Artificial Lives: On the Occult Origins of Chemistry and the Stuff of Life
thereader.mitpress.mit.edu
thereader.mitpress.mit.edu
https://bookshop.org/books/the-body-electric-electromagnetis...
Becker's lab was, for decades almost uniquely in the US, permitted to engage in research on effects of electromagnetic fields and currents on living systems.
I say "permitted" because it was career death to even mention it, most places. To this day, the official standards for exposure to E-M radiation admit possible effects only of heating, but Becker was able to profoundly alter growth and, crucially, regeneration patterns via sub-nanoamp electric currents.
I have no idea how or why the stricture was applied elsewhere, but Becker's free hand appears to have been a product of his employment by the US Veterans Administration, which would have liked for him to discover a way to regenerate veterans' and servicemen's severed limbs, so he did not depend on grants from the usual sources such as NSF and NIH, which must have kept a tight rein.
In 1987 I sneaked into a presentation at a conference in Szeged, Hungary, where an American biologist presented results of electromagnetically stimulating beetle larvae to grow 4x normal size. She remarked she had been unable to present such results at any US conference.
Their close mindedness terrifies me because they are increasingly relied on in decision making -- like vaccines, for example. I thought science is centered around an admission of infinite ignorance? At any moment we can be made aware of new information that completely changes our understanding of the world because the truth is not hardwired into us. They are more and more looking like a clergy caste for the post-God state.
Nice work. Chemistry really is the most neglected of the popular-science topics. Most bookstores will have a large collection of pop-sci biology texts, and a large collection of pop-sci physics texts, and in between... much less, if anything. Complex materials, condensed matter, quantum properties of molecules, all are fundamentally important concepts in both nature and industry, and deserve a lot more attention.
this is an interesting comment that carries some truth. May I ask where you are coming from to make to make these statements?
You are definitely right that one needs a larger, expensive capex based platform to make a dent with chemistry.
What combination of physical chemistry and *Umph/some other process would you look into?
What sort of science vertical do you specialise in? Any links to your startup?
> What combination of physical chemistry and Umph/some other process would you look into?
I can't speak for chemistry but pre-COVID, "cloud laboratories" and "bioreactors-as-as-service" were really hot in the biotech field. I suppose something similar can be done for chemistry.
Lego mindstorms style kits for flow chemistry could also be interesting.
As for teaching chemistry, I am not sure how the process can be improved. I suppose focusing more on conceptual understanding rather than intuition would be helpful. The amount of knowledge that is needed as a foundation before you can do anything useful in organic chemistry is magnitudes greater than physical. If it can be googled in under a minute, don't expect students to memorize it. Physical is much more straightforward, learn the periodic table and be good at applied math and you are set. You can train chemical engineers as easily as web developers in a bootcamp (given the right STEM background). Good organic chemists are much trickier.
Here's a Google Arts & Culture online exhibit: https://artsandculture.google.com/story/0QIyP7XkB-WZLA
Some articles and podcasts: https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/early-science-a...
Some digitized manuscripts and such: https://digital.sciencehistory.org/focus/alchemy
That sounds awesome. You guys hiring?