What to do with all that CO2

Paper: Efficient and Clean Photoreduction of CO2 to CO by Enzyme-Modified TiO2 Nanoparticles Using Visible Light (Woolerton et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc. (2010))

Regardless of how much of all the global cooling warming climate change is hype, human error or falsification… it’s possible to measure current levels of CO₂ fairly easily and accurately. And even though the concentration is still quite low (100s of parts per million), there’s still a lot of it around. From a “green” perspective, it’d be nice to find some way to get rid of it – or at least turn it into something that won’t destroy the earth. From an economic perspective, it’s a waste product and also a vast untapped resource. One way to tap it would be to convert it into more useful chemicals – like methanol, which can be burned, or carbon monoxide, which is a delightfully versatile starting point for all kinds of things.

Problem: CO₂ is pretty stable, and converting it into anything else (like CO) requires a net addition of energy. (We get energy out of the reaction 2 CO + O2 → 2 CO₂, therefore we have to put energy IN to run that in reverse.) So most attempts to “do something useful” with all that CO₂ have been doomed from the start.

Now there’s a report of a nice way to use sunlight to supply the energy. If you shine sunlight on nanoparticles of titanium dioxide (common as dirt), some of the energy gets absorbed. A lot more gets absorbed if you add in a little bit of the right ruthenium compound, which grabs the photons and transfers their energy (as electrons) into the titanium dioxide particle. That’s not useful all by itself; the electrons can’t get from the titanium dioxide into the CO₂ in the right way.

What’s new is that they added an enzyme taken from a bacteria, that converts CO₂ into CO: CODH I. The enzyme needs a source of electrons; if the enzyme is close to the TiO₂ surface, it can pick up electrons that way. So: Add sunlight, the ruthenium grabs photons and feeds them to TiO₂ as electrons, the enzyme grabs the electrons and stuffs them into CO₂, producing CO.

Not a lot of CO output, yet; they report an output of just 250 µmol per gram of TiO₂ particles, per hour. (That’s 7 mg CO produced; it would have to run nonstop for 2 weeks to fill up a 2 L soda bottle with CO.) They suggest that the electron transfer from the particles to the enzyme is the problem; they just mixed things loosely in solution, and not much of the enzyme is going to be close enough to pick up electrons the right way. There’s ways to lock the enzyme down on the surface, so this could probably be accelerated significantly.

They even did this directly with sunlight, showing that it really is “solar powered” conversion of a waste product back into very useful starting material.

“An interest in protecting these babies”

Original story is at CNN

Basically, the state governments have ordered that newborns be tested for certain genetic diseases. Their DNA is stored “indefinitely” in many states. The reasons given are so that the tests can be repeated later on (presumably as more accurate diagnostics become available), and to identify remains.

Art Caplan, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, says he understands why states don’t first ask permission to screen babies for genetic diseases. “It’s paternalistic, but the state has an overriding interest in protecting these babies,” he says.

However, he added that storage of DNA for long periods of time is a different matter.

“I don’t see any reason to do that kind of storage,” Caplan says. “If it’s anonymous, then I don’t care. I don’t have an issue with that. But if you keep names attached to those samples, that makes me nervous.”

The state. Has an “overriding interest”. Right. “Overriding” as in “it overrides the parents’ interest” to protect their child, potentially FROM the state?

Not to worry, though. ‘Cause someone from the government says that you can trust the government to handle this responsibly. Brad Therrell: “If my children’s DNA were in one of these state labs, I wouldn’t be worried a bit.” (So either he doesn’t have kids, or their DNA is excluded?) Article: “The specimens don’t always stay in the state labs. They’re often given to outside researchers — sometimes with the baby’s name attached.”

Apparently the screening is paid for by insurance companies, who then get told the results of any positive test.

I realize that CNN thrives on stirring up controversy… but it’s interesting. The state is so determined to “protect” children from potentially having a genetic disease – no, they’re interested in screening for those. The state is so determined to “protect” children by having another way to identify them in case of tragedy – so long as the tragedy is AFTER they’re born.

The genetic testing “started in the 1960s”. Now “states mandate that newborns be tested for anywhere between 28 and 54 different conditions, and the DNA samples are stored in state labs for anywhere from three months to indefinitely, depending on the state.” List by state, apparently in New Mexico it’s only 3 months, at least now.

Yes, I see the use in having large data sets on the frequency of specific genetic markers. Yes, I see the use in retaining the original DNA to repeat tests, either to test the stored DNA or to validate a new test method. The concern here is the government decree that this information will be collected, without the parents even knowing about it in most cases, and without any mechanism in place for that information to be removed from the database.

Another big argument in favor of avoiding health insurance, and hospitals. Why give “them” any more access to my kids than I can help?

“Overriding interest”… not.

Job Hunting

I’m on the job market again – have been for a good while, actually, although I haven’t said much about it. (My current position has been scheduled to end for 18 months now, so it’s not that I’m sneakily searching for greener pastures.)

Had an interview the other week, at a school which I will not name. It was a very interesting experience; I met some very nice hospitable people, I think they’d make very good colleagues. Haven’t heard back from them yet, but that’s okay.

There was one conversation which provoked some thought – mostly about a difference between that school and the one I’m at now. A difference between that school and all the others I’ve ever been at, actually, even back to undergrad days. A department (or a relationship, or a company, I guess) is either getting better, or treading water, or getting worse. Most of the people I talked to at School X gave the impression that it was sort of treading water – they’d suffered a disappointment recently, but they might’ve found a way to work around it. Guarded optimism for a brighter future – not tomorrow, no, but maybe in the next couple years?

One person I talked to emphasized job security. And dental benefits. Now, “job security” is a great thing to have. I guess it’s part of what’s attracted me to being a professor, but it’s not a big part, at least by that name. I like the idea of being able to plan a project that’ll take a year or more to finish. I like the idea of being able to refine how I teach a class over several years. That, to me, is a lot more than just “job security”; it’s more under “academic freedom”. “Job security” suggests that “they” can’t possibly let you go – either because you know where the bodies are buried or because they can’t afford to replace you right now, as much as they’d like to. (Kind of a negative view of it, I know, but it’s always sounded sort of smug: “Yeah, I could do better than I’m doing now, but why should I? I’ve got job security. Nyah nyah.”)

I thought it was a very interesting way to try to convince a job candidate to remain interested. Actually, I only thought of it that way in hindsight; at the time, I very nearly walked out of that person’s office. Fortunately that was the only person that I talked to who gave any hint of that sort of “they can’t fire US” attitude; everyone else was much more “why would they want to fire us? we’re awesome and we keep getting better”. So – if anyone from that school were reading this – yes, I’m still interested. Call me. Please?

Interesting question in terms of self-promotion and job hunting: How do you communicate that you’re looking for a “we’re awesome and keep getting better” sort of place? Are there departments (companies?) that would honestly volunteer that they’re NOT awesome? that they’re treading water or circling the drain? Or does one need to read between the lines on that? Which lines? enrollment statistics or attitudes?

Unit Analysis Game!

One of the concepts that the freshmen need to pick up very early on is referred to sometimes as “unit analysis” (AKA “factor analysis” or “dimensional analysis”). It’s basically the idea that (1) a lot of chemistry “word problems” are really conversions from one unit to another, or involve conversions; and (2) the units themselves tell you how to work the problem.

For instance, they had trouble with this problem: Neon atoms are arranged in a line 2.54 miles long. There are 5.76 x 10^13 atoms in the line. What is the diameter of the neon atom, in Angstrom units (10^-10 m)?

(Yes, that wording is completely unrealistic, but that’s not the point. This avoids the density, solid structure, and mole concepts that would show up in a problem like “a cube of iron weighs 1.24 g, calculate the diameter of an iron atom”.)

It’s an easy problem, but about half of them had some trouble with it, and about 10% of the class is still pretty shaky on it. Basically, convert miles -> meters -> angstrom, and then divide by the number of atoms in the line. See? Unit conversions; there’s no “chemistry” needed to solve the problem. (Some of them picked it up when I pointed out that it’s exactly the same as “how big is a golf ball if 10 golf balls form a line one foot long?”)

The “unit analysis” part of it is based on multiplying the original ratio (2.54 miles / 5.76 x 10^13 atoms) by different constant ratios of units: 1.6 km = 1 mile, so multiply the original ratio by (1.6 km / 1 mile) gives you the same ratio expressed in km / atom. Then change that to meters / atom (using 1000 m / 1 km), finally to angstrom / atom. Without including the units, students can get confused: do I multiply or divide by 1.6? With the units, they can’t do this: If you multiply the wrong way: 2.54 miles * 1 mile / 1.6 km = mile^2 / km, which isn’t a useful unit.

It’s pretty trivial at this stage, and there’s other ways to get it right – as some of them point out. But later on, they can use the same approach with stoichiometric ratios to work out all kinds of problems that do involve chemistry.

Here’s the game part: Showing it on paper or on the blackboard doesn’t enforce the idea of fixed ratios that we can string together at will to reach the right answer. I want a set of plastic tiles that have the different unit ratios on them (e.g., a tile showing “1.609 km / 1 mile”, on the reverse it shows “0.6213 mile / 1 km”), that they can actually move around. (Tiles that just say “mile” and “km” separately wouldn’t work.) Also “prefix conversions”, like “1 / 1000 milli-”.

Oh, and I need them cheaply enough to be able to get about a hundred copies.

Found a procedure for “DIY shrinky dinks” – polystyrene sheet can be heated to shrink down to about a 1/3 of its original width/length, and 5-6 times its original thickness. Smallparts.com sells high impact PS sheet that should shrink up to about the right size… Too bad the hobby shop in town is closed on Sundays!

Small consolation

Guilt-Free Grade Assignments

One of the hardest things to do, I’ve found, is figure out someone’s final grade.

Putting “D-” on one lab report is relatively painless… double check to make sure that yeah, it really is that bad, but it’s only one grade out of many.

Entering “C” into the official records takes a little more work. It’s particularly hard for the ones that I know have tried consistently all semester. “C” could mean that the student will have to repeat the class. It could prompt them to change majors or careers. It could affect their scholarship or financial aid. Then again, turning all “D”s into “C”s and all “C”s into “B”s isn’t doing them any favors, either, because it overestimates how prepared/apt they are for the next class. So I have to check my sympathetic wish to nudge them up, just a hair, they’ve worked so hard for that “C” and is there really THAT much difference between their work and that of the lower-end “C” students?

Ignoring the names, though, it’s an interesting problem in classification. I’ve got 119 samples, who’ve been tested in various ways with the intention of sorting them into 5 categories, which just happen to have alphabetic labels. Now all I have to do is work out the best way to classify the samples, starting with some pre-determined borders for the categories. There are two types of measurements available, which can be broadly described as measuring independent understanding (“exam” type measurements) and as measuring consistent work to gain understanding (which includes homework, lab work, and attendance grades). The easiest of these to work with are the averaged exam grades and the work-over-time-except-lab. Plotting the exam average against the other average doesn’t take into account the lab grade, however. Should that go into the exam average (because it includes some lab quizzes) or into the other average (because it’s mostly work over time)? Let’s average the lab into both grades. (Losing some orthogonality, but I don’t feel like shoving the data into Matlab for PCA.)

This actually works out pretty nicely:

Classification of 119 samples using two parameters

There’s a fairly clear line between most of the categories. Which means…. that it’s quite easy to draw straight lines between those categories as grade boundaries. This also agrees well with the grades based on the overall average (collapsing the two dimensions here into one dimension, so no surprise)… but it makes it a little easier to show a student that “yeah, you really do fall right into the middle of the ___ pack, so better luck next semester”.

Now to finish up grading the senior class… this is much harder to do with 7 samples than with 119!

“…and we’re here to help you.”

Supposedly the reason why we needed “health care reform” was that “health care” was costing too much, thanks to those greedy doctors (you know – the ones determined to provide treatment) and health insurance companies.

Now that it’s down to the wire, though, it turns out that the “reform” we’re at risk of getting isn’t actually going to help with that -

“We are going to be expanding coverage to some 30 million Americans. And, of course, that’s going to up the level of health-care spending. You can’t do that and not spend more,” Romer said.

See, when people complained about some people having to pay more money to insure lots of people who don’t have insurance now (including millions who could get it, but don’t want it!)… those people were dismissed as crackpots rabidly foaming about the specter of socialism.

Instead, we’re going to “expand coverage to some 30 million Americans” which will “up the level of health-care spending”. That’s totally different from “suck money out of ‘the rich’ to insure ‘the poor’”. This is just going to “up the level of spending”.

Don’t worry, there’s some good news too:

“[E]ven though we’re going to up the level of spending in the short run, by the time you get out five or 10 years, you have a dramatic impact on where we are relative to where we might otherwise have been.”

This must be from the same government office that counts jobs “created or saved”. But “dramatic impact”, that must be good – right? We’ll be okay in 10 years (once His Obamacy is out of office)? Not so fast.

the White House sought Monday to bolster the case for reform, arguing that the Senate bill would cut the soaring rate of growth in health costs by 1 percent a year over the long haul, reducing federal budget deficits and producing thousands of dollars in benefits for the average family.

So the “soaring rate of growth in health costs” will continue to soar, just not quite so high, theoretically, as it will otherwise. It all boils down to:

“Look, people: We know that you don’t like this idea – that you’ve been demonstrating against this idea all year long. In fact, we don’t dare face the people we were picked to represent. But we know better than you do, based on these murky projections that Obama’s mouthpiece advisors have brought us, and so we’re going to do it to you anyway. It’ll help you, really it will, although we’ve made sure that our own families won’t be affected by this. And you’ll only have the government’s word for it that this ’solution’ is working, just as you only had our word for it that there was a ‘problem’ in the first place. Oh, and by the way – many of us aren’t going to be seeking re-election next year anyway.”

(Quotes all from the Washington Post.)

Beating the Job-Bushes, Again

… And the first one seems to have something rustling around inside it! Let’s ‘ave a look, shall we?

… Crikey! It’s a big’un, too! Got an interview next Thursday up the road at Big Central State. This is still a primarily-undergraduate institution, but twice the size and with at least twice as much research activity. Might be a better fit for some of my grandioser research ideas, although I’m not otherwise fond of the size increase.

On the other hand, an on-campus interview is a fairly good sign, particularly in December, since their “deadline” (i.e., application review date) was only a few weeks ago. Now if I can just prod my erstwhile postdoc boss into sending out his letter of recommendation in time…

Awesome.

The never-before seen security tapes obtained by Burge provide a rare glimpse into the inner working of the climate research hive and its amazing guano production. In this sequence, we see one group of researchers entering the hive each carrying a datum they have retrieved from a distant climate measuring station. This is the cause of much excitement among their colleagues, who buzz around in a grant-writing frenzy.

Infrared heat map film of highly agitated researchers

But there’s a problem: as the worker researchers attempt to store each raw datum into the neat honeycomb hockey stick structure provided by the hive’s Alpha Grantwriter, they discover that few will fit. The infrared shows them growing cool with fear. This signals the climate researcher’s instinctive behavior to begin viciously beating, rolling and normalizing the data into submission. According to Dr. Nigel V.H. Oldham, professor emeritus at Oxford University’s Centre for Metascience, this violent data dance is what makes climate researchers unique among breeds of scientists.

This and much more in “The Secret Life of Climate Researchers” at
Iowahawk.

Jobs!

No, no offers, yet, but at least I’ve applied myself. Still waiting on my former postdoc boss to acknowledge my continuing existence – three emails, 2 phone calls, and 2 weeks are not enough to reach him, apparently. Well, at least he’s aware that I’m looking and that he may be contacted by search committees wondering why he’s not sent a letter yet.

“Wait, job hunting? You sound so happy there!” Yes, but the department is ending the temporary/non-tenure-track position that I’m in now, replacing it (finally) with a tenure-track version. So I’d drop the “temporary” from “temporary assistant professor”. I’ve been encouraged – nay, pestered and begged! – to apply, so I think that’s a good sign. (The secretary actually chased me down to remind me to get my application in. She’s wonderful.) I’m not sure whether they specifically had me in mind when writing the ad for the position, but it’s about as good a fit to me as could possibly be expected. (Actually the one at MTSU might be slightly better, since they mention wanting someone with interest in environmental *and* materials, while the one here only mentions environmental stuff.)

Of course, it’s not an automatic yes from them, and it’s not an automatic yes from me, either. I’ve been quite impressed with most of the graduate students I’ve seen here – but I’m not sure about getting all of my research plans to fit here, either. Possibly a bigger school would be better that way? But I really like this department’s focus on research as education as well as research for its own sake. So I’m keeping an open mind on it all – it won’t even matter if I don’t get an interview, and if I do, then I can bring up those concerns then.