• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

What makes a great chemist?

EmeraldAtomiser

EmeraldAtomiser

Established member
Donator
I've been wondering, in terms of chemical synthesis, what makes the difference between a decent and a great chemist?
I know Breaking Bad is fiction, but clearly there are people out there who are much more skilled in performing reactions than others, but surely if you have all the equipment and a detailed description of all the steps, it's just like following a recipe, no? Being precise and accurate is the most important thing, not knowing the mechanism behind each step?
Obviously, understanding what is going on in each step allows you to put a clear picture together in your brain as to exactly what is happening, but what else does the knowledge and understanding give you that might help improve your results, as opposed to following instructions very carefully? What makes certain reactions so difficult to achieve good results from, even for experienced chemists?
 
Well I think you could compare it with a Michelin star chef and an average home cook, both can make an beef Wellington and both will end up being food, the Michelin chef however has intricate knowledge to influence all parameters of the dish and can repeatably produce an excellent result. The home cook can follow an recipe and then hope for the best, unless they follow the recipe of the Michelin chef and have the equipment they use, many things will inevitably influence their results. In short it’s about being knowledgeable and skilled and knowing how troubleshoot and timing your process.
 
Interesting analogy. Slightly different being a cook though, as you're constantly testing and evaluating as you go, checking everything with your palate, and adjusting accordingly. With the chemistry there is no opportunity for that. Obviously, experience would allow observation to inform your actions, but there doesn't seem quite the same opportunity for altering things as you go.
Large scale pharmaceutical operations must be pretty much automated (correct me if I'm wrong), and they must be getting extremely good results, so is the expert chemist really more involved in the discovery and refinement of the process, as opposed to the actual practical work?
 
Haha yeah the tasting would be limited I guess, I think that there is a big difference between proces chemistry engineers who design processes for standard compounds and chemists that work in R&D or as researchers at an university, I my experience both do chemistry but in a different arena. In the lab at university here the professors are not always are the most qualified to perform the reactions, what is mostly happening is that they do the theory and thinking and then go to the lab lead to figure out what and how and planning. Also in that context there is allot of testing during the reaction to monitor the reaction, I guess that would qualify as tasting for chemist.
 
That's a good, thought-provoking question!

Instead of tasting, and as Varallo alludes, one has the various analytical and spectrographic methods. TLC might be used for monitoring the progress of certain reactions, for example.

There are several aspects to organic synthesis - you might do it to create new compounds entirely, or analogues of known compounds for various reasons, or to develop new reactions which will be of utility in other syntheses, whether of extant or novel compounds. Then there's the optimisation process for synthesising a compound of utility, say, a pharmaceutical agent. Choosing accessible precursors and reagents can be important in the process of bringing a new compound to market. Besides the actual chemistry there's having a general understanding of practical techniques, as well as the social skills required to work with others who can provide assistance with techniques beyond, or at a higher level than, one's own capabilities. So, a great chemist will also be underpinned by some great lab technicians.

Exactly how this all comes together depends on the field(s) the chemist is working in, so there are a lot of ways of looking at the question once you get down to the detail.

I can't say, personally, what makes a great chemist, being a pretty rubbish one myself. At the time this was largely a social skills problem, along with undiagnosed neurodiversity issues.
 
It seems to me that there can be two questions here: what makes a great chemist and what makes a great technician. In the Breaking Bad example, initially it’s unclear if Walter is a great chemist. (But, the later story-line about the founding their company indicates that he is.) What is clear is that he’s a great technician who’s able to produce a product superior to anyone else. The great chemistry and principles he uses could have come from external sources. What I found interesting is Jesse’s rise from someone adding cayenne in his process into someone able to duplicate Walters work.

For me the question is how not to be a bad technician. E.g., can I remember to close the petcock on the separatory funnel.
 
Thanks for the replies. That makes a lot of sense. I suppose it's the lab tec skills that are more important to me. I can understand some chemistry, having studied A level and part of my degree was with the chemists, but it has never clicked into place in my head. Was never interested enough to spend the time and really apply myself.
A teacher friend of mine said it took him a few years of teaching A-Level chemistry for the whole syllabus to fall into place in his head, so he could see how the field comes together, so to speak, and he had actually worked in a lab for years before getting into the classroom.
Like Norm says, Jessie ended up simply being able to copy Walt's technique and produce his product, and I'm pretty sure he still had nothing but a rudimentary understanding of the chemistry.
I used to love doing practical work, but basically just because I enjoyed playing with dangerous chemicals, I was never thinking about what was happening in each stage of the reaction. Bad student and not great teaching.
Still remember one practical where myself and my lab partner had set up chlorine gas production in the fume cupboard (can't remember why we were producing it). Potassium permanganate in the side-arm conical flask, conc HCL in the dropping funnel, everything ready, then my partner reaches in (to do something) and knocks the whole show over. Flask breaks, conc acid pouring out of the cupboard, the entire surface of which was bubbling with chlorine! Fun times.
 
What a groovy thread, thanks @EmeraldAtomiser and all who offered their insight. As someone who just recently began studying chemistry it’s really interesting to ponder what it is to master this craft. It also seems to me that an affinity to problem solving is crucial to being a great chemist - as problems will inevitably arise when experimenting. Being able to think outside of the box and put understanding of the theory into practice to problem solve is such a valuable skill.

Chemistry is really beautiful! And a profound skill that can connect us to the beyond.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom