{"id":101,"date":"2009-08-29T11:43:14","date_gmt":"2009-08-29T18:43:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/wordpress.reed.edu\/chem201202\/2009\/08\/four-unsolved-problems-1.html"},"modified":"2014-03-18T10:13:05","modified_gmt":"2014-03-18T17:13:05","slug":"four-unsolved-problems-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.reed.edu\/chem201202\/2009\/08\/four-unsolved-problems-1\/","title":{"rendered":"Four Unsolved Problems"},"content":{"rendered":"

(initial version published Aug 20, 2008)<\/a><\/p>\n

Once you get used to them, you may find that the problems
\nin your textbook have a game-like quality. If you make the right mental
\n“moves”, you will nearly always solve the problem. It’s a nice way to
\nget started thinking about organic chemistry, but not terribly realistic.
\nModern organic chemists spend most of their time working on problems that can’t
\nbe solved<\/i> just by making the right moves. These problems are both scientific
\nand technological and if we ever solve them, we will change how the entire world thinks and lives.
<\/p>\n

\n

The following unsolved problems (more realistically, “unfinished
\ntasks”) happen to be four items that strike me <\/i>as really important. Other chemists are
\nsure to both agree and disagree, and if you would like to have some fun
\ntweaking a chemist (and also learn something in the process), ask him\/her what the four
\nmost important unsolved problems are. Maybe you already have some ideas of your
\nown? If you do, post them as a comment.<\/p>\n

1. Discover new molecules.<\/b> Every living organism is a
\nchemical factory, churning out compounds for fuel, construction, waste,
\ncommunication, you name it. “Natural products” is the branch of organic
\nchemistry that is devoted to the discovery of new naturally occurring
\ncompounds. There have been many headlines about the accelerating loss of
\nbiodiversity, but there’s a second point that’s just as important: every time
\nwe lose an organism, we lose the entire ensemble of chemicals unique to that organism.
\nSome lucky chemist may accidentally make one or two of these compounds in a lab
\nsomewhere, but the opportunity to see what these compounds do in their natural
\nhabitat will be lost.<\/p>\n

2. Make new molecules.<\/b> “Synthetic” chemists have
\nmade over 10 million organic compounds in the past century. As impressive as
\nthat number is, it is just a tiny fraction of what is possible. The only way to
\nreally know what is possible (and what it might be like) is to make something
\nnew and study it. The 1964 edition of Cram and Hammond, a popular textbook of
\nthat period, displayed 29 drawings of unknown organic molecules in its inside
\ncover. Six years later, the next edition divided these into “synthesized
\nafter 1964” (15 molecules) and “not yet synthesized” (14 molecules).
\nOf course, making new compounds is more than an intellectual exercise.
\nSynthetic chemists are also trying to discover compounds that can solve genuine
\nproblems: medicines, lightweight electronic devices, solar energy converters,
\nand so on.<\/p>\n

3. Learn to make molecules that are ‘benign by design’<\/b>.
\nThese words describe one of the fundamental goals of “green” chemistry:
\nmaking compounds that are inherently safe to use and throw away. Biological
\norganisms are experts at green chemistry. They rely on biodegradable substances
\ncalled enzymes to accelerate and control chemical reactions, they do their work
\nat or near room temperature, and they rely on readily available raw materials:
\nsunlight, carbon dioxide, water, and some other items. Traditional synthetic
\nchemists, on the other hand, have mostly been interested in the final compound,
\nwith safety, especially ‘downstream’ safety, taking a back seat. Another
\nimportant goal of green chemistry is sustainable chemical manufacture. Biological
\norganisms rely on renewable resources. Chemical manufacturers have mainly
\nrelied on petroleum. As we learn more about the importance of chemical hazards
\nand limited resources, we need chemists to redesign chemical technology from
\ntop to bottom, and new technologies require new scientific discoveries.<\/p>\n

4. Develop a reliable molecule-based<\/i> theory of chemical and physical
\nphenomena<\/b>, especially molecular structure-property relationships. As you study organic
\nchemistry, you will find that chemists (especially chemistry teachers<\/i>) are more than ready to provide
\nexplanations for all sorts of chemical phenomena. However, if you dig just a
\nlittle deeper, you will find that many of our standard explanations turn out to
\nbe “Just So” stories, a comfortable way to fit some facts together, and are neither
\ncomplete nor even true. We rely on very “immature” theories to explain chemical
\nand physical phenomena.<\/p>\n

One easy way to
\nhighlight these weaknesses is to ask a chemist to design a substance with a
\nparticular desired property or that can perform a particular function. You might, say, ask a chemist to design a
\nbiodegradable organic compound that conducts electricity as efficiently as
\ncopper. The chemist will tell you that is impossible, i.e., it isn’t impossible
\nthat such a compound exists, it is simply impossible to design one given our
\ncurrent understanding. OK, let’s aim for something simpler. How about a solid organic
\ncompound that melts at 88 o<\/sup>C and is blue. That’s “impossible” too.
\nClearly we don’t really understand how the world works. We know that a molecule’s
\nstructure determines its properties, but we usually can’t predict what those
\nproperties will be. To put it another way, we don’t have a sophisticated or
\ndeep grasp of structure-property or structure-function relationships.<\/p>\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(initial version published Aug 20, 2008)Once you get used to them, you may find that the problems in your textbook have a game-like quality. If you make the right mental "moves", you will nearly always solve the problem. It's a…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":55,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-101","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.reed.edu\/chem201202\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.reed.edu\/chem201202\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.reed.edu\/chem201202\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.reed.edu\/chem201202\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/55"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.reed.edu\/chem201202\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=101"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.reed.edu\/chem201202\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5194,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.reed.edu\/chem201202\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101\/revisions\/5194"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.reed.edu\/chem201202\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=101"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.reed.edu\/chem201202\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=101"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.reed.edu\/chem201202\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=101"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}