Milo muses dot com

Now that nap time has rolled into the Milo household, I thought I would take this quiet opportunity to jot down a few comments on Christmas. 

This holiday season has been rather poor for the retail sector of the US economy. There have been futile hopes that last minute shoppers would somehow find the cash and credit to buy enough stuff to “save Christmas”. The sad fact is that most people, even those who are lucky enough to still have gainful employment, are just too scared to spend massive amounts of money on material items whose perceived value will last only about fifteen minutes.

For myself and Mrs. Milo, we opted to forgo the exchanging of presents this year, both internally and externally. We feel that good conversation and good friendship is more important, and more lasting, than giving a gift that may or may not be appreciated, or remembered. For our little one, we bought her a set of blocks. Not that we are cheap, not at all. But who, at the tender age that she is needs more than a set of blocks? In fact, I toyed with the idea of giving only a box of crinkly paper…. she would find that endlessly fascinating.  

I can only hope that the economic climate of 2008 has somehow opened peoples eyes to the unsustainability of the American way of life. A consumer based economy, where people are expected to buy disposable items, is not  only bad for the wallet, but bad for the environment.  I am not an economist, but I suspect that there are other types of economic systems which can be utilized to support our country that are 1) sustainable and 2) better for the world in general.  

In the end, you shall not be remembered for what you gave, but who you were. I think it is time for Americans to figure out who they are. 

I recently had a very interesting discussion at work with an older colleague of mine. This gentleman has been with the company for roughly 30 years. Anyway, he and I were shooting the shit one day and the topic of employee dedication came up. He was telling me that when he was a fledgling PhD at the chemical mill, he would routinely put in 10-11 hour days, because he was dedicated to the success of the company. He then began to lament the decline of dedication in the younger generation of chemists, as evidenced by the fact that our typical, or average, work day is from 7:40 to 4:40… give or take a few. In addition, he was dismayed that we actually take all of our vacation. All two weeks, taken.

He began to wonder aloud, in what I guess was a not-so-subtle attempt to influence my work habits, about where all the dedication had gone. Why was Gen X and Gen Y so devoid of dedication?

I, being the shithead I am, asked him why would I work 55 hours a week, when the annual cost of living increase is 0.5% below inflation? Why would I give all of my waking time, to a company that has no problem downsizing at the request of The Street? Why, I continued, would I ignore my personal life, my family and potentially my health for a company that continuously demands more with less? (Note, I am not fingering my specific employer, I was aiming more at “corporate America” in general).

The discussion went back and forth for oh… ten to fifteen minutes. In the end it was one of those good meeting of the minds sorts of discussions. I brought up points he had not considered and vice versa. We both agreed that like politics, life and consumer products, work ethics and habits evolve over time and the habits of 10 years ago may not be identical to today. As we gain more knowledge and our work is made more efficient through technological advances, we can expect the common worker to alter their work habits.

Think of it this way. If it took 2 hours to search the paper copies of Chem. Abstracts and Beilstein, you would have to possibly work late. Now, I can do the same search in 3 minutes. Am I less dedicated? No. I just have more tools available to me in 2008 than were available in 1982.

Now our discussion was equating dedication to work hours in a very simplistic model. These days, there is less absolute loyalty towards a company than there was, say, 20 years ago. But I think it also goes the other way as well. One side effect of globalization is that companies can now move their operations to area where the workforce is “competatively priced”. Better for the bottom line, but not so good for employee loyalty.

Regardless, I am quite content with never returning to the hours I worked in graduate school. There should be laws against things like that.

As a scientist, I want to have all the tools necessary to accomplish my research. And yet, there is increasing pressure to do more with less. So, the question now becomes: What is the minimum I need to do my job effectively? If I want something, like a new computer, do I really need all the speed and power? Or is my old machine good enough for me to still complete my job in a timely fashion? Do we need that 600 MHz NMR, or is that old 360 MHz still good enough for 95% of what we do? Do we spend the money for the 600 MHz knowing it will help to keep us modern and attractive to the younger generation of scientists looking for a career?

Do you really need to order that Pd(0)(Ph3)4 or can you make it yourself for a fraction of the cost (and higher quality) ?

Times are tough my friends. These days, it is good to examine what you are asking and really ask yourself if it is critical to have. If it is, then buy it. If not, well then…. wait for better times to ask.

Well, layoffs at R&D have come and gone. We lost a few researchers. I am still within the rank and file, so I guess I should be happy. Being my first ever experience with corporate layoffs, I have to say that it really sucks. There is something  heartbreaking about seeing someone you say hello to everyday being escorted off the premises by the HR staff.

I was thinking the other day how invincible I felt right after my PhD defense. I felt like I could get any chemistry job (and have it be secure), simply because I had a PhD.

Oh what they do not tell you in graduate school.

Layoffs have come to the chemical mill. I suspect that the chemists will not be very productive this week. The self-preservation instinct tends to be pretty strong in times like this.

What is Green Chemistry?

According to the EPA:

Green chemistry, also known as sustainable chemistry, is the design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use or generation of hazardous substances.

But, for most non-scientists, green chemistry means something totally different. For the non-scientist, green chemistry is something of an absolute. A process is either green, or it is not. For those in the know however, green is something to strive for, but also something that defies rigorous definition.

And, FYI, it is the new black of corporate buzzwords.

For fun, find a senior manager… someone who most likely has no idea what science really is, and ask them about green chemistry. You’ll probably get something like:

“We are very proactive in the area of green chemistry. We are looking at all of our facilities and processes, from top to bottom, to try to determine our carbon footprint. Then we will take deliberate steps to reduce emissions and increase sustainability, all while maximizing value for the customer and our investors.”

Green chemistry is really very simple. It is a relative term that says a process is as atom and energy efficient as possible. There is no magic line to cross in order to be green. Processes can be green from the inception, if planned out correctly. Or, they can be made “more green” by reducing energy consumption, finding renewable (truly renewable….) feed stocks or by improving catalysis. It is really a judgement call. At least for now.

But, as of now, there is no magic way to define, in absolute terms, what green chemistry is. A green process is just like pr0n, you know it when you see it.

Interestingly, deCODE Genetics is in two publications currently sitting on my night stand. Business Week has a nice article on the business of decoding ones genes in order to glean a glimpse of what diseases we might be at risk for. As any edumacted person might suspect, there are lots and lots of genes out there that do lots of things, both singularly and with the assistance of other genes. Sure, some genes can be correlated to various disease states, but as the article reminds us, there is so much we don’t know that it is almost silly to suppose that the current technology is capable of telling us anything other than that we have a 5% chance of getting cancer. In fact, as of today (Oct 28, 2008), it is better to ask your family what diseases run in your lineage than rely on a gene screen.

The Oct 27th, 2008, issue of C&EN tells us the deCODE is looking to explore its business options. With its valuation too low to be listed on the NASDAQ, it is looking for ways to be a useful endeavor. I don’t know…. seems like we are a little too early in the whole using-genetics-too-guide-our-health thing to make profitable business out of them.

Unless, of course, they advertise on TV between the hours of midnight and 6 am.

The potential is there for this industry to be really useful, the science is just not there yet.

I have nothing more to say…

Here is a link giving a little bit of information about autism and fruit flies.

I was looking over my resume the other day, for no other reason than to make sure it was up to date, which given the current state of the economy is not a  bad thing.

Anyway, when I first began drafting my current resume, I did not have a good feel for what length was appropriate, what format to use, even how long it should be. I had always heard that a resume should never be longer than two pages, but I had so much to say, how do I fit all of that to 2 pages?

I finally decided, after much debate, to toss all page limits out. I reasoned that the important stuff is the most recent, and will thus be on the first page. So who cares how long it is? If the recruiter does not make it through the first page, I am doomed regardless of the length.

So the first page had my name, address etc. I did not have an objective portion, for I figured it was a waste of space and the only reason I would be sending someone a resume would be to ask for a job, so why write the obvious? I then had sections for my highlights (skills), education and recent experience. All on one page. Considering that my thesis title took up three lines, I was fretting a little bit about space, but I was able fit everything on without reducing the font (Helvetica 12pt) or stretching the margins. The later pages had older experience patents and publications. The total length was roughly 4-5 pages (17 patents and pubs….).

What about the formatting of the experience? I was a little worried about what was "correct". There is the standard bullet point format like this:

2000-2005  Research Assistant, University of Importance

• Developed asymmetric synthesis (90 linear steps) to whocareotoxin
• Isolated 0.0001 mg of novel antitumor agent from deep-sea squirt via GC-trap, HPLC and column chromatography with full characterization via IR, UV, NMR (1-, 2- and 3D) and taste.
• Improved the yield of a new Pd(0) catalyzed olefin isomerization reaction from 12% to 12.4%.

I think that this format sucks. It is dry and uninformative. So I went with the longer 3-4 sentence format:

2000-2002 Researcher, Big Company, Inc.

Catalyst Development:

Prior to my arrival, BCI was trying to market their catalyst technology in emerging markets, however their efforts were in for naught for their competitor had a superior product at a much lower cost. Using crystal-field theory and wet chemistry, I was able to redesign, synthesize and characterize the Pd(0) based olefin isomerization catalyst system such that the overall performance was increased 8-fold while reducing the cost by 50%. BSI now enjoys a 90% market share in Asia because of these improvements.

So, as you can see, the format is a bit longer, but this tells a mini story. It is not just a fact. Rather, it describes 1) the problem 2) the solution and 3) the resultant benefit of solving the problem.  Personally, when I get resumes in the mail, I enjoy reading this format, it gives more depth to the work.

Resumes are very hard to build, but rather easy to maintain, as long as you do it in a semi-regular fashion. I tend to do it once per quarter. Sometimes I have nothing to add, other times I have a couple papers and patents (from the postdoc that keeps on giving) and a few more work related projects and skills to write down. If I ever need to use it, I’ll have to  trim it down, it is now pretty beefy, but that is a good thing. It is easier to trim the fat than to try to fill up blank space….

Having just returned from a glorious weekend in the Hudson Valley (too bad there are no chemistry job up there…), I sat down to catch up on my InterWeb reading. Whilst perusing the random bits of news and dribble, I found myself reading an article about the chemical origins of life. Now, this article was not found in some schlub journal like JACS or JOC. No, I found this piece of goodness in that crack science journal, Wired.

Apparently some samples from Stanley Miller have been reanalyzed using ultra-modern techniques, like HPLC, and were shown to have more amino acids than originally thought. The nifty part is that the original experiment (from 1953) was designed to “mimic” the local environment of a volcano. Thus, it is suggested that volcanoes may have been one of those special places where organic molecules first formed.

I really like the idea of experimenting with simple mixtures of very simple components like CH4, H2O and NH3, hitting the mixture with a massive amount of energy and seeing what comes out. This is the stuff that all chemists want: the opportunity to play with cool equipment and massive amounts of energy.

But….

I don’t like the fact that this area of research is consistently described as looking into the origin of life. For some reason, this just does not sit well with me. It seems a little arrogant to say you are investigating the origin of life. I can see looking at prebiotic chemistry, or the origin of homochirality, but the origin of life?

I think the we scientists need to be a little bit more humble when we talk about our research.

But hey, what do I know. I still maintain naive view that politics, the media and science should never, ever, be found in bed together. Politics directs science (through funding) which is distorted by the media (through inaccurate descriptions of the work).

Prebiotic chemical research, while not a hot bed for funding, is still pretty interesting though. I’ll just try to strip away all the useless ego inflating trash when reading about it.