Tuesdays meetings included an awards symposium extravaganza in the organic division. F. Dean Toste was the recipient of the Elias J. Corey Award for Original Contribution in Organic Synthesis by a Young Investigator. Illuminati of the likes of Trost, Sarpong, and Grubbs gave their talks in honor of the awardee. Toste’s talk was on his work in the area of Au(I) catalysis. These gold (I) catalysts show an extraordinary propensity for coordination of alkynes and facilitating nucleophilic addition to the triple bond.

The reactivity of Au(I) is attributed to relativistic effects causing contraction of the 6s orbital and destabilization of the 5d orbitals. The result is a large aptitude for pi->M coordination and relatively low M->pi* backbonding.

Relative to Pt and Rh, gold is cheap. 

The talk by Frederic Stanley Kipping Awardee T. Don Tilley was worth the time to see. This UC Berkeley chemistry prof has accumulated a substantial list of results on in the organometallic chemistry arena, much of it with the use of silanes.

The ACS Awardee in Organometallic Chemistry, G. Parkin of Columbia University, was equally interesting. Parkin described his work with kinetic isotope effects and had some caveats for those attempting to draw mechanistic conclusions from such studies. The reaction temperature used in the study can give a positive effect, no effect, or a negative effect. Hmmm.

George Whitesides (GW) gave a talk entitled “Questions about questions about the origins of life”.  It was actually a kind of homily summarizing his summaries. Ok. Let’s see if I can do better than that.  GW has been ruminating on the origins of life and has come to the conclusion that neither the physicists or the biologists are equipped to solve the problem. 

The first matter that he paraded before the audience was this- is it enough to say that the world is bifurcated into two domains- alive and not alive? Is it binary or continuous? GW thinks it is continuous.  It just occured to me that prions may be a good present day exception to the assertion that it is binary. But what really matters is the question of whether life was continuous or binary during the peribiotic period while life was forming.

GW suggested that it is important for us to find examples of chemical fossils.  These would be chemical compositions left intact from that era. The problem of the origin of life cannot be answered by simple extrapolation backward from present biology because the peribiotic conditions in which life arose have not been present for several billion years. We are far from understanding the chemical and redox makeup of the peribiotic world.

The origin of life arose from reaction networks that afforded molecular species that could self amplify or self replicate in an anoxic, reductive environment.

The question of the mechanistic origins of life is vastly different from the question of the mechanistic evolution of life.

Both are chemical phenomena and a mechanistic picture of both will ultimately be assembled by chemists of one sort or other.

Spent a good deal of  time in the INORG section talks. The Cotton Symposium talks have brought many friends and alumni of the Cotton Experience. Tobin Marks kicked off the symposium this morning with his usual overwhelming flood of results. Listening to a Marks talk is like trying to sip from a fire hose.  What always impresses me about the talks by Marks, Bergman, et al., is the large amount of kinetic and thermodynamic data presented to support the proposed mechanisms. 

The talk on the functional mobility of ribosomes by Yonath was just amazing. The Yonath group has been able to use heteropolymetallates to aid in the understanding of the conformational changes in the mechanism of transfer RNA mobility across the ribosome. 

My background did not include kinetic studies and I have always regretted this. The path to understanding is with kinetics and thermodynamics experiments, not just a simple report of yields and conditions. Once before they bury me, I want to do this.

The Kipping Symposium Honoring T. Don Tilly offered some interesting talks as well. Gelest  had a sponsoring role in this symposium.

I’m not an apologist for the chemical industry. Chemical industry has a checkered past in many ways. The pesticide, petrochemicals, and mining industries have left a deep and abiding foul taste in the mouths of many communities. In a previous era, heavy industry has fouled rivers, lakes, air, and ground water. It has lead to illness, death, and loss of livelihood to many people.

But in the modern era much of this wanton issuance of hazardous industrial material into the air and waters has been halted or greatly diminished. And it is not because industry suddenly found religion. The “regulatory environment” became so compelling a liability cost factor that industry set its mind to engineering plants into compliance. 

I would make the observation that today, the major chemical health issues before us are not so much about bulk environmental pollution by waste products. Rather, I would offer that the most important matter has to do with the chronic exposure of consumers to various levels of manufactured chemical products. High fructose corn sweeteners, veterinary antibiotic residues, endocrine disrupters, smoking, highly potent pharmaceuticals, and volatiles from polymers and adhesives to name a few.

Modern life has come to require the consumption of many things.  A modern nation must have a thriving chemical industry to sustain at least some of its need for manufactured materials. It is quite difficult and isolating to live a life free of paint and plastics or diesel and drugs. Choosing paper over plastic at the supermarket requires a difficult calculation of comparative environmental insults. Pulp manufacture vs polymer manufacture- which is the least evil? I’m not sure.  

The path to a cleaner and safer life in these modern times is surely a life that pursues fewer consumables. Less throw-away stuff.  Less calorie intake and greater calorie expenditure. Reduced consumption of foods engineered by modifiers and additives.

Given the expectation of multitasking in our culture, it is increasingly difficult to arrange to prepare fresh foods. Meal preparation time eats into commuting time.

Now that I think it through, maybe it’s our culture that is killing us? Maybe our adverse exposure to deleterious substances is an artifact of a cultural requirement for increased productivity.

At the outset, I said I was not an apologist for the chemical industry. But I am not a Luddite either. Modern material science (which includes chemistry) has brought aid against a great many of the hazards and inconveniences of life. As we pass through the age of increasing population and peak oil we must adjust our expectations of the benefits of manufactured goods in the betterment of our lives. Linear extrapolations such as “more = better” begin to fail at high levels of consumption. That is the lesson that I’ve taken.