GFP has the natural property of absorbing invisible ultraviolet light and producing green light – a discovery made in 1961 by Osamu Shimomura (who also shared the 2008 Nobel Award with Roger Tsien and Chalfie).

Chalfie’s “aha” moment, in 1989 at a department seminar, was a recognition that the light-producing properties of GFP could be harnessed as a sort of molecular flashlight.

It works like this: the gene for GFP is inserted alongside a gene, let’s say, that encodes a protein involved in the formation of the neural system. GFP “tags” the protein of interest, allowing it to be followed in real time inside living cells, with UV light as the trigger. It’s an incredibly powerful technique for revealing how and when genes are turned on, and how proteins move inside the cell.

In Chalfie’s case, he uses the tiny soil worm C. elegans as a model for human neuron development. C. elegans and the GFP technique have proven invaluable for studies in areas as diverse as neuroscience, organ development, and cancer.

Below is a nice 10-minute video from BBC News, telling the GFP story. It includes a few clips of live, green worms.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

For the technically inclined, video of Chalfie’s Nobel acceptance speech is here. The 2009 Nobel awards will be given in early October.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

There are 103 named elements on my old periodic table. Elements 93-103, the transuranic elements (a.k.a. elements higher than uranium, #92) had all been discovered and were named on the periodic table. Elements 104-106 had been discovered before I took high school chemistry, although they would not be named until 1997. I remember my high school chemistry teacher telling us that scientists would discover heavier and heavier elements until, one day, element #112 would be synthesized. She told us that the synthesis of element #112 would complete what is known as a d-shell of electrons and, with the fully completed shell, the new atom might have interesting properties and be more stable than other transuranic elements.

Element #112 WAS discovered in February of 1996 by a team of German researchers at the GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research. The German team created Element #112 by firing accelerated zinc-70 nuclei (atomic mass = 30) at a target made of lead-208 nuclei (atomic mass = 82) in a heavy ion accelerator. 82 + 30 = 112 and hence element #112 was born.

So why have I thought of element #112 recently? Because it was just named this past month! The name? Copernicium. The element was named after Nicolaus Copernicus (1473 – 1543), the first astronomer to formulate a comprehensive heliocentric theory of the universe. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) will officially endorse the element’s name in about six months. So, thirteen years after it was discovered, element #112 has had its existence independently verified and been given a name.

Why did it take thirteen years? The experiment that created it is very hard to duplicate and so, to date, only about 75 atoms of the material have ever been synthesized and characterized. It is fun to speculate what properties it would have if enough were made at one time. It sits right below mercury on the periodic table so maybe it too would be a shiny, metallic liquid. Whatever its macroscopic properties would be, its name is copernicium and it completes the 4th d-shell of electrons in the periodic table. To me, that’s exciting!

Elements 113-118 have been discovered and await confirmation and naming. They complete the 6th p-shell of electrons on the periodic table. Will element #119 be discovered soon and when it is, by whom? I’ll be keeping track, but I will still never throw out my old, beat up periodic table from my high school days.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]
I used to live in Minnesota, not very far from the State Capitol building.  There was a time when I could have (and would have) tried to meet with Congresswoman Bachmann to talk with her about her ideas and help her learn some real science.   Since I no longer live in Minnesota, I decided to write her the following letter:

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann
107 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC        20515

June 24, 2009

Dear Congresswoman Bachmann,
After having listened to, read, and seen you express your views on how, because carbon dioxide “is a natural byproduct of nature,” the “threat of manmade global warming doesn’t make any sense” I felt the need to write you and help you understand something about carbon dioxide.  I am sure that you have, by now, learned that you were wrong when, on April 22nd from the floor of the House of Representatives, you made the claim that CO2 made up 3% of the earth’s atmosphere.  I am also sure that by now you have been informed by your staff that you were again wrong when, during the same speech, you made the claim that “carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas.”  I am sure that someone on your staff has pointed out to you that in 1986 a limnic eruption of Lake Nyos in Cameroon released CO2 from the lake’s surface and asphyxiated all living organisms within a fifteen mile radius.  But the real reason I am writing you is to point out why many Americans, including your constituents, intuitively understand that carbon dioxide is dangerous.
I was recently watching a movie that Ron Howard made called Apollo 13.  If you have not seen the movie, I would highly recommend renting it.  It is a fantastic movie and was critically acclaimed for its accurate depiction of the actual events that took place in April of 1970 during the Apollo 13 mission.  Jim Lovell, John “Jack” Swigert, and Fred Haise almost died on that mission because of a rise in concentrations of CO2 gas in the Lunar Module.  There is a great scene in the movie where mission control and the astronauts have to figure out how to jury-rig the Command Module’s CO2 scrubbers so that they could be used in the Lunar Module.  If they had not been able to figure out how to decrease the CO2 levels in the Lunar Module, all three astronauts would have died before they could even attempt to re-enter the earth’s orbit.  There are countless millions of people in America who have seen this movie and understand that it was based on actual events.  There are millions more who remember the actual events taking place.  When all of these millions and millions of people hear you say that “carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas” they have to decide to either believe you or to believe the Apollo 13 astronauts.  I think that your comments on the topic of carbon dioxide being harmless help paint a picture of you being out of touch with scientific reality as well as popular culture.  I will leave it to you and your staff to decide if the people who saw Apollo 13 would agree or disagree with me.  In case you are not aware of it, Apollo 13 took in more than $350,000,000 at the box office and has been available to rent for more than a decade.  There are an awful lot of people out there whom you would have to convince that Apollo 13 was not based on real events.  You could try, but I think you could do a tremendous amount to repair your public image if you would simply admit your mistakes and stop trying to convince people of something they already know not to be true.  Carbon dioxide is not harmless; it can be a lethal gas.  If you can’t or won’t tell the truth about CO2, I must assume that you can’t or won’t tell the truth about other issues.  I encourage you to watch Apollo 13 and learn what the rest of us know to be true.

Kind regards,
Dr. Owen Priest
Department of Chemistry

In my letter, I explained to Congresswoman Bachmann that she is wrong when she claims that “carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas.”  One of the examples I cited was the 1986 limnic eruption of Lake Nyos in Cameroon.  During that event, carbon dioxide was released from the lake’s surface and asphyxiated all living organisms within a fifteen mile radius.  That hardly makes carbon dioxide a harmless gas.  And what about the Apollo 13 mission?

A few weeks ago I watched Apollo 13.  It was actually my third viewing of the movie.  I think it is a fantastic movie!  When I sat down to write the letter to Congresswoman Bachmann there was a scene in Apollo 13 that I could not get out of my head.  In the scene, Jim Lovell, John “Jack” Swigert, and Fred Haise realize that the concentration of CO2 gas in the Lunar Module is increasing.  Mission control determines that the three astronauts will die from CO2 poisoning before they ever get a chance to attempt re-entering the earth’s orbit.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

Mission control and the astronauts figure out how to jury-rig the Command Module’s CO2 scrubbers so that they could be used in the Lunar Module.  There are countless millions of people in America who have seen this movie and understand that it was based on actual events.  There are millions more who remember the actual events taking place.  I am, therefore, astounded that there are people in America who take Congresswoman Bachmann seriously when she attempts to speak knowledgeably on scientific matters.  Whether or not you have a background in science, if you’ve seen Apollo 13 you know that CO2 is NOT a harmless gas.  What levels would be dangerous in our environment?  Are increasing levels do to human activity?  Are the increasing levels part of a natural cycle?  These are all questions that can be debated and studied.  But to simply say that carbon dioxide “is a natural byproduct of nature,” and “is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas” smacks of partisan politics and demonstrates an astounding lack of scientific literacy.

Michelle Bachmann should watch Apollo 13 and brush up on some basic science before attempting to speak about it authoritatively.  If you haven’t seen Apollo 13, or if it has been awhile, I would encourage you to watch it.  And if Congresswoman Bachmann responds to my letter, I’ll let you know what she says.

This new molecule also resembled the geodesic dome, a structure popularized by an American architect from Chicago name Richard Buckminster Fuller. Fuller was not the original inventor of the geodesic dome, but he developed and popularized the idea in the 1940s, eventually receiving a U.S. patent for it.  Fuller was interested in the geodesicdome because it was extremely strong for its weight and because a sphere has the largest volume with the least surface area.  He envisioned using the geodesic dome in all types of structures: houses, cars, museums, etc.  C60 was given the common name buckminsterfullerene (buckyball for short) in honor of Buckminster Fuller’s work.

Since the discovery of buckyballs, a number of different forms of similar carbon clusters have been isolated and explored.  It is now known that these types of carbon clusters can occur as nanotubes, polymers, onion-type structures, and linked-dimers to name a few.  This family of carbon clusters is now referred to as “fullerenes.”  The study of fullerenes has burgeoned into a whole new field of chemistry.

So why did I recently remember Sir Harold’s magic trick with a buckyball and the field of fullerenes?  Because I discovered an exhibit at Chicago’s Museum of Contemporary Art called Buckminster Fuller: Starting with the Universe. This is the first major US exhibition of Fuller’s work in 35 years.  What’s really cool about the exhibit is that you can go to the MCA’s website, download mp3 files, load them onto your own mp3 player, and bring it with you to the exhibit so that you can get a free audio tour of the exhibit.  What’s even cooler is that the audio tour is narrated by Jaime Snyder, Buckminster’s grandson!  The exhibit has been so popular that is was recently extended until July 5th.  So, if you are interested in seeing where the science of fullerenes intersects with the art of Buckminster Fuller, head to the MCA and check it out.