Immaterial Science

As often happens while looking for one thing, I stumble across something (mostly) unrelated. Today’s edition is the Journal of Immaterial Science. Totally satirical, dorky, funny, it has something for (almost) every chemist. The articles are short, and many of them are appropriately labeled Miscommunications or Illiterature Reviews! I skimmed a few of them and here are some of my highlights.

 

Since Halloween was yesterday, I decided to read a “Proposed Detection of Ghosts with MS-SPOOKY”. The abstract: “You could shoot ghosts on a mass spec. Maybe.” The article begins by arguing that “to prove the existence of ghosts is a key value to modern society”. There’s no doubt that many folks are interested in this topic. I’ve even blogged about it (several times). And if Mary Roach has written about the afterlife, you can bet there’s interest. The SPOOKY stands for “spectral presence origin-omics kinetic yield”. Unfortunately there’s no scientific detail in the article about how SPOOKY works except for a vacuum inlet to suck up the ghosts and trap them.

 

Given my interests in astrobiology, I particularly enjoyed reading “Triphenylphosphine Oxide in the Clouds of Venus”. Various programs and telescopes have been given names and acronyms. The ALMA array is rechristened “Alien Life Molestation Array”. Haha! The article criticizes the ballyhoo about phosphine detection by discussing the problem of bias, specifically the “Cox bias, whereby the larger the telescope one uses for a study the more important it is to accompany the paper with a press-release that may be talked about by science communicators in the media.” The overall detection project is dubbed “Mission Imphossible”! When the P-31 NMR data shows a strong signal, it is assigned to “that most pernicious of impurities: triphenylphosphine oxide”. (Actual chemistry: it’s difficult to remove in a mixture via chromatography.) And if there’s some data you cannot explain, it must be attributed to Aliens!

 

As a theoretical chemist who often reads philosophy of science and history of science, I was amused by “Toward a Science of Dumbassery: A Theoretical Perspective”. There’s a tongue-in-cheek paragraph about philosophy of science that actually has some critical substance (of course, it’s also funny). Then the authors get down to business by trying to define dumbassery and notes that it seems to be observed where its opposite (intelligence) can be found. Cognitive neuroscience and genetics get thrown into the mix. Did I mention one of the authors is “Francis Crock… a cell biologist with an underwhelming grasp on statistics”?

 

There are lots of chemical structures and reaction schemes in many of the articles. Synthetic chemists might enjoy “Applications of Cursed Chemistry in the Total Synthesis of Impracticatechol”. Medicinal chemists might want to know about “Chemical Frenetics: Party Drugs as Organocatalysts” which provides tweetable reaction yields (see table below). And there are a bunch of pictures in “Extreme Titrations” showing folks doing titrations in extreme environments. There’s poetry and song (“an ode to triphenylphosphine oxide”). And that’s just the first edition.

 

Volume 2 was recently released. I enjoyed “The Flatom: A Novel Atomic Theory Inspired by a Flat Earth”. “The Lost Molecules of M.C. Escher” includes fractaldehydes, not to mention there’s an article on “A Total Synthesis of Tesseractane”. And John Dalton’s alter ego is profiled in “Don Jalton – A Forgotten Pioneer of Atomic Theory”. Structural biochemists will nod knowingly with “X-Ray Crystallomancy: A Practical Guide” – it’s particularly good with figures including ancient symbols and star clusters. And much, much more. It can be a black hole. I only allowed myself an hour of skimming through the articles after which I’m determined not to look at any more details. [TRIGGER Warning:] It’s a black hole of chemical proportions.