January 8, 2007

Volume 85, Number 01

pp. 4-6

Corn-to-ethanol process

A letter from George R. Lester cites "well-reviewed studies" by David Pimentel and by Ted Patzak that show a negative energy balance in the corn-to-ethanol process (C&EN, Oct. 23, 2006, page 4).

Two more recent publications are worth mentioning. The first, by Alexander Farrell et al., analyzed six "high-profile studies," including those by Pimentel and Patzak, for "errors, inconsistencies, and outdated information" (Science 2006, 311, 506). The corrected data led to the same conclusion that "making ethanol from corn uses less petroleum than making gasoline."

The second paper, by Jason Hill et al., analyzed energy balances, including studies of environmental, soil, and land-use issues (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006, 103, 11206). It is the 25% energy gain from corn to ethanol cited in this paper that Lester warns us about. To the authors, even this positive balance is moot, since ultimately, cellulose from energy crops such as switch grass, not cornstarch, will serve as the raw material for ethanol-producing biorefineries. Energy balance and environmental impact are much more favorable with cellulose from energy crops grown specifically for this purpose.

Finally, I find Lester's broad-brush dismissal of calculations from the Department of Energy and the Department of Agriculture lacking in careful discrimination. We do need to evaluate sources of information for possible built-in bias, but we must do the hard work to separate the good from the bad.

Gerald J. Mantell
Allentown, Pa.

Cure for writer's block

"Teaching Writing to Undergrads" describes efforts to improve the writing abilities of chemists in training and working scientists as a group (C&EN, Oct. 30, 2006, page 45). Early in my career, I found the chore of writing up my successful experiments exceeded the efforts required to carry them out. However, I had the good fortune to marry an English major who introduced me to "The Elements of Style" by Strunk and White. This small, inexpensive book was the answer to all of my writing problems and has been so for my many years working as a chemist. I recommend it to all beginners. (Parenthetically, I also recommend that they marry English majors.)

Bernard F. Erlanger
New York City

Biofuel nomenclature

The nomenclature of biodiesel fuels will become more complicated as new technologies are developed to use biological feedstocks for the development of alternative fuels. Some complications are already beginning to arise (Inform 2007, 17, 620).

There already appears to be a need to establish standards. First, anyone who uses the term "diesel" in any name of any fuel should be required to provide evidence that the fuel passes all of the industry testing standards for each category of diesel fuel implied. This requirement will only alleviate part of the safety issues involved here.

There is another nomenclature problem. Many in the growing industrial fuel community may assume that a particular technology and general process are being used, which may not be the case. Confusion and miscommunication are likely to grow if the issues are not resolved. This problem should be referred to committees of the Industrial Oil Division of the American Oil Chemists' Society; the Nomenclature, Terminology & Symbols Committee of the American Chemical Society; and to the International Union of Pure & Applied Chemistry. The nomenclature issue is already international. The faster the nomenclature issues are solved and standards for the new fuels are adopted, the faster commerce can be accelerated across international industry platforms to use these new feedstocks in ways few can imagine today.

Marvin B. DeTar
Wickliffe, Ohio

Patent Attorneys

The article about patent lawyers was interesting, but it failed to identify the major difference among patent lawyers and agents, those in private practice and those in corporate or government practice (C&EN, Nov. 6, 2006, page 56). The article explored differences between the number of men and women in the field, between prosecution of patent applications and litigation, between big firms and small firms, between degree levels in science, and between chemistry and other sciences.

I have had a satisfying 50-year career in patents, beginning in 1956 as a patent examiner just after receiving a bachelor's degree in chemistry. After two years as a law clerk in the predecessor patent court to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, I became the first law clerk from the court of appeals to practice in California.

I like private practice because it is invention-driven, insulated from policy decisions of a corporate or government employer. Some enlightened employers give researchers free rein to explore any subject matter, but most have strategic decisions to pursue. In private practice, a lawyer or agent is less likely to have any guidance or direction on where the technology might go and may be freer to focus on the differences over the prior art, rather than where the invention fits into the larger picture contemplated by the employer. Basically, those in private practice-what is called the "free" profession-tend to be more independent, having little concern for corporate strategy or viewpoints. This is not to say that one is better than the other, but simply to say that they are different.

John P. Sutton
San Francisco

Intelligent Science

"Judging Science" brought out an emotional aspect of intelligent design (C&EN, Nov. 27, 2006, page 32). Darwin, like Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, believed in pangenesis, so no one is a true Darwinist today. As a child, I was taught neo-Darwinism in public school. We've now moved on to post-neo-Darwinism, and who knows what will be next. I've lost count of how many theories of cosmogony I've learned.

A growing number of scientists, including full professors at secular universities, are using math or science to challenge the theories of origins found in biology, geology, and astronomy. Yet these theories are still taught as fact to students of all ages.

Too many believers in special creation are undereducated. As long as many religious groups replace, instead of complement, academic excellence with evangelistic zeal, this will continue. But true scientists who point to intelligent design or to special creation are marginalized. Challenging evolution scientifically in a public school can expose the school to legal action, so the classroom presentation is as politically determined as it is scientifically. Some of the "facts" supporting evolution have turned out to be false or even fraudulent, but they continue to be taught as truth.

There are religious and philosophical differences between intelligent design and other theories of age and origins, such as evolution, the Big Bang theory, and uniformitarianism. But the scientific evidence for every theory should be laid out for everyone to see. We laugh when we read that some people refused to look through Galileo's telescope lest they be deceived, then we go to the courts to prevent a full disclosure of the evidence needed for the debate.

Howard M. Merken
Chattanooga, Tenn.

We all feel good when someone agrees with our belief or faith. It is human nature. I suppose it affirms and makes us feel better about ourselves. We may, though, not want to hear what others with different beliefs say in counterpoint. We may close our ears to what they say and may even call it railing. Although affirmation by others of what we believe may make us feel good, it doesn't necessarily affirm truth. I would raise the question as to whether disrespectful consideration of the findings and investigations of others who hold different views from our own regarding issues of faith or theories that have not been proven is good science.

Roger Bokeny
Oak Island, N.C.

Darwin's theory of biological evolution published in 1859 didn't include or consider Gregor Mendel's fundamentals of heredity. Later adherents have proposed hopeful improvements in the theory and even attempted to retitle it. It is misrepresented as scientific reality without the backing of natural or experimental evidence.

The Fossil Record of the past 4 billion years does not support it nor does any evidence of the molecular or other levels. Geologists who favor it have failed to reveal any substantiating proof. Berkeley University law professor Phillip E. Johnson's "Darwin on Trial" (Regnery, 1991) is a devastating indictment of Darwinism, which is speculation without evidence: pseudoscience.

Intelligent design concludes that the complexity of biological and other elements, i.e., their design, is impossible to come by through helter-skelter randomness as proposed by Darwinism. Our digestive system converts a morsel of bread into muscle energy. Our eyes translate light waves into vision. How can randomness produce the myriad of complex and integrated human elements and characteristics?

Akbar F. Brinsmade
Biloxi, Miss.

The brilliant Christian author C. S. Lewis repeatedly reminded his readers of the great religious disputes of the past—burning issues in their day (the language is not, alas, mere metaphor)—which later were forgotten as utterly meaningless. It is a safe prediction that today's intelligent design "controversy" will soon go the way of its predecessors, to be remembered only by connoisseurs of intellectual oddities.

Erwin Klingsberg
Washington, D.C.

Parasitic Plants

Christina Simokat's letter defended the value of parasitic plants: "Much like wolves and bears, when parasitic plants are in their native environment, they play an essential role ... to increase and preserve diversity" (C&EN, Nov. 27, 2006, page 2). However, Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium douglasii Engelm.) reduces forest timber survival and woodlot property values from southern British Columbia to central Mexico by deforming, stunting, and killing valuable timber resources.

Affected trees eventually form one or more "witches' brooms" that can weigh several hundred pounds, distorting the trees and predisposing them to attack by disease, insects, and periods of drought or other adverse conditions. Severely infested Douglas-fir stands typically have many trees with stunted growth, witches' brooms, dying and dead tops, and dead trees. While parasitic plants like Cuscuta may constitute an "important keystone species" in healthy Southern California chaparral and watershed habitats, mistletoe species are the bane of healthy forests and woodlots in many parts of the country. Montana conifers that have the potential to produce massive centurions are all too often reduced to malformed skeletons and fire tinder.

John Thorne
Somers, Mont.

Supporting Chemical Reseach

Is it a coincidence? In C&EN's interview with the new director of the National Science Foundation's Chemistry Division, Luis Echegoyan, bemoans "the downward budgetary trend in NSF's support for chemistry (C&EN, Nov. 27, 2006, page 21). A few pages later, a report on an NSF-funded analysis of research publications reveals that only 7.5% of U.S. science and engineering papers deal with chemistry compared to 20% from East Asia (mainly China) and 27% from India. The relative contribution of U.S. chemists to the scientific literature is also declining.

Connect the dots, anyone? Developing countries seem to understand something that the U.S. does not; namely, the best way to prepare for the future is by supporting chemical research. Good luck, Dr. Echegoyen!

Alan Shusterman
Portland, Ore.

Polonium Poisoning

The putative polonium poisoning of former Soviet spy Alexander Litvinenko has aroused great interest in the radiation protection community (C&EN, Dec.4, 2006, page 15).

As a long-etired radiation protection person I dusted off my International Committee on Radiological Protection (ICRP) manuals to do a few calculations and look up some data. Although, as frequently stated, the polonium-210 half-life is 138 days; its effective half-life in the body is 25 days when ingested. The target organs are the kidneys and spleen, not bone marrow, as suggested in the article. The article also states that 0.1 µg is the equivalent of about 3 quadrillion atoms of Po-210. This is correct, but it must be compared with the total number of atoms in a typical human body, which I estimate to be roughly 4E27 (4 followed by 27zeroes).

Another factor to be considered is the fraction of the Po-210 that actually remains in the whole body after ingestion. From ICRP data, this fraction is 0.06. Most of the Po-210 is presumably rapidly eliminated in urine and feces. From another calculation, 0.1µg of Po-210 has a radioactivity of 4,500 µCi compared with Po-210's permissible body burden of 0.4 µCi. This means dthe body can tolerate a constant level 0.4 µCi for 50 years without increased cancer risk. The next question is how long would it take for an ingested 4,500 µCi of Po-210 to be reduced in the body to 0.4 µCi? The answer to this problem is 150 days. What this all means as to the acute radiation hazard of Po-210 I do not know.

However, if ever I suspect that someone has just given me a dose of po-210, I would immediately take a large swallow of Pepto-Bismol. Since bismuth and polonium have similar chemical reactions, most of any ingested polonium in the gut would rapidly be replaced by the bismuth in Pepto-Bismol, and the Po-210 would be harmlessly eliminated. Historically, we remember that Madame Curie used bismuth as a carrier for polonium.

Norman FineSewell, N.J.

Missing People

About a year ago I wrote criticizing C&EN's "People" section because the list of people in industry deserving recognition came entirely from sales and management. The section did not recognize any technical accomplishments by industrial chemists. The Nov. 27, 2006, C&EN section (page 40) again fails to recognize the accomplishments of any technical person in industry.

However, my criticism was misplaced. I realize that this section relies entirely on submissions from industry to the person who compiles the list. Thus it is industry itself that seems to put more value on the promotion of an individual to management or sales and never, as far as I can tell, does any company see fit to laud a technical achievement by one of its chemists.

Given this seeming lack of respect for the technical accomplishments of practicing chemists in industry by industry, we need to adjust the kind of advice we give to prospective students, many of whom choose careers in industry. So when we "sell" such a chemistry career, we need to be honest about what the student will be signing up for. I have used the analogy to being an offensive lineman in U.S. football. If you do really well, one or two of your teammates and coaches will know about it and your family sitting in stands will take note, but the cheers and glory will go to the ball carrier or, in the industrial chemistry setting, the product and sales managers.

If you don't need a pat on the back or awards and recognition (the way the academic chemists haul them in), a career in chemistry in industry is a great job. It is rewarding, very interesting, and satisfying. But, if it is recognition you want and respect from top management, hone your sales and marketing skills.

Larry N. Lewis
Scotia, N.Y.

Chemical & Engineering News

ISSN 0009-2347

Copyright © 2008 American Chemical Society