From: Michael B. Smith (smith$##$nucleus.chem.uconn.edu)
Date: Wed Feb 16 2000 - 13:29:14 EST
I can't let this one pass by.
The idea that aspects of organic synthesis can be automated is clearly
correct. That the automation will make it purely mechanical is an
engineering philosophy that ignores three main points.
1. It assumes that all synthetic problems will be solved by known
reactions. The history of synthesis shows that most molecules present
unique challenges that defy programming based on known chemistry. Hence,
someone must invent a new solution around the problem. This may mean
backing up in the synthetic plan and try a new route; taking a completely
different synthetic route; or, inventing a new reaction or process to solve
the problem. The first two may be programmable - the third one is not.
i..e. There is no such thing as a "standard unit" or a set of
standard units in organic chemistry that are universally applicable.
2. It assumes we know enough about organic chemistry to anticipate every
problem a priori. Anyone familiar with synthetic literature knows that
this is not the case. Will it be in the future? Maybe! Even if we can
anticipate every problem, I have serious doubts that all synthesis will be
mechanical in the way they are executed.
3. Scale up, the EPA, and the FDA.
We all know that just because something works on milligram scale,
obtaining useful quantities is a major problem, and scale-up problems are
not just engineering problems. It is not an accident that pharmaceutical
companies place a lot of responsibility (and money) in the hands of process
chemists who must often re-invent the synthesis to make it commercially
useful. If we factor in the FDA requirement of purity, particularly for
enantiopurity, diastereopurity, and metal content, these are not readily
programmable. Likewise, concerns with the environment place further
restrictions that are not always easily anticipated or solved a priori.
Apart from this, there is the issue of why we do synthesis. Clearly,
from an industrial viewpoint, we want the compound. From an academic
standpoint, the goal of synthesis is to TRAIN scientists as much as it is
to obtain the target. There is also the important goal of inventing new
reactions and trying to understand organic chemistry at a higher level,
which is shared by academic and industrial labs. Training scientists is
not a software issue, it is an intellectual issue as well as one of
learning the lab skills required.
My final parting shot is simply that I have heard of the demise of
synthetic organic chemistry for years. Synthetic chemistry is always on
the decline-right to the point where people run out of material and do not
know how to make it (or how to program things to get it).
Cheers!
Professor Michael B. Smith
Department of Chemistry
University of Connecticut
55 N. Eagleville Road, U-60
Storrs, Connecticut USA 06269-3060
phone: 860-486-2881
fax: 860-486-2981
email: smith$##$nucleus.chem.uconn.edu
homepage: http://orgchem.chem.uconn.edu/home/mbs-home.html
organic chemistry server:
http://orgchem.chem.uconn.edu/colleges/orgchem.html
__________________
ORGLIST - Organic Chemistry Mailing List
Website and Archive: http://www.orglist.net/
List coordinator: Joao Aires de Sousa (jas$##$mail.fct.unl.pt)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 19 2003 - 12:15:34 EDT