Developments in science are extremely important to the advancement of our global society. Read the following articles and give any pros and/or cons you see from this advancement in chemistry.
The basis of the research was to combine new technology with a unique, rapid-reaction approach that could allow chemists to explore unheard-of and potentially important chemical combinations without devoting years to the pursuit, explained senior researcher and co-author David MacMillan, the James S. McDonnell Distinguished University Professor of Chemistry at Princeton and chair of the department. MacMillan worked with lead author Andrew McNally, a research associate in MacMillan's lab, and Princeton graduate student and co-author Christopher Prier.
"This is a very different way of approaching how we come up with valuable chemical reactions," MacMillan said.
"Our process is designed specifically for serendipity to occur. The molecules that should be combined are those for which the result is unknown," he said. "In our lab, we used this technique to make new findings in a much more routine and rapid fashion, and we show that if you have enough events involved, serendipity won't be rare. In fact, you can enable it to happen on almost a daily basis."
The MacMillan lab's technique does more than just expedite the discovery process -- the researchers actually developed a unique framework for creating new materials or finding better ways of producing existing ones, said Stephen Buchwald, a professor of chemistry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
"This is a particularly brilliant approach," said Buchwald, who is familiar with the work but had no role in it.
"Usually, one takes molecules that one thinks will react and tries to figure out the best way to achieve that reaction," he said. "This team took molecules for which there was no obvious reaction between them and looked for 'accidental' reactivity. This approach could be useful for any field that requires new types of matter or a more efficient means of synthesizing known compounds."
Illustrating that principle, the Princeton researchers combined two molecules with no history of reacting to generate the type of chemical functionality found in eight of the world's top 100 pharmaceuticals, MacMillan said. The reaction involved a nitrogen-based molecule known as an amine that has a hydrogen and carbon pair, and a circle of atoms stabilized by their bonds known as an aromatic ring.
The result was a carbon-nitrogen molecule with an aromatic ring, a building block of many amine-based pharmaceuticals, explained MacMillan. This class of drugs mimics natural amine molecules in the body and includes medications such as antihistamines, decongestants and antidepressants. In drug development, chemists "tweak" organic molecules to enhance their ability to bind with and disrupt enzymes in a biological system, which is how pharmaceuticals basically operate, MacMillan said. A molecule with an aromatic ring has increased reactivity and makes the tweaking process much easier, he said, but attaching the aromatic ring is a process in itself that typically involves two to three weeks of successive chemical reactions.
The reaction MacMillan and his team found provides a quick way around that.
"We quickly realized that any pharmaceutical research chemist could immediately take these very simple components and, via a reaction no one had known about, start assembling molecules with an adjacent aromatic ring rapidly," MacMillan said.
"Instead of having to construct these important molecules circuitously using lots of different chemistry over a period of days if not weeks, we can now do it immediately in the space of one chemical reaction in one day."
Buchwald said that the rapid production of this molecule is as surprising as it is significant.
"The way these types of molecules -- alpha aryl amines -- were produced in this project is highly efficient, and no person could truthfully say that they would have predicted this reaction," Buchwald said. "This group was able to take a reaction that no one knew was possible and make it practical and useful in a very short time. This really speaks to the power of their overall method."
MacMillan conceived of accelerated serendipity after reflecting on his doctoral work at the University of California-Irvine during the 1990s. His work there hinged on two unforeseen yet important reactions that occurred in the span of six years, he said. When envisioning the project reported in Science, MacMillan calculated that if, in a single day, he ran the equivalent of one reaction per day for three years -- nearly 1,100 reactions -- the odds favored a new discovery, he said.
The Princeton team began running reactions once a day using a high-throughput, automated reaction accelerator in Princeton's Merck Center for Catalysis, combining on a one-to-one ratio molecules with no reported affect on each other.
Central to the process is a technique developed in MacMillan's lab and reported in Science in 2008 to synthesize chemical reactions using a low-power light source, such as a household light bulb. Known as photoredox catalysis, the reaction takes place when inorganic catalysts absorb light particles from the light source then pass an electron onto the organic molecules, which creates, or synthesizes, a new compound.
For the latest work, MacMillan and his team carried out this process on the molecules before each reaction cycle. Because the use of photoredox catalysts in organic-compound synthesis is relatively new -- it has been typically used by chemists and in industry for processes such as energy storage and hydrogen production -- it has not been as thoroughly explored as the more common method of using catalysts derived from metals such as nickel, gold and copper, MacMillan said. Thus, he said, elements with no history of reacting with each other could possibly produce results under this different approach.
"If one wanted to find new reactions, it would have to be done in a completely new area of chemistry research where the chances of finding something completely unknown are probably higher than continuing in an area that has been studied for the past 50 years," MacMillan said.
The Princeton researchers produced numerous new reactions, but "new" does not necessarily equal interesting or important, MacMillan said. They analyzed and experimented with each new reaction for its potential application, a process that revealed the nitrogen-carbon molecule with the aromatic ring.
An important feature of the Princeton researchers' molecule -- like any important discovery -- is that its application extends beyond the material itself, MacMillan said. He and his colleagues have begun mining the very process that created the molecule for indications that other novel reactions can be brought about.
"If we found this was one really valuable reaction, we wondered what others exist that we just don't know about," MacMillan said.
"Another very valuable aspect of the molecule we created is that once we understood how it happened, it set us up to design other completely new reactions based upon our understanding of what happened initially," he said. "Now, we're applying similar techniques broadly, finding new reactions continually and determining which ones are important.
"To us that really proved the point of why you want serendipitous findings," MacMillan said. "They present new knowledge, and based upon that new knowledge you can invent."
The research was published Nov. 25 in Science and was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health, and gifts from Merck, Amgen, Abbott and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
New Technique Puts Chemistry Breakthroughs On the Fast Track
ScienceDaily (Nov. 28, 2011) — Scientists can now take that "a-ha" moment to go with a method Princeton University researchers developed -- and successfully tested -- to speed up the chances of an unexpected yet groundbreaking chemical discovery.
The researchers report this month in the journal Science a technique to accomplish "accelerated serendipity" by using robotics to perform more than 1,000 chemical reactions a day with molecules never before combined. In a single day of trials, the Princeton researchers discovered a shortcut for producing pharmaceutical-like compounds that shaves weeks off the traditional process, the researchers report.The basis of the research was to combine new technology with a unique, rapid-reaction approach that could allow chemists to explore unheard-of and potentially important chemical combinations without devoting years to the pursuit, explained senior researcher and co-author David MacMillan, the James S. McDonnell Distinguished University Professor of Chemistry at Princeton and chair of the department. MacMillan worked with lead author Andrew McNally, a research associate in MacMillan's lab, and Princeton graduate student and co-author Christopher Prier.
"This is a very different way of approaching how we come up with valuable chemical reactions," MacMillan said.
"Our process is designed specifically for serendipity to occur. The molecules that should be combined are those for which the result is unknown," he said. "In our lab, we used this technique to make new findings in a much more routine and rapid fashion, and we show that if you have enough events involved, serendipity won't be rare. In fact, you can enable it to happen on almost a daily basis."
The MacMillan lab's technique does more than just expedite the discovery process -- the researchers actually developed a unique framework for creating new materials or finding better ways of producing existing ones, said Stephen Buchwald, a professor of chemistry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
"This is a particularly brilliant approach," said Buchwald, who is familiar with the work but had no role in it.
"Usually, one takes molecules that one thinks will react and tries to figure out the best way to achieve that reaction," he said. "This team took molecules for which there was no obvious reaction between them and looked for 'accidental' reactivity. This approach could be useful for any field that requires new types of matter or a more efficient means of synthesizing known compounds."
Illustrating that principle, the Princeton researchers combined two molecules with no history of reacting to generate the type of chemical functionality found in eight of the world's top 100 pharmaceuticals, MacMillan said. The reaction involved a nitrogen-based molecule known as an amine that has a hydrogen and carbon pair, and a circle of atoms stabilized by their bonds known as an aromatic ring.
The result was a carbon-nitrogen molecule with an aromatic ring, a building block of many amine-based pharmaceuticals, explained MacMillan. This class of drugs mimics natural amine molecules in the body and includes medications such as antihistamines, decongestants and antidepressants. In drug development, chemists "tweak" organic molecules to enhance their ability to bind with and disrupt enzymes in a biological system, which is how pharmaceuticals basically operate, MacMillan said. A molecule with an aromatic ring has increased reactivity and makes the tweaking process much easier, he said, but attaching the aromatic ring is a process in itself that typically involves two to three weeks of successive chemical reactions.
The reaction MacMillan and his team found provides a quick way around that.
"We quickly realized that any pharmaceutical research chemist could immediately take these very simple components and, via a reaction no one had known about, start assembling molecules with an adjacent aromatic ring rapidly," MacMillan said.
"Instead of having to construct these important molecules circuitously using lots of different chemistry over a period of days if not weeks, we can now do it immediately in the space of one chemical reaction in one day."
Buchwald said that the rapid production of this molecule is as surprising as it is significant.
"The way these types of molecules -- alpha aryl amines -- were produced in this project is highly efficient, and no person could truthfully say that they would have predicted this reaction," Buchwald said. "This group was able to take a reaction that no one knew was possible and make it practical and useful in a very short time. This really speaks to the power of their overall method."
MacMillan conceived of accelerated serendipity after reflecting on his doctoral work at the University of California-Irvine during the 1990s. His work there hinged on two unforeseen yet important reactions that occurred in the span of six years, he said. When envisioning the project reported in Science, MacMillan calculated that if, in a single day, he ran the equivalent of one reaction per day for three years -- nearly 1,100 reactions -- the odds favored a new discovery, he said.
The Princeton team began running reactions once a day using a high-throughput, automated reaction accelerator in Princeton's Merck Center for Catalysis, combining on a one-to-one ratio molecules with no reported affect on each other.
Central to the process is a technique developed in MacMillan's lab and reported in Science in 2008 to synthesize chemical reactions using a low-power light source, such as a household light bulb. Known as photoredox catalysis, the reaction takes place when inorganic catalysts absorb light particles from the light source then pass an electron onto the organic molecules, which creates, or synthesizes, a new compound.
For the latest work, MacMillan and his team carried out this process on the molecules before each reaction cycle. Because the use of photoredox catalysts in organic-compound synthesis is relatively new -- it has been typically used by chemists and in industry for processes such as energy storage and hydrogen production -- it has not been as thoroughly explored as the more common method of using catalysts derived from metals such as nickel, gold and copper, MacMillan said. Thus, he said, elements with no history of reacting with each other could possibly produce results under this different approach.
"If one wanted to find new reactions, it would have to be done in a completely new area of chemistry research where the chances of finding something completely unknown are probably higher than continuing in an area that has been studied for the past 50 years," MacMillan said.
The Princeton researchers produced numerous new reactions, but "new" does not necessarily equal interesting or important, MacMillan said. They analyzed and experimented with each new reaction for its potential application, a process that revealed the nitrogen-carbon molecule with the aromatic ring.
An important feature of the Princeton researchers' molecule -- like any important discovery -- is that its application extends beyond the material itself, MacMillan said. He and his colleagues have begun mining the very process that created the molecule for indications that other novel reactions can be brought about.
"If we found this was one really valuable reaction, we wondered what others exist that we just don't know about," MacMillan said.
"Another very valuable aspect of the molecule we created is that once we understood how it happened, it set us up to design other completely new reactions based upon our understanding of what happened initially," he said. "Now, we're applying similar techniques broadly, finding new reactions continually and determining which ones are important.
"To us that really proved the point of why you want serendipitous findings," MacMillan said. "They present new knowledge, and based upon that new knowledge you can invent."
The research was published Nov. 25 in Science and was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health, and gifts from Merck, Amgen, Abbott and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
I don't really have a specific pro or con, just an over all opion. I personally would be to afraid to further in the expirement. Yes the unknown is fascinating, however by not know the reaction's of what I can get with this could potentially be very bad.
ReplyDeleteI'm a little in between the pro con. They both give really good specific details. The unknown is pretty interesting, but the reaction could become a huge explosion.
ReplyDeleteI think I'm more in the pro said but I do have con. For my pro the experiment could help out in medicine other other areas but my con is it could go wrong and hurt or even kill people.
ReplyDeleteI'm more on the pro side. The unknown is fascinating and could have the possibility to help mankind. Even if the experiment fails we still figure out something new. So with every step back we take an opposite and equal step forward.
ReplyDeleteI dont have a pro or con. It is an experiment. If it turns out good then good for us but if it doesn't then we will just stop. not a big deal.
ReplyDeleteA pro would be that making of new medicines and possibly cures will be much faster, which will save many live. A con would be that the robots will replace real people, so a lot of people may lose their jobs.
ReplyDeletePro: much faster cures.
ReplyDeleteCon: people loose their jobs.
I dont really have an opinion.
I guess that would be the pros and cons. :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA pro is that medicinal cures could be discovered much faster. However, a con is that robots should not replace humans. Before we know it robots could replace humans for many other jobs, causing many hard-working people to become unemployed. I'm all for progress and technological advancement, but not at the expense of hard-working people who spent years getting to where they are now. Putting too much repsonsibility in the hands of technology could easily backfire so developers should keep that in mind.
ReplyDeleteA pro would be that it is easier and safer for cures to be found. A con would be that the robot is taking away numerous peoples jobs. I honestly don not really have an opinion.
ReplyDeleteA con could be that they are studying chemical reactions that they possibly don't know about, and when you don't know or understand how a reaction it could be a disaster. Also that jobs would be lost due to robots. A pro could be that it would save time so that to find chemical discoveries it wont take months to find. My opinion is that it could enhance science discoveries so it could be beneficial.
ReplyDeleteA pro to this is that new chemical could potentially help cure diseases we have no cure now. It would shave off years off trying to combine the right chemicals and get a good reaction.
ReplyDeleteA con to this new discovery is that if the robotics were to make errors in the experiments, the scientists may not be able to discover the cause of the error. Doing it themselves helps them be able to know and correct errors. Another con is the robotics doing the combining might create a new dangerous, potentially lethal chemical or reaction that could kill.
A pro is it helps pharmacist provided people with the medicine they really need.
ReplyDeletebut a con is it can cause a huge loss in jobs! I personally support this scientific advancement as it can save thousands of live and help health in general.
I would rather be on the pro side. Development of new technology and progression in chemistry would benefit society. Also help come up with cures ti all the bad diseases out there.
ReplyDeleteA pro would be that its an advancement in technology and then a con would be that people will be come too dependent on this advancement. I don't really know what side I'd fall in.
ReplyDeleteThe Pro seems to be that they can use this process to possibly better how certain medications work, and it could possibly lead to advancements in curing illnesses and diseases. The con is I could see this process turing out bad if scientists calculate something wrong. They could end up producing something that could harm man kind. It's all a risk.
ReplyDeleteLike almost what everybody on here said, a pro would further improve the scientific discovery and progression in chemicals. A con would be that many will lose their jobs to machines. I have no opinion in this matter.
ReplyDeletePro, that scientist can use the process to make things better, have further improvement. Con, people would rely more on the advancement.
ReplyDeleteEconomic-wise, we really ought to keep as many people job-occupied as possible. As for the discoveries itself, it seems nice that they're dwelling into newer territory but I encourage them being more careful at it because something hasty like that could lead to harsh results.
ReplyDeletePro: It is much easier to find solutions to pharmaceutical issues. The article mentioned that the technology can perform chemical reactions that have never been done before, in one day, whereas normally it would take days, weeks, even months.
ReplyDeleteCon: Sometimes, when things are quicker and easier, people really depend on it. If the robotics make an error, Chemists that are so dependable on the technology may not notice, and would go along with an incorrect area.
This whole idea seems like a pro to me. Faster research could help develop cures a lot sooner and easier. It also seems a lot safer to do things with robots. One con of this would be the scientists not exactly doing everything hands on.
ReplyDeleteThis research will help develop cures much quicker and that could help many people. It will be a big improvement in medicine. However, if it was developed many people would loose their jobs who do this type of work.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the research, it is obvious that there are both pros AND cons to this situation. The positive side of this would be the great advancement in medicine that it would bring to people. The medicine would be developed much faster, which is beneficial to people. The bad side of this would be the amounts of jobs that would be lost by people! It isn't impossible for the robots to make mistakes, and having them replace humans with this job is not a good idea.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the article, there are both pros and cons in this situation. As everyone had already said, the advancement in medicine will be much faster which will help the medical field improve greatly. Although there are pros, the cons would affect the economy in a big way. Many people will lose their jobs and being replaced by robots. This will affect many lives and result a high percentage of unemployment.
ReplyDeleteWith this new technology people can be transferred from researching to actually experimenting. This helps out because there is a gain in new knowledge, scientists can synthesize much needed resources, and pharmaceuticals can be newly developed. I don't agree that many jobs will be lost but rather that they will just change or transfer to a new objective. I do, however, agree that random reactions could become potentially dangerous.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA pro is that with the ability to bond chemicals in a more timely fashion, many new discoveries could be made that influence our entire world. A con might be that the experiments would be difficult to duplicate without a human eye watching over the process as often as one would if a robot was involved.
ReplyDeleteA pro would be the ability to discover and create new medicines faster. But on the other hand, this is likely to cause many people to lose their jobs.
ReplyDeleteA pro would be new medicines faster but a con would be people losing their jobs to machines/robots like others have said before.
ReplyDeleteA pro is that we would find cures for illnesses much faster, and also we would fine new cures. On the other hand, the use of these robots will replace humans, and more humans will lose their jobs.
ReplyDeleteThis could lead to many more discoveries in the healthcare industry. That means more medicine and possibly even new cures for previously uncureable diseases, saving thousands of lives.
ReplyDeleteA pro for this would be that it could save the government money in paying the humans for the discoveries. It also can be effective because with things in research being discovered faster and could help our world out a lot. A con would be it could be replacing the humans and be putting people out of work.
ReplyDeleteThere are pros and cons to the situation, a pro would be that new machines would be created, and furthering technology. A con would be the replacement of actual people working to build the machines. There are risks with everything we do. In my opinion the pros outway the cons.
ReplyDeleteI'm indifferent o the pros and cons. They're are many different for both. Pro, there would be better more exact outcomes. Con, they would be done by machines. Either way you go, they're could be mistakes and prosperous strides.
ReplyDeleteA definite pro in this scientific breakthrough is the fact that many new medical discoveries can be achieved through the use of robotics. In the scientific field, it's becoming more common than not that robotics are needed to accomplish what humans physically can not.
ReplyDeleteA prominent con would in fact be the instance of robotics replacing tasks that humans can carry out. This would directly affect the availability of jobs in the science field.
I'm in between the pro and the con, really. There are a lot for both! A pro could be that new machines would be created. A con could be that people who do this would lose their jobs!
ReplyDeleteBut I don't personally have an opinion.
Pro: knowing what no one else knows and discovering ways to create medical savvy machines to help find new information.
ReplyDeleteCon: the jobs that used to be held by people will now be replaced by these machines.
There's both pros and cons. On the pro side it will help develope new things such as medicines. But on the con side it will most deffinatly eliminate jobs.
ReplyDeleteA con could be that none of the scientists know what they could create. However, the possibility of creating cures for previously uncureable diseases caught my attention. We could create cures not preventive vaccines. We won't know what works until we try. It's basic trial by error science.
ReplyDeletePro: helps pharmacists get medicine to people if they really need it.
ReplyDeleteCon: it can lose the country alot of jobs that are in the medicine field.
Opinion: I believe if it helps get medicine, then its worth it to save lifes.
This particular advancement in science definitely has both pros and cons. The pros would be that it would allow scientist to make new medical discoveries faster, and hopefully finding new cures and saving lives.
ReplyDeleteA con would be that it would greatly decrease the availability of jobs throughout the science field.
An advancement in science,such as this, can bring about many discussions. The discussions would be about the pros and cons that this advancement would bring about.
ReplyDeleteLike everyone else has already, a pro would be that it would be a great way to create new medicines in a quicker pace and it can lead to cures or more efficient ways to provide health care.
However, everything that has a pro must also have its con. A con would be that it could lead to the loss of jobs for those who are in medicine field/health field.
A pro to this research is that by furthering it and understanding , new research in the same field could be produced off what they are doing at princeton.
ReplyDeleteResponding to this article a pro of this medical advancement is that it would increase speed and increae the varietys of medicine made available to everyone. A con is that if technology can do this job then real people wouldn't be needed for these jobs which is a con
ReplyDelete