Earth has intrigued many.

To say the Big Bang’s initial pressure and temperature were high is an understatement. As the universe expanded and cooled, energy barriers emerged that shaped the interactions of matter and of photons, placing boundaries on the spontaneous transformation behavior of matter. Pathways of interaction emerged, steering transformations towards increasingly specific outcomes. Essentially, it’s basic kinetics: the quickest transformations and their stable products start to prevail and fill the universe.

If physical constants are emergent at the moment of the Big Bang and become manifest down the timeline, could it be that another Big Bang could happen that is not conducive to life? There would be nobody there to ponder these questions. Life is here because it was possible and maybe even likely here and there.

The phrase “finely tuned for the existence of life” seems to leave open a crack for a creationist view. Absent the many spooky bronze and iron-age theories still in practice today, naturally a sentient being can look at her/his/its existence and marvel at how beautifully synchronized and proportioned the machinery of the universe is. Certainly, there must be a hidden message in this, right?

ET? What th’ …?

Animals like mammals, birds, fish, and even some invertebrates like octopi and crabs are considered to be sentient. According to Google, sentient animals are those that can experience feelings and sensations, both positive and negative, like pleasure, pain, joy, and fear. So, while an octopus may have elements of sentience, could distant observers elsewhere in the galaxy detect them from optical or radio astronomy techniques? Try as it might, the ability of an octopus to construct a powerful radio transmitter and beam a message into the cosmos is sorely limited by its physical anatomy. Except for humans, no other sentient life form on Earth is known to construct a radio transmitter that would serve as a beacon of sentient life.

Until recent history, SETI was limited by the lack of technology to light up the universe with our own signals or to detect faint manufactured signals across interstellar space. At such point that metallurgy, electrical engineering and the hundreds of other critical and apex technologies bloomed into a sufficient state of development, no intelligent emanations from Earth found their way into space.

While TV and radio broadcasts began their journey into space, it is important to realize that our signals were encoded onto carrier waves. Amplitude modulation (AM) signals carry their information by simply varying the magnitude of a single frequency in time with the human voice or music. This is most likely to be grasped by alien radio astronomers. Frequency modulation (FM) is a bit more challenging because audio signal is mixed with a carrier signal by a heterodyne circuit. Extracting useful information would require them to pull audio frequency information from the heterodyned signal.

Television is much more difficult. While the alien radio astronomers may have figured out FM encoded radio information, the particular details of the TV raster scan are based how human engineers decided to interlace and sequence scans to produce an image on a screen of a particular aspect ratio. TV designers took advantage of the human’s persistence of vision to seamlessly follow moving pictures to give continuous images yet maintaining a fast enough frame rate to avoid flickering. The television’s electronic timing is based on frame rate, the number of interlaced lines, and the aspect ratio of the screen.

The point of this TV discussion is that a TV signal must be deconvoluted into a signal that properly displays an image and plays the sound on a particular piece of equipment. This could be challenging for an alien radio astronomy research group to decode.

All of this talk about an octopus developing radio astronomy presupposes that its unique octopussian sentience includes such desires.

It could be that the initial energy at t = 0 yielding the primordial plasma constituting the early Big Bang was only capable of producing a specific set of fields producing elementary particles which then give way to a specific set of quantitative relationships and properties. The burst of energy causing the Big Bang must have had constraints driving its transformation into matter, which is also constrained by quantum mechanics, etc. Maybe the present universe is simply what primordial energy naturally does when expanding as a universe. Why do the quantitative values of physical constants need to be variable? An imaginary and feverish conundrum.

As the highly energized primordial plasma of the Big Bang began to cool, matter and energy channeled into particular states. The particle energy states that had the highest barriers coalesced first followed by subsequent lower energy plasma condensing into other particles. I’m drawing a crude analogy to the process where individual minerals form from cooling magma according to their melting points.

There is a notion prevalent among Creationists that the probability of a life form spontaneously forming from individual atoms is 1 in 10^large or some other inconceivably miniscule chance. And if that was how life had to form, then the Earth would still be a sterile wet rock. But that is not how chemical transformations work.

Central to the Creationist view is that evolution cannot happen because there is nothing but random chance to guide the molecules of life into a highly complex organism. They start with the assumption that life arose purely from random chance. I hope to show that this assumption is false.

All atoms and molecules have properties that either qualify or disqualify them as a candidate for a given atomic or molecular transformation. All molecules have properties that either qualify or disqualify them to take part in a transformation resulting in a given product. The words “qualify” or “disqualify” could mean that something will or will not happen absolutely. But just as likely, the words could mean that a transformation is just too slow at a given temperature to give the desired effect. As it happens, temperature is critically important to molecular transformations. At a low enough temperature, most transformations will slow to a negligeable rate, shutting down that particular transformation channel. In general, where there are competing transformation channels, the fastest channel will prevail in producing its product.

All molecules have a limited set of reaction channels at a given temperature as a result of their particular reactivity.

What we think of as ‘ordinary’ chemistry is more precisely the electronic behavior of valence electrons. Nuclear chemistry also exists but in the domain of nuclear change.

Valence electrons on earth will behave the same everywhere in comparable conditions. Chemistry happens at the outer, valence level of ions, atoms and molecules. So, we should expect that bond forming and bond breaking mechanisms should be the same throughout. All of this leads to the high likelihood that chemical reaction mechanisms elsewhere in the universe should not be unfamiliar to Earthlings in general.

Life on earth exists as a result of the behavior of particular chemical substances within a range of chemical and thermal environments. The range of chemical environments and substances present during the initiation of life is thought to be quite different than what we find on earth at the present time. For instance, gas phase molecular oxygen was not present until a considerable time after life began. The initiation of life on earth was under anaerobic conditions and was able to start and survive with the materials at hand. Biochemistry is a series of reduction/oxidation events driven by the Gibbs energy of a transformation as is all of chemistry. Even on anoxic earth, diverse oxidizers were present.

Today, anaerobes are known to use the oxidative properties of inorganic species like sulfate (SO₄^2-), nitrate (NO^3-), ferric iron (Fe³⁺), carbon dioxide (CO₂) and manganese (Mn ⁴⁺). Other anaerobic oxidants include chromate (CrO₄^2-) and arsenate (AsO₄^3-) which may have been present as well. Reductants include nitrite (NO^2-), ferrous iron (Fe²⁺), and sulfide (S^2-).

Oxygen is the third most abundant element in the universe and the second most abundant heavy element on earth behind iron. Many elements are strongly attracted to the abundant oxygen so it is no wonder that so many minerals are oxides of one sort or another. Oxyanions like silicates, carbonates, sulfate, nitrate, and oxides like CO₂ or any number of metal oxides all contain oxygen that has been bound with another element. The oxygen pulls negative charge away from the central element making it electron deficient. In the case of sulfate and others, the actual oxidizing part is the atom with the oxygens attached, in this case the sulfur.

The presence of life on Earth means that there is a “habitable zone in parameter space“. All of the parameters affecting biochemistry must align in such a way that a zone of allowable chemical and physical conditions will exist. Many things must exist simultaneously such as the many properties and abundances of chemical substances, a suitable atmospheric composition and pressure, a planetary temperature range allowing for the presence of liquid water and the presence of sufficiently reactive organic molecules.

Not every transformation of matter is within reach in a given condition. Chemical reactivity which comprises kinetics and thermodynamics has the effect of channeling matter into a finite number of probable pathways. This bestows the property of selectivity. For any given chemical substance, only a certain limited group of transformations are possible or likely, given the conditions.

Life as we know it exists because our biomolecules were robust enough to survive their chemical and thermal environments, but not so robust that they resist the needed transformations. Life depends on biomolecules being moderately stable but not by too much. Biomolecules can organize into particular structures that are physically robust, like the chitin shells on shellfish. In the chemistry of life, chemical transformations must be tolerant of the aqueous environment in and around an organism, but not so tolerant that the necessary reactions are too slow or too fast within the narrow range of environmental temperatures available.

Organisms on earth are tolerant of water at the level of molecules. The internal apparatus of the cell is an aqueous environment having some amount of viscosity. In order for molecules to interact, they must collide with each other. Life in the solid phase would mean that biomolecules would be immobilized and unable to collide and react. Cell structure for metabolism and reproduction would not be feasible. Life in the gas phase is limited by the vapor pressure of the necessary substances. Many, if not most, biomolecules would not tolerate the heat necessary to volatilize. They would decompose.

A diversion into molecular evolution.

I’ll just blurt it out- ongoing evolution requires heritable change in a genome. A genetic change must be survivable for the parent cell to reproduce and produce viable daughter cells. The inherited mutation must not be deleterious to further reproductions of the subsequent generations. A mutation may randomly result in something that has either a lethal effect, no effect, or produces some biomolecular improvement. The mutation may be as modest as an enzyme alteration causing it to bind either more or less tightly to a ligand resulting in a few percent change in rate of some the enzyme’s function. This could translate into better efficiency in producing some cell structure or better use of energy. It could also be that nothing changes as a result of the efficiency alteration, or that it has an overall negative effect further challenging the survival of the cell line in a nonlethal way.

There are two kinds of changes that can occur with DNA. One is a change in the sequence of the DNA molecule itself. The other kind is “epigenetic” which is heritance not reliant on changes on the DNA sequence.

Creationists like to make a show of the probability of random chance producing even simple ordered sequences as fantastically small. Actually, their superficial analysis of permutations and probability looks plausible. I can’t argue with the low probability of individual atoms coming together randomly to form a living organism all at once. However, the beginning assumptions are wrong. Life did not spontaneously form out of a bunch of loose atoms by simply condensing into a centipede or a human. Change in evolution happens at the molecular level a step at a time. A change in the amino acid sequence of any given enzyme must trace back to a change in the DNA sequence to pass along a heritable mutation. Evolution moves by fits and starts. A mutation may have no effect, advantageous effect or deadly effect.

At the level of molecules, change happens through very definite chemical mechanisms. Molecules are constrained to do certain things and in a particular way. It’s like a channel. Sometimes two or more channels may be possible. In this case, the fastest channel will dominate in output and influence. An evolutionary change might cause a biochemical transformation to stop, speed up, slow down, or be more or less specific in outcome.

Molecular bonds vibrate in the range of 10¹³ to 10¹⁴ Hertz. A hydrogen molecule will reportedly undergo 2.5 x 10¹⁰ collisions per second at 2 bar and 24 ^oC. If two atoms or molecules are to react, then they must collide. At a given temperature, a collection of hydrogen atoms will be dispersed over a statistical distribution of energies.

Biochemistry on earth has evolved around water and takes advantage of certain properties of water. Its ability to hydrogen-bond is exploited extensively in biomolecule structures. Water has the ability to accommodate charged species or neutral dipolar species. This is called hydrophilicity. It is important not just to keep ions and molecules in solution, but also to stabilize the transition of a reaction if it generates a momentary dipole.

Water is immiscible with substances having a large hydrocarbon protuberances like fatty acids, phospholipids or certain side groups found on a few amino acids. This is called hydrophobicity. Terrestrial biochemistry exploits both hydrophilicity and hydrophobicity.

A benefit of hydrophobicity in biochemistry is that fatty substances like phospholipids will spontaneously organize into the lipid bilayer structure. Hydrophobicity in this case leads to the formation of stable compartmental structures. Life takes full advantage of the lipid bilayer in the production of the cell wall. This keeps all of the necessary biomolecules contained and concentrated for effective and timely biochemical transformations to occur. The cell wall excludes a great many deleterious substances as well. However, many protein structures have sections that are sufficiently hydrophobic as to be compatible with the hydrophobic lipid part of the bilayer. This property allows the protein to anchor itself within the bilayer leaving the more hydrophilic portions of the protein jutting out into the extra- and intracellular aqueous media. Many of these proteins penetrating the bilayer- channel proteins- are sufficiently hollow as to allow ions or molecules to pass through. Even better, the ability to pass ions or molecules through can be switched on or off by other biomolecules or with drugs.

Some larger molecules like the fatty phospholipids above have both hydrophilic and hydrophobic regions. Given the chance, phospholipid molecules will spontaneously orient themselves in a way that when combined the water ‘repellant’ hydrophobic tails will tend do aggregate. This leaves the hydrophilic phosphate features at each end to remain in contact with the water environment.

Cells have compartmentalization and cell walls simply because of the incompatibility of the polar water molecule and nonpolar hydrocarbons. These two incompatible liquids arrange in a way that minimizes the surface area of contact between them. They will form layers when stationary or droplets when one is dispersed in the other. This is the minimum energy condition they spontaneously go to. Micelles will even form spontaneously in your soapy dishwater.

Life on earth presently requires many environmental conditions to be just right. Cells of micellar-like construction take advantage of the hydrophobicity of substances with long chain hydrocarbon parts on one end and charged or polar features on the other side. Micelles are structures that spontaneously form in water. Living cells adopt a bilayer structure based upon the tendency for “likes to dissolve likes.” That is, non-polar hydrocarbon features “prefer” not to be in contact with polarized water, but rather cluster in a way that minimizes water-hydrocarbon surface contact. The effect of carbon chain structures in the biochemistry of earth is the stability of carbon-based structures and the wide variety features it can accommodate. These features include stable carbon-carbon chains as well as carbon bonds to hydrogen (H), nitrogen (N), oxygen (O) and sulfur (S) in particular. Carbon is unique in that it readily allows the formation of stable double bonds with itself or N, O, or S. Carbon also can form triple bonds with itself or N. Cyanide and acetylene are examples. The ease and stability of carbon bonded to C, N, O and S, along with the stability of multiple bonds on carbon all point to it as an excellent candidate for as the ideal building block for biomolecules.

It is often mentioned that since silicon has certain similarities to carbon why isn’t life based on it? Silicon-silicon bonds are prone to oxidation and not found in nature. Silicon is almost always found in nature as silicate in its various forms in minerals and very often in variety of silicate oligomers and polymers. Silicon-nitrogen and silicon-sulfur substances are not easy energetically. Furthermore, silicon does not form double bonds with itself or other elements. So, the variety of structural motifs silicon can form isn’t as broad as carbon. Silicon vastly prefers to be silicate in nature. Silicon is not found in biomolecules despite its high abundance in the nature.

Conclusion

I’m trying to make the point that extraterrestrial life will surely be different from life on earth at the macroscopic scale but maybe not so much at the level of molecular transformations. Every living species today trails behind it a unique evolutionary history, some of which remains in their genomes. Despite the huge variety of life forms on earth and all of the attendant structural variability that goes with it, we all share the use of DNA/RNA, proteins, carbohydrates, phosphates, lipids, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, etc. All life forms on earth are able to capture and use energy as well as reproduce.

The history of life reveals an obstacle course through which organisms struggled to stay alive. Those that did survive had no way to anticipate the future and no way to prepare for it even if they were able to “anticipate” at all. The history of life is the history of challenges to survival.

Humans exist today because our ancestors going back into deep time were able to survive both anaerobic and oxygenated earth, snowball earth, competitive pressures from other life forms, vulcanism, cometary impact, solar UV radiation, chemical toxicity from the environment, disease and climate.

Today we can add stupidity to the list of survival challenges. Can we survive the results of our behavior? Humans have a brilliant streak in developing weapons- explosives, guns, nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. If all else fails, there will always be the sharp stick and club.

Humans are the way we are because of the way that natural history unfolded. A planet with the same makeup and conditions 3 billion years ago would evolve life in a different way than we went. Evolution happens because of the ability of our genetic material to be just a bit unstable and to be passed on in reproduction. But this change is a random process in both features and time. A genetic change can be fatal or helpful. The manner and schedule in which random genetic alterations happen is impossible to predict. Evolution is blind going forward. Another try at evolution is highly unlikely to produce Homo sapiens again.

Any given “intelligent” species may or may not invent or use radio technology. Therefore, they may or may not emit or receive radio transmissions. Such creatures would be undetectable using radio astronomy. Although two patents for wireless telegraphy came out in 1872, humans have only had useable wireless telegraphy since 1895 (Marconi). As of this writing, only 128 years have elapsed since Marconi sent his first long distance (1.5 mile) radio communication.

We have only had radio communications for 128 years in the entire history of our species. In order to have this invention in 1895, the European enlightenment had to happen leading to the idea of scientific inquiry and a minimum understanding of physics and chemistry. The voltaic pile had to be invented which gave way to further refinement of electricity. At minimum, the metallurgy of iron, copper and zinc (for brass) had to be in place for the for the discovery and use of electricity. The path to broadcasting and receiving radio waves required a fair degree of curiosity and industrialization.

Necessity as the Mother of Invention

Leave a reply

Summary: This essay addresses the important role the federal government has played in promoting the American march of progress. The old saying that “Necessity is the Mother of Invention” has a large element of truth to it. It is not enough to identify a problem or challenge. For a person, group or organization to solve a technological problem or challenge, the goal must be understood completely, resources acquired, a plan must be constructed and approved by those who control the purse strings, and skilled people must be organized and set to work on the matter at hand.

The federal government can provide the Necessity needed for attention and resources put to play in achieving a goal. For instance, NASA will set a goal and is able to open a project up for bid. The gov’t can provide seed money to the contractor for prototype equipment to present with their bid. Government grants provide the necessity to stimulate invention, hopefully on a competitive basis.

……………………

I have been a lifelong aerospace enthusiast from Project Mercury forward to the present day. What I’m realizing, however, is that I’m increasingly skeptical of the value of further manned space flight by NASA. Whatever the 6 successful manned Apollo landing missions on the moon may have found tramping around the regolith up there, evidently not enough value was found to compel the USA to go back. Obviously, the Apollo program was partially a geopolitical stunt to rival the USSR for prestige and by many measures the USA won. But what did we win? Prestige and a great many valuable technological spin-offs.

In the early 1960’s the US government financed and organized JFK’s challenge of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth by the end of the decade. Our government allocated considerable national treasure to the moon landing project and put lives on the line. Arguably, of greater importance than a round trip to the moon was the powerful boost to aerospace, computer, and other technologies. The technology-push advances funded by the government would soon become important economic drivers for industry.

In fulfilling Kennedy’s challenge there was both popular excitement about the space program and more than a little skepticism. The USA was increasingly bogged down with the Viet Nam war. Into the early 1970s, the western geopolitical argument about the advances of communism, the Domino Theory, was still cited, but it was gradually weakened by lack of popular support for the war and the loss of American blood and treasure invested in keeping communist influences out of southeast Asia. By the mid 1970’s, the US had pulled out of Viet Nam leaving behind millions of casualties and little to show for the effort. Added to Southeast Asia was the self-destructive meddling with the Cuban communist state. Castro died of old age in his communist bed.

There is an old saying that went “He’d complain if they hung him with a brand-new rope”. The suggestion was that some folks would complain about simply anything. Beyond the geopolitical and apparent military threat of the USSR beating the US into space were the much-ballyhooed technological benefits of the program. One of the oft-cited spin-offs was a Teflon coating for frying pans. It was an example that most citizens would understand and appreciate. Many incorrectly believed that NASA invented Teflon. Actually, Teflon was discovered unexpectedly in 1938 by the DuPont chemist Roy Plunkett.

Libertarians have argued (to my face) that if we wanted non-stick Teflon frying pans, why not just invent it? The introduction of any new and revolutionary product by a corporation carries financial risk and possible loss of reputation. The vaunted contribution of NASA to perfluorocarbon (PTFE) polymers was to push forward projects that required PTFE specifications. Industry did the rest by finely developing technology for PTFE production to meet the demand. Once there was an inkling of demand, industry kicked into gear. It was market-pull by that time.

NASA is very much in the technology-push world whereas many businesses are more safely oriented to market-pull. Technology-push is about invention of leading-edge vehicles, equipment, substances, instrumentation or services. Technology-push requires early adopters willing to wager that the new tech will give them a competitive edge. Government provides a ready-made early adopter.

Market-pull is where a manufacturer produces known or existing products and services. They compete by offering better availability, price and quality than their competitors.

Technology-push is the world of the tech startup. A start-up founder has a product or service that is sure to be a hit if only their products could get manufactured and pushed into the market. Tech investors will examine the startup’s business and financial plans and take a closer look at the technology or service to be offered. Is there a prototype? Is valuable intellectual property protected under patent? How stable is the supply chain or is there one? Will the company be sustained on the tech product only or will consumables be produced as well.

Importantly, is the technology-push startup looking to produce just a single product or is the technology expandible across a spectrum of applications? What if the product performs below acceptable tolerances or simply fails in the field? A startup with everything invested in a single product model is a “One-Act Pony”. Wonderful though the One-Act Pony may be, it can get sick and die in the marketplace. It can grow old and obsolete, giving way to falling sales and the mad scramble to develop a replacement product. I’ve been a part of 2 startups hoping to produce one-act ponies. The ponies died and we hit the streets.

Investors can analyze market-pull business plans by looking at the economics of demand as well as distribution of existing or similar products. Annual sales can be estimated, EBITDAs calculated, and profit margins uncovered. If the profit picture fits the general business model and timeline of the investors, they can release funding rounds to the startup with benchmarks to be met.

Necessity as the mother of invention?

In normal circumstances, industry operated by ambitious people may be motivated to advance their technology skillset to realize entry into new and promising markets. However, that said, an industry that only acts to match technological advances set by competitors is not showing the mettle required to launch a new paradigm in the technology-push manifold. Merely matching the competition does not quite describe a technology-pusher.

A technology-pusher is likely to find that they must walk the manufacturing highwire without a net and perhaps for a long time. Unless you are quite wealthy, launching a startup will likely hold personal financial risk. Commonly, external funding means that some percentage of ownership or shares will be given to the investors. By the time the product or service hits the market, the founders may find themselves as minority stockholders. Their dreams of grand wealth and influence is tempered by reality.

A naïve book-end view of technology pushers. Scientists are by nature more interested in phenomenology and naturally may see a two-dimensional universe of space and time. Scientists may gravitate to precision and accuracy while the engineer is also interested in not just precision and accuracy but also costs. When developing an engineering design, the engineers will constantly consider costs within the boundaries of space and time. Graphics by Arnold Ziffel.

A technology-push company is often started by engineers or scientists with experience in a particular subfield. Scientists commonly receive little or no business education as a degree requirement. Their role is the science guru. Engineers, on the other hand, fully understand the cost imperatives of a project and are able to design to remain within tight cost constraints.

In science, scientists are the main honchos. In business, engineers are the princes of the kingdom. They design projects, lead them, and come in on budget on time. A CEO with an engineering background is not at all unusual. They understand money part.

I Did My Own Research …

Leave a reply

I subscribe to “Your Local Epidemiologist” by email. It’s written by a PhD epidemiologist on her substack and is quite informative. Below are some excerpts on people doing their own research-

“The beginner’s bubble. In early stages of learning, confidence tends to increase faster than skill, meaning people often overestimate their accuracy when they are first learning something new.

The quest to “do it all on your own” can backfire. “Epistemic superheroes” want to figure out everything on their own and distrust other people’s information. But their task is impossible—nature is too complex for us to solve by ourselves. When the “trust no one” mantra inevitably leads to “I must decide who to trust,” it is easy to gravitate towards other like-minded skeptics. This creates a highly biased information bubble, the exact opposite of the original goal.

Assuming “unbiased” knowledge will contradict consensus. For many, doing their own research began with doubting the consensus view. Challenging consensus is healthy when new data emerges, but assuming “real” truth always opposes the consensus creates bias, undermining the search for unbiased answers.

Study comparing confidence vs accuracy of a beginner learning a new diagnostic task, revealing confidence in diagnostic ability rose faster than diagnostic accuracy. Sanchez et al. Journal of Personality and Psychology, 2018.“

Hmmm. Confidence rising faster than accuracy. How interesting.

Kristen Panthagani, MD, PhD is an emergency medicine physician completing a combined residency and research fellowship focusing on health literacy and communication. She is the creator of the newsletter You Can Know Things and author of YLE’s section on Health (Mis)communication. Views expressed belong to KP, not her employer.

Proteins, Receptors and Some Chemistry of Fentanyl

Leave a reply

[Note: This is a much-updated revision of a previous post from March 24, 2023. I’ve brought in just a tiny bit of protein structure and how it relates to opioid receptors- but only slightly. I’m thinking of you, dear reader. I’ve succumbed to my compulsion to include chemistry tutorials in my posts.]

First, a lot of chemists could say a lot of things on this topic. This is what I have to say. This essay is not written for medicinal chemists or molecular biologists. They already know this stuff. This is for everyone else. Learning usually requires an expansion of your vocabulary and this is no different.

When it comes to illicit drug synthesis I’ve always been a bit of a Puritan. As an organic chemist I’ve always felt that it is morally indefensible and a waste of talent for a chemist to make or help make dangerous and illegal drugs. Putting potent, illegal drugs on the market is like leaving a hand grenade in a playground.

For myself and for many others, what is fascinating about drug molecules is how structural features on a drug molecule confer pharmacological effects on biological systems. The molecular-level effects are referred to as a structure/activity relationship, or SAR. The chemical structure of a drug molecule makes all of the difference in how a drug functions. Among the key features are water solubility, acidity/basicity, hydrogen bonding, resistance to metabolic degradation, and the manner in which charge is distributed on the drug molecule. As a reminder, in order for two molecules to react they must bump into one another in a particular way. And not just that, but bump into a particular spot oriented properly and with sufficient energy.

Drug molecules do not swim directly to the site they are intended to go. They must take a random walk through flowing, jostling biofluid molecules and a certain minimum dose must survive the ordeal before they are metabolized, excreted or both. Some pharmaceuticals, called “pro-drugs“, are constructed in a way that relies on the action of metabolic processes to change them into the active drug. This is because they have some kind of chemical vulnerability and must be whisked into the body in disguise. Many drugs are bind to blood proteins and may remain unavailable for their action.

What the protein can do depends in large part on the sequence of amino acids that it is comprised of and how it relaxes into a largish, kinked and contorted chain with helices and pleated sheets. A protein polymer is made of a chain of amino acids that can interact with other molecules or with itself. Some lengths of a protein may lie flat and be somewhat rigid while other lengths may coil into a helical form. A protein molecule made of these features can then bunch up into a wad of protein that holds a particular shape. Along the surface of this shape are bumps, folds and crevices. In these places, there may be exposed amino acids that can attract acidic or positively charged parts of a molecule. Other spots may attract basic features like nitrogen with its lone pair of electrons. Still other places will attract molecular features with poor water solubility or just low polarity.

Drugs are used to activate or inactivate the function of a protein. Living things use proteins in several ways. In the case of drug action, proteins are large chemical structures that can make or break chemical bonds. proteins that do this can do it catalytically, that is, one enzyme molecule can perform its function repeatedly. That’s not all. There are features along the length of a folded enzyme chain that can attract, bind and even deform a molecule that is bound to it. In doing so, a chemical transformation can occur at physiological temperatures that might otherwise occur only under more chemically forcing conditions. This ability of enzymes is crucial to life itself.

Another function of proteins is the ability to change their shape to open or block the passage of smaller ions and molecules through it. The cell walls in our body consist of a double layer of fatty, detergent-like molecules that are water repelling on one side and water attracting, or ‘hydrophilic’, on the other. The water repelling, ‘hydrophobic’ side consists of a long chain of 2 or 3 hydrocarbon chains that comingle with one another.

In order for a drug to function it must bump into the target biomolecule like an enzyme (protein) and at a particular location on the enzyme. Some drugs may remain unchanged and just spend a lot of time bound to the active site of an enzyme, preventing the intended biomolecule from doing so. Others may permanently bind to a protein or other molecule, thereby blocking it from doing its job for the life of the enzyme. And others, like aspirin, may leave behind a fragment of itself permanently blocking the active site of an enzyme. Some drugs prevent a protein or enzyme from working and are called antagonists. Others may activate it and are called agonists. What you aim for depends on the system you are trying to manipulate.

A dip into proteins

An atom, ion or molecule that binds with a metal or a protein is called a “ligand“. A ligand, pronounced ‘LIGG und’ by organikkers and inorganikkers, or ‘LYE gand‘ by ~~waterchemists~~ biochemists, can connect with a protein through one or more attachment points. The greater the number and strength of the attachment point(s), the more time the ligand will spend being attached. A ligand may even become permanently attached. Ligands purposely or externally provided for a desired outcome are considered as “drugs”. Ligands that cause an undesired outcome may be referred to as toxic. Not all ligands are aimed at human proteins, however, such as the beta-lactam antibiotics which bind with certain bacterial enzymes. This is a fascinating topic all by itself, but it is left as an exercise for the dear reader.

Ligands or drugs can have specific structural features that are associated with its activity or potency. This assembly of molecular features on the ligand is called a “pharmacophore“. An enzyme will have small region on its surface that can accommodate the “docking” of a ligand with the right shape and polarity

**Source**: Wikipedia. This image is from x-ray data showing a ligand snugly fitting into a pocket on a protein. Crystal structure of W741L mutant androgen receptor ligand-binding domain and (R)-bicalutamide complex. An example of a protein–ligand complex.

In the image above, a close look will show a drug molecule sitting in a space that is complementary to its shape and polarity. If it turns out that this space is where the normal biological ligand docks in order for the enzyme to do something to or with it, then the enzyme behavior has been altered. The drug molecule being bound by the enzyme blocks the site that is normally occupied by the biological ligand. The biological ligand may enter the site to be chemically altered, or it may be the natural signaling agent that activates or deactivates the enzyme. The activation/deactivation may be permanent or not.

Another possibility for ligand-type activity is that of a cofactor. When the cofactor docks to an enzyme, the shape of the enzyme changes -a common effect- and another docking site is activated, enabling the enzyme to function. Some cofactors are vitamins or are made from vitamins.

The amino acid chain making up the enzyme is folded up in a particular way depending on the amino acid sequence. The overall shape of the enzyme consists of ridges, bulges, clefts and can also include a hole straight through the structure. Each of the 20 amino acids available is unique by way of its particular kind of chemical functional groups that are attached. If we imagine the exterior ‘surface’ of the protein, the amino acid chain twists and turns giving a lumpy surface topography. The different amino acids with their unique attached side-groups can jut out from the chain and be accessible to external molecules.

Different substances that share these features may comprise a family of substances having similar activity. In the case of opioids like fentanyl, this active site is referred to as an “opioid receptor“. There are a several variants of opioid receptors distributed throughout the human brain.

Opioid receptors are transmembrane proteins. They sit immobilized within the cell membrane with their external receptor protuberances gently swaying in the warm biofluid currents. They lie in wait for a shapely substate to happen by and nestle into its special cleft and be rewarded with a small release of Gibbs Energy.

The lipid bilayer of a cell membrane, comprising comingling long-chain hydrocarbon tails, is very hydrophobic (water repelling). Transmembrane proteins are compatible (likes dissolve likes) with that environment and can exist imbedded within the cell membrane. In this position, with access to both interior and exterior sides of the membrane, the protein is set up to be a receptor. A receptor is a protein that by virtue of its shape and polarity can recognize complementary shapes and polarities of a specific range of signaling molecules such as a hormone and transmit or release a chemical signal to the other side of the membrane.

Source: Wikipedia. The enzymes above are called transmembrane proteins. The opioid receptors are of this variety.

**Source**: Wikipedia. Complementary shapes. This illustrates ‘recognition’ of opioids by opioid receptors. Different but similar shapes can also be complementary but with varying degrees of affinity. Close resemblance in shape allows drugs to function.

End biochem section

According to the DEA, fentanyl is the most serious drug threat the US has ever faced. In the 12 months ending January, 2022, there were 107,375 deaths from drug overdoses and poisonings. Of those, 67 % involved synthetic opioids like fentanyl.

Fentanyl is not found in nature. It is made in a reaction vessel or a bucket by a person. It is totally synthetic in origin and is prepared from other manufactured substances. The molecule is relatively simple and there are many places on it where new functional groups can be attached to produce designer analogs. Due to its startlingly high potency, a large number of doses can be made in fairly small batch equipment.

The explosion of fentanyl use is mind boggling. Drug cartels have taken to producing it themselves for greater profit and a more secure supply chain. The common syntheses are fairly simple, high yielding and, in the case of fentanyl, there are no stereochemical issues other than the atropisomerism of the amide bond. As far as purification goes, this isomerism is difficult to control and it is hard to believe that it is considered a problem by the “cooks” who make it.

A quick search of Google failed to bubble up information on what chemical form of illegal fentanyl commonly shows up on the street, whether as a free-base form or a salt. Like most amines, the free-base could be salted out of a reaction mixture by addition of an acid to a solution of free-base fentanyl in an organic solvent to produce the insoluble salt crystals. This solid material is then recovered by filtration. This is a common method of recovering amines from a reaction mixture.

It is worth looking at a synthesis of fentanyl to see what kind of chemistry is performed (see below). There is nothing remarkable about this synthesis- it’s just an example. A key raw material is the 4-piperidone hydrochloride on the upper left of the scheme. It is a piperidine derivative which is a feature of many drug substances. This one has 2 functionalities– the nitrogen and the C=O at the opposite end of the ring. Connections will be made at each end as the synthesis proceeds. The hydrochloride feature results from how the manufacturer chose to sell the product. Ammonium salts are frequently more shelf stable than the free amine.

The first step in the process below combines 4-piperidone hydrochloride with phenethyl bromide in the presence of cesium carbonate in solvent acetonitrile. In this transformation the nitrogen displaces the bromide to form a C-N bond connecting the fragments. Cesium carbonate is a base that scavenges acid protons. According to Wikipedia, cesium carbonate has a higher solubility in organic solvents than do the sodium or potassium analogs. Cesium carbonate is commonly used when a base stronger than sodium carbonate is needed. In order for the reaction to go forward, the HCl must be neutralized to liberate the free base. It is hard to imagine that the folks doing an illegal preparation are using a cesium base due to higher cost. The displacement of the bromide by nitrogen releases hydrobromic acid as well which must be removed from the mixture. Bromide is chosen because it is a good leaving-group. para-Toluenesulfonate, or tosylate, has been used as well.

Next, aniline must be added to the piperidone ring where the C=O is located. We have to end up with a single C-N bond connection from the aniline nitrogen to the C=O double bond then remove the oxygen and replace it with a hydrogen atom. Aniline is quite toxic and volatile with an LD₅₀ of 195 mg/kg (dog, oral). It stinks too. This sequence is referred to as a “reductive amination“, meaning that the oxygen is replaced by single bonds to nitrogen and hydrogen. Adding hydrogen to a molecule is referred to as a reduction. The authors of the work commented that of three hydrogen donors tried, sodium triacetoxyborohydride gave the best yields. These borohydrides donate hydrogen as the negatively charged hydride, H:^–.

Acetonitrile is a polar aprotic solvent that allows enough solubility to the reagents and intermediates so as to help the reaction along. Reductive amination classically proceeds through a C=N (imine) intermediate which then undergoes a hydrogen reduction of the bond to give the amine product.

The two-nitrogen intermediate is then fitted with a 3-carbon fragment bearing a C=O to the aniline nitrogen connected to the benzene ring. With this transformation, the amine nitrogen becomes an amide nitrogen. The fragment added is called propanoyl chloride (pro-PAN-oh-ill KLOR-ide) and involves the displacement of the chloride with the nitrogen producing hydrochloric acid. The purpose of the diisopropylethylamine base is to serve as an acid scavenger. The solvent was dichloromethane which is not uncommon for this kind of reaction. It has a low boiling point for easy removal by distillation and a slight polarity for dissolving substances that are somewhat polar. It is also inert to the reaction conditions.

It takes a high level of education, training and resources to design and perfect a process like the one above. However, it can be executed by most people after a bit of training. You don’t have to be a chemist to follow the procedure. The trick will be to avoid poisoning yourself from aniline or fentanyl exposure in the process.

However illegal fentanyl is made, the raw materials going into it must combine to give one unique final product. There are not an infinite number of pathways to fentanyl. However, structural variations of the raw materials could be chosen using the same basic reaction conditions to produce a spectrum of designer analogs. If specific molecules are outlawed, analogs can readily pop up to skirt regulations.

The people who make illicit fentanyl are sourcing the raw materials from somewhere. Unlike heroin, there are no natural substances in the manufacture of fentanyl. Heroin is just plant-based morphine that has been acetylated. Acetic anhydride is the choice commercial reagent for this. The acetic anhydride supply chain can be traced. Fentanyl, however, requires a supply chain for numerous fine chemicals. In the US, many substances are flagged by suppliers in a way that could cause the authorities to investigate the buyer. Furthermore, US commercial suppliers often could do a Dun & Bradstreet credit check on you to gauge your suitability as a customer. Commercial chemical suppliers will not ship to a residential address or PO box. So it takes a bit of business structure to get chemicals sent from established chemical suppliers to your address.

The way to avoid this hassle is to import from somewhere like Asia. Given the high potency of fentanyl, the mass of raw materials in a shipment could be very low. Most organic chemicals are whitish or colorless and can be mislabeled. The lower the molecular weight of a substance, the lower the mass that will be needed for the process. There are no high MW reagents in the scheme above.

Herein lies the problem with fentanyl. It requires raw materials that have legitimate uses in the chemical/pharmaceutical industry and these substances can received by unscrupulous operators who can repackage and divert shipments to the bad guys in countries along the Pacific coast of the Americas. It is just simple smuggling.

The estimated lethal dose of fentanyl for humans is 2 milligrams. According to one source, “The recommended serum concentration for analgesia is 1–2 ng/ml and for anesthesia it is 10–20 ng/ml. Blood concentrations of approximately 7 ng/ml or greater have been associated with fatalities where poly-substance use was involved.” Overdosing with fentanyl is reportedly treatable with naloxone. But this is only effective if your unconscious body is found by a sympathetic bystander and help is called in promptly. This is a very slender reed from which to hang your life.

It is left to the reader to look further into the pharmacology and therapeutic window details fentanyl. Suffice it to say that dosing yourself with illicit opioids is a stupidly risky business. The illegal opioid risk is multiplied by other additives or the possible presence of designer analogs which may be 10 to 100 times more potent. End-use safety is not a priority of those who make and distribute these opioids.

Given the estimated 2 mg lethal dosage, fentanyl should be regarded as a highly toxic substance. As long as there is demand for potent opioid substances, someone will provide it. When the oxycodone supply tightened recently, heroin demand rose. It’s a deadly whack-a-mole situation. The only answer is reduced demand.

Machismo and Violence

Leave a reply

The present situation is one whereby a large swath of the population, including K-12 students, are being exposed to an increased risk of bloody, violent death sustained by those who fetishize firearms. Whatever you may think of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, the fact is that we are prioritizing an originalist interpretation over the lives of school children. We are allowing children to be sacrificed on the alter of the 2^nd Amendment in order to satisfy people who idolize the idea of boundless access to metal tubes that discharge high energy bits of metal. We are not officially at war defending our borders in the US nor are we on the verge of a civil war. By far, most guns are not used to hunt. Most Americans lead peaceful lives in their neighborhoods without the need to shoot at people.

The very notion that the US government is going to wrench guns away from citizens in one of the most heavily armed democratic countries in the world is the fever dream of a fool. Any full-scale attempt to do this would lead to armed rebellion and the collapse of the USA as a democratic republic. Widespread gun confiscation is not politically feasible today or in the foreseeable future.

We must tone down and be less tolerant of the image of inflated machismo that guns confer to their users. Both in real life and in entertainment, gunplay is used to resolve conflict. By far, most gun owners do not commit violent acts with their guns. While they should not be penalized for the crimes committed by others, accepted mechanisms like driver’s and pilot’s licenses are a form of limitation and standardization that could be applied to access to firearms. But this reliably produces hysteria among the armed public. Like everything else in society, a few people have to ruin it for the rest of us.

The basic utility of a gun is to deliver crippling or fatal kinetic energy, or the threat of it, from a safe distance. The need for guns for peacekeeping use will last as long as there is dangerous criminality. What the US is presently suffering from is the use of rapid-fire, high-energy projectiles from guns designed to hit as many targets as possible in the shortest time. Man killers.

Sidebar

I took the hunter’s safety course sponsored by the NRA at the age of 9. The truth is that firing a gun is both fun and stimulating. I recall stealthily walking along a muddy creek in the Iowa countryside with a bolt action 0.22 caliber rifle desperately looking for some reason the fire the gun. I spotted fish, turtles and birds but something held me back from shooting at them except for once a few years later. With a BB gun I shot a sparrow perched on a small twig of an elm tree. The bird rotated backwards, still gripping the twig, and hung upside down for a minute or two. Then it released and dropped into an irrigation ditch with a small splash.

I was immediately gripped with regret and sorrow for what I had just done. I had just killed a random sparrow for utterly no reason than to see what happens. Even as a teenager I could see that this was a senseless action. I am sorry for killing the sparrow to this very day and, except for a few mice and bugs, I have never killed wildlife since.

Back to the essay

The point of the story above is that, for me, being in possession of a firearm could sometimes produce a strong urge to fire it. I’m confident that there are others who have felt the same way. The healthy release is to do target practice. Some people enjoy hunting. I do not indulge in this because I prefer the flavor of beef, pork and fish which, conveniently, are already butchered.

Male characteristics can have both good and bad attributes. A measure of focused male aggressiveness, ambition and territoriality can be beneficial for the wellbeing of loved ones and the community. Brute strength can be quite useful in providing for a family. Male rage, however, can be very destructive wherever it is directed, as we all know. A firearm or other weapon is a force multiplier for a raging male. Recent mass killings prove the point. Firearms provide the ability to kill or wound from a safe distance and the value of this is lost on no one.

It is hard to imagine that some restraint in the use of firearms without addressing the cultural and natural phenomenon of male aggression can be successful. We are saturated with violence in entertainment, on the streets and in the news. As long as we seek entertainment violence, show business will anxiously provide it.

I’m neither a Quaker nor a pacifist but I do admire their sincere dedication to non-violence. We need many early adopters of non-violence with considerable social standing and a non-violence vibe across the whole country. Destructive male behavior can be tamed to a great extent, but it has to start early and be immersed in non-violent surroundings. Where is the sign that Americans can summon the discipline to do it. I’m not seeing it.

Lamentations on Science Infotainment Rev 2.

Leave a reply

Note: This post appeared May 15, 2007, as “Infotainment, Chemistry, and Apostasy“. I have pulled it up through the mists of time for another go and with a few edits.

In the normal course of things I used to give school chemistry talks or demonstrations a couple of times per year and until recently, I had been giving star talks at a local observatory more frequently. The demographic is typically K-12, with most of the audience being grades 3-8. From my grad student days through my time in the saddle as a prof, I was deeply committed to spreading the gospel of orbitals, electronegativity, and the periodic table. I was convinced that it was important for everyone to have an appreciation of the chemical sciences. I was a purist who knew in his bones that if only more people were “scientific”, if greater numbers of citizens had a more mechanistic understanding of the intermeshing great world systems, the world could somehow be a better place.

In regard to this ideology that everyone should know something about chemistry, I now fear that I am apostate. I’m a former believer. What has changed is an updated viewpoint based on experience.

Let me make clear what science is not. It is not a massive ivory tower that is jealously guarded ajd intended to be impenetrable by mortal folk. Big science requires big funding and organizational support, so big administrative structure forms around it. At its core, science is concerned with learning how the universe works by observation, constructing a good first guess (theory) on what is happening, measurement (conducting quantitative experiments), analysis (quantitative thinking), documentation and communication. The common understanding is that a scientist is someone who has been educated and employed to do these activities. However, anyone who conducts a study of how some phenomenon happens is doing science whether for pay or not.

What science has learned is that the universe is quite mechanistic in how it works. So much so that it can be described by or represented with math. At the fundamental level of ions, atoms and molecules, constraints exist on how systems can interact and how energy is transferred around. At the nanometer-scale, quantum mechanical theory has provided structure to the submicroscopic universe.

Chemical knowledge is highly “vertical” in its structure. Students take foundational coursework as a prerequisite for higher level classes. Many of the deeper insights require a good bit of background, so we start at the conceptual trailhead and work our way into the forest. But in our effort to reach out to the public, or in our effort to protect a student’s self-esteem, we compress the vertical structure into a kind of conceptual pancake. True learning, the kind that changes your approach to life, requires Struggle.

What I found in my public outreach talks on science- chemistry or astronomy- was the public’s expectation of entertainment. Some call it “Infotainment”. I am all in favor of presentations that are compelling, entertaining, and informative. But in our haste to avoid boredom, we may oversimplify or skip fascinating phenomena altogether. After all, we want people to walk out the door afterwards wanting more. We want science to be accessible to everyone, but without all the study.

But I would argue that this is the wrong approach to science. Yes, we want to answer questions. But the better trick is to pose good questions. The best questions lead to the best answers. People (or students) should walk out the door afterwards scratching their heads with more questions. Science properly introduced, should cause people to start their own journey of discovery. Ideally, we want to jump-start students to follow their curiosity and integrate concepts into their thinking, not just compile a larger collection of fun facts.

But here is the rub. A lot of folks just aren’t very curious, generally. As they sit there in the audience, the presentation washes over them like some episode of “Friends”. I suspect that a lack of interest in science is often just part of a larger lack of interest in novelty. It is the lack of willingness to struggle with difficult concepts. But that is OK. Not everyone has to be interested in science.

Am I against public outreach efforts in science? Absolutely not. But the expectation that everyone will respond positively to the wonders of the universe is faulty. It is an unrealistic expectation on the 80 % [a guess] of other students who have no interest in it. I’m always anxious to help those who are interested. It’s critical that students interested in science find a mentor or access to opportunity. But, please God, spare me from that bus load of 7th graders on a field trip.

What we need more than flashier PowerPoint presentations or a more compelling software experience is lab experience. Students need the opportunity to use their hands beyond mere tapping on keyboards- they need to fabricate or synthesize. You know, build or measure stuff.

It is getting more difficult for kids to go into the garage and build things or tear things apart. Electronic devices across the board are increasingly single component microelectronics. It is ever harder to tear apart some kind of widget and figure out how it works. When you manage to crack open the case what you find is some kind of green circuit board festooned with tiny components.

And speaking of electronics or electricity, I find it odd that in a time when electric devices have long been everywhere in our lives, that so FEW people know even the first thing about electricity. I instruct an electrostatic safety class in industry and have discovered that so very, very few people have been exposed to the basics of electricity by graduation. I spend most of the course time covering elementary electrostatic concepts along with the fire triangle so the adult learners can hopefully recognize novel situations where static electric discharge can be expected. Of course, we engineer away electrostatic discharge hazards to the greatest extent possible. But if there is a hole, somebody will step in it. It’s best they recognize it before stepping into it.

The widespread educational emphasis on information technology rather than mechanical skills ignores the fact that most learners still need to handle things. There is a big, big world beyond the screen. A person will take advantage of their mechanical skills throughout their life, not just at work. Hands on experience is invaluable, in this case with electricity. Computer skills can almost always be acquired quickly. But understanding mechanical, electrical and chemical systems need hands-on experience.

Technological Triumphalism

Leave a reply

“Technological triumphalism” is a term that surfaces infrequently, encapsulating the belief in our capacity to resolve almost any issue through the innovative use of technology. While technological progress has led to countless pivotal breakthroughs, such as antibiotics and the transistor, it has also given rise to means that magnify age-old human tendencies towards negative behaviors. As our tools and methods evolve with technological advancements, so too do our desires and avarice, often intensified by the fresh opportunities new technologies present.

As an example of technology bursting on the scene producing both good and bad consequences, consider the Haber-Bosch process for the industrial manufacture of ammonia. An industrial feedstock like ammonia can split into several streams. On the plus side, cheap and available liquid or gaseous ammonia for fertilizing crops was a boon for mankind in terms of increased food production. Also, the combination of ammonia and nitric acid leads to the production of the solid fertilizer ammonium nitrate.

Another and wholly different product stream involving the oxidation of ammonia (Ostwald Process) is nitric acid production, HNO₃. It is required for the manufacture of industrial intermediates, high explosive nitroaromatics like TNT, picric acid, nitroesters like nitroglycerine and even more powerful explosives. Explosives are neither inherently good or bad, their merits depend on how they are used. When used for construction or mining, explosives are a positive force in civilization. However, they cast a long dark shadow when used to destroy and kill.

Fritz Haber

A good example of unanticipated consequences of a technology uptick is found in the story of the German chemist Fritz Haber. Haber won the 1918 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for the invention of the Haber-Bosch synthesis of ammonia. It is estimated the 1/3 of present global food production relies on the use of ammonia from the Haber-Bosch or similar processes. Haber has been widely praised for his part in the invention of catalytic ammonia production using atmospheric nitrogen. These are important developments, but … [Wikipedia]

As a German nationalist, Haber was also known for his considerable contributions to German chemical warfare through WWII. Haber was responsible for the production of Zyklon A and Zyklon B.

It is claimed that neither Fritz Haber nor Carl Bosch were fans of National Socialism in Germany in the 1930’s. Haber claims to have done his WWI gas warfare work for Kaiser Wilhelm as a German patriot. Intimidated by German laws aimed at Jews and Jewish colleagues, Haber (a Jew converted to Catholicism) left Germany in late 1933 for a position as director of what is now the Weizman Institute in what was at that time Mandatory Palestine. He died while enroute in the city of Basel, Switzerland, at age 65.

Chemical warfare in WWI began with an idea from volunteer driver and physical chemist Walther Nernst who suggested in 1914 the release of tear gas at the front. This was observed by Haber who later suggested chlorine gas be used instead because of its density. Haber personally supervised Germany’s first release of chlorine gas at the Second Battle of Ypres in WWI. Supervising the installation of the 5730 tanks of chlorine were chemist Fritz Haber, chemist Otto Hahn, physicist James Franck and physicist Gustav Herz. Of the 5 scientists mentioned above, Nernst included, all would receive a Nobel Prize in their lifetimes.

‘Haber defended gas warfare against accusations that it was inhumane, saying that death was death, by whatever means it was inflicted and referred to history: “The disapproval that the knight had for the man with the firearm is repeated in the soldier who shoots with steel bullets towards the man who confronts him with chemical weapons. […] The gas weapons are not at all more cruel than the flying iron pieces; on the contrary, the fraction of fatal gas diseases is comparatively smaller, the mutilations are missing”.’ Source: Wikipedia.

The double-edged sword of ammonia. The military benefits apply to both offensive and defensive use. Graphics by Arnold Ziffel.

The Future

Ask yourself this- will your descendants in the year 2124 share in the creature comforts coming from the extravagant use of resources as we have? Doesn’t the word “sustainability” include the needs of 4-5 generations down the line?

There are wants and there are needs. For many of us in the 21^st century, most our needs in the US are more than satisfied along with surplus income to satisfy many of our wants. Will our descendants a century from now even have enough resources to meet their needs after our continuing wanton and extravagant consumption of resources of the last 150 years?

Our technology stemming from the earth’s economically attainable resources has done much to soften the jagged edges from nature’s continual efforts kill us. After each wave of nature’s threats to life itself, survivors get back up only to face yet more natural disasters, starvation and disease. This is where someone usually offers the phrase “survival of the fittest”, though I would add ” … and the lucky“.

What will descendants in 100 or 200 years require to fend off the harshness of nature and our fellow man? Pharmaceuticals? Medical science? Fuels for heat and transportation? Will citizens in the 22^nd century have enough helium for the operation of magnetic resonance imagers or quantum computers? Will there be enough economic raw materials for batteries? Will there be operable infrastructure for electric power generation and distribution? Lots of questions that are easy to ask but hard to answer.

If you are immune from concern for future generations, then this essay is a waste of your time.

Come to think about it, does anyone worry this far in advance? The tiny piece of the future called “next year” is as much as most of us can handle. Is the world a much smaller place than it used to be or is the scale just better understood?

A plug for climate change

Even the sky is smaller than we think. At 18,000 feet the atmospheric pressure drops to half that at sea level. This means that half of the molecules in the atmosphere are at or below 18,000 feet. This altitude, the 500 millibar line, isn’t so far away from the surface. From the 58 Fourteeners in Colorado, it is only 4000 ft up. Not that far. The breathable, inhabitable atmosphere is actually quite thin. The Earth’s atmosphere tapers off into the vacuum of space over say 100 km, the Kármán line. While this is more of an arbitrary designation than a physical boundary between the atmosphere and space, the bulk of the atmosphere is well below this altitude. With this in mind, perhaps it seems more plausible that humans could adversely affect the atmosphere.

The lowest distinct layer of the atmosphere is the troposphere beginning as the planetary boundary layer. This is where most weather happens. In the troposphere, the atmospheric temperature begins to drop by 9.8 °C per kilometer or 5.8 ^oF per 1000 ft of altitude. This is called the dry adiabatic lapse rate.

With increasing altitude, the atmospheric temperature gradient decreases to about 2 ^oC per kilometer at ~30,000 ft in the mid-latitudes where the tropopause is found. The tropopause is where the lapse rate reaches a minimum then the temperature remains relatively constant with altitude. This is the stratosphere.

Over the last 200 years in the West at least, advances in medicine, electrical devices, motor vehicles, aerospace, nuclear energy, agriculture and warfare have contributed to what we both enjoy and despise in contemporary civilization. The evolving mastery of energy, chemistry and machines has replaced a great deal of sudden death, suffering and drudgery that was “normal” with a longer, healthier life free of many of the harmful and selective pressures of nature. Let’s be clear though, relieving people of drudgery can also mean that they may be involuntarily removed from their livelihoods. It is quintessentially American to sing high praises to capitalism. It is even regarded as an essential element of patriotism by some. On the interwebs capitalism is defined as below-

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.

As I began this post I was going to cynically suggest that capitalism is like a penis- it has no brain. It only knows that it wants more. Well, wanting and acquiring more are brain functions, after all. Many questions stand out, but I’m asking this one today. How fully should essential resources be subject to raw capital markets? It has been said half in jest that capitalism is the worst economic system around, except for all of the others.

I begin with the assumption that it is wise that certain resources should be conserved. Should it necessarily be that a laissez faire approach be the highest and only path available? Must it necessarily be that, for the greater good, access to essential resources be controlled by those with the greatest wealth? And, who says that “the greater good” is everybody’s problem? People are naturally acquisitive, some much more than others. People naturally seek control of what they perceive as valuable. These attributes are part of what makes up greed.

Obvious stuff, right?

The narrow point I’d like to suggest is that laissez faire may not be fundamentally equipped to plan for the conservation and wise allocation of certain resources, at least as it is currently practiced in the US. Businesses can conserve scarce resources if they want by choosing and staying with high prices, thereby reducing consumption. However, this is not in the DNA of business leaders. The long-held metrics of good business leadership rest on the pillar of growth in market share and margins. Profitable growth is an important indicator of successful management and a key performance indicator for management.

Firstly, a broader adoption of resource conservation ideals is necessary. Previous generations have indeed practiced it, with the U.S. national park system serving as a notable example. However, the scarcity of elements like Helium, Neodymium, Dysprosium, and Indium, which are vital to industry and modern life, raises concerns. The reliance of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) operators on liquid helium for their superconducting magnets poses the question of whether such critical resources should be subject to the whims of unregulated laissez-faire capitalism. While some MRI operators utilize helium recovery systems, not all do, leading to further debate on whether the use of helium for party balloons should be permitted to continue, given its wasteful nature.

Ever since the European settlement of North America began, people have been staking off claims for all sorts of natural resources. Crop farmland, minerals, land for grazing, rights to water, oil and gas, patents, etc. Farmers in America as a rule care about conserving the viability of their topsoil and have in the past acted as a group to maintain it in good condition. But, agribusiness keeps making products available to maximize crop yields, forcing farmers to walk a narrower line with soil conservation. Soil amendments can be precisely engineered with micronutrients, nitrogen and phosphate fertilizers to reconstitute the soil to compensate for higher yields. Herbicides and pesticides are designed to control a wide variety of weeds, insect and nematode pests. Equipment manufacturers have pitched in with efficient, though expensive, machinery to help extract the last possible dollars’ worth of yield. Still other improvements are in the form of genetically modified organism (GMO) crops that have desirable traits allowing them to withstand herbicides (e.g., Roundup), drought or a variety of insect, bacterial, or fungal blights. The wrench in the gears here is that the merits of GMO have not been universally accepted.

Livestock production is an advanced technology using detailed knowledge of animal biology. It includes animal husbandry, nutrition, medicines, meat production, wool, dairy, gelatin, fats and oils, and pet food production. There has been no small amount of pushback on GMO-based foods in these areas, though. I don’t watch this in detail so I won’t comment on GMO.

The point of the above paragraphs is to highlight a particular trait of modern humans- we are demons for maximizing profits. It comes to us as naturally as falling down. And maximizing profits usually means that we maximize throughput and sales with ever greater economies of scale. Industry not only scales to meet current demand, but scales to meet greater future demand.

Extracting a resource to its exhaustion has been prevalent in history. The question is, is it inevitable or can or should it be throttled back?

Essentially everyone will likely have descendants living 100 years from now. Won’t they want the rich spread of comforts and consumer goods that we enjoy today? Today we are producing consumer goods that are not made for efficient economic resource recovery. Batteries of all sorts are complex in their construction and composition. Spent batteries may have residual charge left in them and have chemically hazardous components like lithium metal. New sources of lithium are opening up in various places in the world, but it is still a nonrenewable and scarce resource. This applies to cobalt as well.

Helium is another nonrenewable and scarce resource that in the US comes from a select few enriched natural gas wells. At present we have an ever-increasing volume of liquid helium consumption in superconducting magnets across the country that need to remain topped off. This helium is used in all of the many superconducting magnetic resonance imagers (MRI) and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectrometers in operation worldwide. Quantum computing will also consume considerable liquid helium as it scales up since temperatures below the helium boiling point of 4.22 Kelvin are required.

As suggested above, today’s MR imagers can be equipped with helium boil off prevention recovery devices that recondense helium venting out of the cryostat and direct it back into a reservoir. One company claims that their cold head condensers are so efficient that users do not even have to top off with helium for 7-10 years. That is a good thing. Hopefully it is affordable for most consumers of MRI liquid helium.

In the history of mining in the US and elsewhere, it has been the practice of mine owners to maximize the “recovery” of ore when prices are high. Recovery always proceeds to the exhaustion of the economical ore or the exhaustion of financial backing of the mining company. Uneconomical ore will remain in the ground, possibly for recovery when prices are more favorable. It is much the same for oil and gas. As with everything, investors want to get in and get out quickly with the maximum return and minimum risk. They don’t want their investment dollars to sit in the ground waiting for the distant future in order to satisfy some pointy headed futurist and their concern for future generations.

It is not normally in the nature of for-profit corporate C-suite executives to aim for resource conservation. People answerable to a board of directors have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize wealth generation for the shareholders. The world of industry is the world of growth. The world of “let’s make enough to get by” is not the world of people who rise to the C-suite. Unfortunate but true.

What is needed in today’s world is the ability to conserve resources for our descendants. It requires caring for the future along with a good deal of self-control. Conservation means recycling and reduced consumption of goods. But it also means tempering expectations of wealth generation, especially for those who aim for large scale production. While large scale production yields the economies of scale, it nevertheless means large scale consumption as well, In reality, this is contrary to the way most capitalism is currently practiced around the world.

Sustainability

The libertarian ideal of applying market control to everything is alleged to be sustainable because in appealing to everyone’s self-interest, future economic security is in everyone’s interest. If high consumption of scarce resources is not in our self-interest, then will the market find a way to temper it? As prices rise in response to scarcity, consumption will drop. ECON-101 right? Well, what isn’t mentioned is that it’s today’s self-interest. What about the availability of scarce resources for future generations? Will the market provide for that? What does “sustainability” really mean? Does it mean that today’s high consumption is sustained, or does it mean resource conservation?

Is the goal of energy sustainability to maintain the present cost of consumption but through alternative means? Reduced consumption will occur when prices get high enough. As the cost of necessities rises, the cash available for the discretionary articles will dry up. How much of the economy is built on non-essential, discretionary goods and services? The question is, does diminished consumption have to be an economic hard landing or can it be softened a bit?

Some chemical elements

Here is where we transition into some chemistry. Our transition into a more electric world requires the use of certain chemical elements that may be unfamiliar to many. Certain elements are critical such as copper, aluminum, steel, silicon, germanium, gallium, neodymium, lithium, indium, boron and some others. And each element requires industrial plants and mining to produce them. Mining and refining generally use large quantities of electric power and water. Most all of the equipment in the mines and industry rely on steel machinery which itself requires a cascade of resources to produce.

As of the date of this writing, we are already down the timeline by many decades as far as the R&D into alternative electrification. What we are faced with is the need for a rapid and very large scaling-up of renewable electric power generation, transmission and storage for the anticipated growth in power consumption for electric vehicles.

Price elasticity is where an increase in price fails to result in a drop in demand. Necessary or highly desirable goods and services may not drop in demand if the price increases at least to some level. As with the price of gasoline, people will grumble endlessly about gas prices as they stand there filling their tanks with expensive gasoline or diesel. Conservation of resources has to overcome the phenomenon of price elasticity in order to make a dent without shortages.

A meaningful and greater conservation of resources will require that people be satisfied with lesser quantities of many things. In history, people have faced a greatly diminished supply of many things, but not by choice. Economic depression, war and famine have imposed reduced consumption on whole populations and often for many years. When the cause is released, people naturally return to consumption as high as they can afford.

The technological triumphalism reflex of civilization has allowed us to paint ourselves into a resource scarcity corner. We are reliant on new technology that itself is reliant on more mature technology.

Added 10/30/24.

The habit of relying on future technological breakthroughs to solve current problems is universally seen as a positive expression except for those culturally disconnected from modernism such as the Amish, etc. The problem arises when we blunder forward, oblivious to consequences of the technology. Unforeseen consequences are notably difficult to visualize early in development and may be interpreted by some as negativism.

In chemical manufacturing we are accustomed to a performing PHA- Process Hazard Analysis -when starting up a new process. In a PHA meeting we list all of the potential points of failure in the process equipment and then brainstorm every possible failure mode and possible links to other equipment. It usually takes most of a shift and it is essential that engineers and plant operators are present to lend their expertise. As potential failures are identified they are rated according to their likelihood and seriousness. Each entry that calls for a dated action item by persons responsible for solving the problem.

What the PHA also does is to alert those involved in designing processes of problems that may be general in nature and worth remembering for the next process.

Social Media- An invention gone bad?

Did the persons who introduced the various social media platforms in the early days consider the possible malevolent use and consequences of their online products? Was anything other than the rapid development of their platform and getting online as fast as possible even considered? Was there a devil’s advocate in the building at the time? Once money is invested in a business plan or invention, the desire to go to market becomes insurmountable.

If the question is “could trolls and other online troublemakers have been avoided from the beginning?”, then perhaps the early social media developers should have some accountability to those who download the app. If not, what should be the developer’s role in solving the problem of online trolling or fraud?

As with so many useful things in the marketplace that have a dark side, weapons for instance, doesn’t the user have some responsibility for proper use? Well, yes and no. Someone who knows about guns should have the responsibility for its use, that’s yes. Going very dark, what about leaving a loaded and chambered pistol on a playground. Is it reasonable to expose children to the danger from mishandling? Should they be expected to know what the loaded pistol could do? Clearly not.

The core of the issue seems to be the matter of when a seemingly innocuous invention is released for global use and is unexpectedly misused by some users. Is the developer responsible for damages resulting from the misuse? Can the developer be forced to harden their product to attenuate the abuse?

Could it be that clamping down on trolls on a given app will involve a reduction of clicks or eyeballs? Would advertisers overlook this or negotiate a lower price?

It is doubtful that anyone in 1975 was begging for a Facebook to come on the market. Dot matrix printers were a marvel then. Eventually, when available, Facebook would take the world by storm. Demand appeared when people became aware of it. Is it a triumphal bit of technology? Both were built to exploit existing telecommunications technology and data collection systems. Facebook is a system that converts views and clicks into money over the internet. Facebook is a product that delivers our eyeballs and data to advertisers. Similar to a newspaper or television. Fb is triumphal to advertisers and Meta.

Conclusion-

Is there really such a thing as general Technological Triumphalism? I’m beginning to think that it might exist only as squinted at from 50,000 feet. In the very early 20th century, physicians longed for a magic bullet to cure infections apart from the toxic mercurials then in use. They needed a Technological Triumph, and it arrived in pieces through experiments over time. Along came sulfa drugs, then penicillin and both of these were explored for more potent analogs. As medicinal chemistry advanced, entirely new classes of antibiotics were discovered. The lesson of penicillin coming from mold led to the exploration of microbial and fungal sources from all over the world, producing antibiotics affecting a variety of systems in gram (+) and gram (-) bacteria. Once an active candidate is discovered, it’s structure and stereochemistry are determined. Once the composition is known, modifications can be prepared to explore the efficacy of analogs and sort out the mechanism of its antibiotic properties.

Technological Triumphalism can be a philosophy that in its hazardous form can lead people to believe that if a technology goes surprisingly bad, certainly something can be invented to make it better. Fix one technology with another. The discovery of antibiotics was the result of answering a question that begged for a solution.

An example is the problem of CO₂ in global climate change. Should we compensate for rising CO₂ emissions by scrubbing the atmosphere or should we find a way to reduce emissions by driving fewer miles? The first is a technological solution and the other is more of a lifestyle change.

Limitations of Quantum Computing

Leave a reply

Note: First, let me make clear that I am not a computer scientist and while I’ve learned FORTRAN, BASIC and PASCAL in the early 1980’s followed by coursework in quantum chemistry in grad school- and somehow passed– the question of how quantum computation actually computes with qubits remains a mystery to me. Honestly, I’m weary of hearing about it. That said, I do continue to worry about the ever-increasing pressure on the liquid helium tit which quantum computing will definitely lock on to.

An interesting article came out in the current issue of Quantum Magazine giving some straight talk about how quantum computers might actually be used. All of us have been bombarded by breathless predictions of a wondrous future where we can find prime factors of stupidly large numbers and crack very secure cryptography.

Quantum chemistry is about orbiting electrons confined to particular regions of oddly shaped space around a positively charged nucleus, depending on their energy. That is a lifetime of study right there for me. I think I’ll stick to atoms and molecules.

Oh yes, in the early 80’s we used an IBM 360 and submitted our batch jobs as a stack of punch cards. Eventually we were allowed to use the DEC writer for BASIC programming. One sunshiny day an Apple 2 appeared in the chemistry department office. It had 16 K of memory, a green monitor and an external floppy disk drive. There were whispers that 32 and maybe even 64 K were on the horizon. Heady stuff.

The IT guys were surly then too.

Amassing Cannon Fodder is an Old Soviet Tactic

Leave a reply

After reading a biography of the Russian Marshal of the Soviet Union, Georgy Zhukov, it becomes apparent that there are parallels between Soviet tactics in WWII and those used in the Putin-Ukraine conflict. Beyond the deployment of similarly vintaged tanks and weaponry, General Zhukov was notorious for committing his forces to battle with little regard for casualties. Similarly, Putin’s military has been characterized by the use of inadequately trained and equipped conscripts. Additionally, it has been reported that Putin’s forces have positioned troops behind the front lines to prevent or even target any deserting or retreating frontline soldiers. Zhukov’s approach often involved rapidly advancing battalions and armor to the front with minimal planning, depending on the attrition of Nazi forces. This tactic was typically executed under Stalin’s direct orders, though sometimes initiated by Zhukov independently.

The conflict between Putin and Ukraine has evolved into a war of attrition. Initially, Putin thought he could swiftly deploy tanks and troops as he did in southern Ukraine in 2014, seizing territory through sheer intimidation. However, he miscalculated the armaments, determination and tenacity of the Ukrainian forces. Since 2014, tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers have received training from Western nations. By February 2022, they were significantly better prepared and less intimidated by Putin’s military. In conventional warfare, the Russian military turned out to be a paper tiger, at least with its conventional non-nuclear forces, that is. The Putin-Ukraine war is still unfolding but Russia will come out of it severely stunted win or lose and possibly with new leadership. Whatever the outcome, the winner will have a great deal of de-mining to do. The conflict continues to unfold, but regardless of the outcome, Russia is likely to emerge greatly weakened, potentially with a change in leadership.

Putin is a smart guy. Certainly he knows the consequences of releasing as much as a single low yield tactical nuclear weapon, even if it’s limited to a demonstration. Pandora’s box would swing wide open and out would slink an ever-expanding series of repeats of above ground nuclear blasts until a city would be hit. Then all out nuclear war could happen in the old eye-for-an-eye fashion. Dark days would follow indeed.

Putin surely realizes the dangerous situation his county is in with mounting military losses, the brain-drain of skilled workers leaving the country and a crumbling oil and minerals-based economy. Yet he wears the neutral expression of the Sphinx in public because he must. He has painted himself and his nation into a corner. He even resorted to making nice with the plump North Korean dictator which must have been a nauseating demotion for him.

A bit of history

The Magna Carta was an agreement signed in England on June 10th, 1215, at Runnymede along the River Thames. This agreement had the unique provision of the enforcement of limitations on the sovereign. Rather than a simple recitation of grievances by the barons, the Magna Carta contained ‘security clause 61’ which provided for the barons the authority to seize the castles and lands of King John and hold them until such time as he held to his responsibilities as agreed upon in the signed document.

The Magna Carta was not just a contract between wealthy barons and King John, rather it was a step change towards political reform that provided for enforcement on the King. From Wikipedia–

“First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Stephen Langton, to make peace between the unpopular king and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift and impartial justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons.”

Unfortunately, the distrust between the barons and the Crown, compounded by the annulment from Pope Innocent III, led to its swift failure. Just a few months after the agreement fell apart, the First Baron’s War erupted. However, this was not the final chapter. The document was reissued in successive versions, with the more radical language removed, in 1217, 1225, and finally in 1297, when its remaining elements were incorporated into England’s statute law. It was not unique in its attempt to limit the power of the Crown; similar efforts were seen elsewhere. Over time, the Parliament of England enacted laws that overshadowed the original document, diminishing its significance.

Back to Russia

The point of highlighting the Magna Carta, despite its failure, is that nothing of this type of significance happened in the history of Russia, at least until the Bolshevik Revolution. Perhaps this comparison is too facile, causing real historians to choke on their Starbuck’s latte. But allow me to finish. The Magna Carta was not entirely unique for its era. However, it was notable for including a provision that enforced the good faith by the King. It represented a collective bargaining effort by the 25 barons with King John to alleviate some of the monarchy’s oppression and, in doing so, progress the political atmosphere for a short time with fits and starts. As kings often do, King John protested to the Pope, who then exerted his authority in a manner only a Pope could. The Pope excommunicated the Barons and nullified the agreement, having been persuaded by King John that it undermined the Church’s authority.

Russia seems not to have a tradition of producing successful popular uprisings to the power of the Tsar. of course, the Bolshevik revolution is the shining counterexample. Not in the sense of overthrow so much, but as an enforceable agreement to relieve a measure of oppression by the monarchy at all levels. In contradiction to this sweeping generalization is the case of Tsars Alexander I and II. Alexander I introduced minor social reforms but he was a strict Russian nationalist and Slavophile. Many of the reforms he instituted early in his career were retracted later.

Tsar Alexander II , however, instituted many liberal reforms but is possibly most revered for his Emancipation of the Serfs in 1861. In the US, he is remembered as the Tsar who sold us Alaska. He was a supporter of the Union in the American Civil War and even sent ships to New York Harbor and San Francisco Bay to deter Confederate warships. Eventually he was assassinated in Saint Petersburg on March 13, 1881. The first assassin’s bomb thrown under his armored carriage left him dazed but uninjured. The second assassin’s bomb thrown shortly thereafter delivered the fatal injuries as he stepped out to investigate. The third assassin’s bomb was unused.

Zooming forward to the present, what actions can the Russian populace take regarding Tsar Putin? After centuries of political oppression aided by new thinking, modern technology, and nuclear weapons the current Tsar has built a deep and wide moat around himself and his allies within the Kremlin establishment. Beyond this moat stands a population conditioned to obedience by fear, a legacy of decades of Soviet rule. I believe that national pride will deter them from emulating Western forms of civil society and governance. And why can’t they develop an authentically Russian something-something ‘democracy’, or whatever? Russia has deep foundation of cultural, artistic and scientific achievements to take pride in, despite its history of authoritarian governance. Whatever Russia eventually does, it will be heavily Slavic and Eastern Orthodox.

Russians are just as pleasant and smart as everyone else in the world, obviously. Russian hospitality is first rate as I have personally experienced. They just have the heavy blanket of oppressive leadership over them that continues to drag through the generations. Even if Putin falls out of power, there is a line of replacements cut from the same cloth. Perhaps a leader of a reform movement could rebuild Russia? It could happen but just as likely it could revert into a system that is better at prosecuting a war of aggression and suppression of the population. The replacement of Putin could be good for the world, or it could go sour. The world has to wait it out and see. In the meantime, it is critical to keep Putin out of Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states.

The Putin government is like a toxic gas- it will expand into all of the space available. After the decades-long stand down in tension since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the problem of an aggressive Russia arises again. The West must remain the sturdy counter example to the authoritarian culture of Putin’s Russia. We in the USA, especially, need to do a better job as the shining city on the hill. Lately the shine is wearing off.

	perakita on Good Lord, It’s The Gree…
	perakita on Good Lord, It’s The Gree…
	perakita on Good Lord, It’s The Gree…
	Morris on What’s with Product Expi…
	gaussling on The Hypotenuse of Life

	perakita on Good Lord, It’s The Gree…
	perakita on Good Lord, It’s The Gree…
	perakita on Good Lord, It’s The Gree…
	Morris on What’s with Product Expi…
	gaussling on The Hypotenuse of Life

Lamentations on Chemistry

Editorials of a Scientist Political

Category Archives: CounterCurrent

A Few Conclusions and Refutations on Molecular Evolution

Necessity as the Mother of Invention

I Did My Own Research …

Proteins, Receptors and Some Chemistry of Fentanyl

Machismo and Violence

Lamentations on Science Infotainment Rev 2.

Technological Triumphalism

Limitations of Quantum Computing

Amassing Cannon Fodder is an Old Soviet Tactic