tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post5211667623962745861..comments2024-03-25T09:11:17.877-07:00Comments on The Curious Wavefunction: Note on the cultish status of organic synthesis: Part 1Wavefunctionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-29616316396640492872011-03-01T08:53:19.681-08:002011-03-01T08:53:19.681-08:00Good to know! It is remarkable how long he has bee...Good to know! It is remarkable how long he has been around; he is currently training a friend of mine, trained a professor of mine from grad school and trained that professor's grad school advisor!Wavefunctionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-9496324463717946422011-03-01T07:55:27.511-08:002011-03-01T07:55:27.511-08:00I've reposted something on this subject that o...I've reposted something on this subject that originally appeared in the late lamented first incarnation of ChemBark in the fall of '07 -- http://luysii.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/what-would-woodward-say/<br /><br />One historical point -- Sam Danishevsky was a friend and a year or two ahead back then. Very pleasant guy, not arrogant, not an egotist, and of course very smart. It's unlikely he's much different. <br /><br />Retread/LuysiiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-81078867755813002442011-02-28T14:23:22.886-08:002011-02-28T14:23:22.886-08:00That's a good point. In total synthesis the sy...That's a good point. In total synthesis the synthesis is often a goal unto itself. But the charm has certainly declined. The synthesis of maitotoxin is definitely not going to command the kind of glory that chlorophyll did.Wavefunctionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-26538839874952917532011-02-28T14:00:15.679-08:002011-02-28T14:00:15.679-08:00Perhaps the focus on personalities is due to the f...Perhaps the focus on personalities is due to the fact that total synthesis, much more than other branches of chemistry, is all about being the first to synthesize a particular molecule. If we compare this to a field like single molecule spectroscopy, sure we can point to the first spectroscopic detection of a single molecule, but there are many of these "first" experiments that people cite (e.g. first detection of single molecule absorption, first detection of single molecule fluorescence, first detection of single molecule fluorescence at room temperature, etc.). In a case like this, many labs developed many different approaches to the problem, all of which are useful and have contributed to the field. While a handful of scientists stand out as the pioneers and stars in the field, it's hard to pin down just one name. <br /><br />In contrast, there's no question who performed the first total synthesis of molecule X. While other labs may have worked on that molecule and tried different strategies to get to the target (which could still be potentially useful), it seems like all of the fame goes to the ones who synthesized the molecule first.<br /><br />Perhaps this relates to the ultimate goal of the projects. In single molecule spectroscopy, the goal is generally not to be the first to develop a technique, but to develop a technique that will be useful to people studying a specific problem. In structural biology, also subject to races between labs to be the first to determine the structure of an elusive protein, the ultimate goal is not the structure of the protein, but an understanding of how the protein works (in which case subsequent structures are often more useful in this goal than the initial published structure). In total synthesis, at least to a biophysical chemist like me, the goals do not seem to extend past synthesizing the target molecule.Yggdrasilnoreply@blogger.com