Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Chemistry => Topic started by: chiralSPO on 28/02/2018 18:00:32
-
This may be just an issue of semantics, but it has come up again in conversation recently, and I wanted to see what others think.
I think most would agree that when a chemist who isolates a previously undescribed natural product from a sea slug, this is an act of discovery. The compound already existed, and has been produced (or harvested) and used by these creatures for likely several millennia, at least.
But what about when a chemist performs a chemical reaction in the laboratory, creating a previously undescribed synthetic compound. For the most compelling argument in favor of "invention," let us say that the structure of the compound was specifically chosen (designed) for a particular purpose, and that this compound was then intentionally made. Furthermore the molecule is sufficiently complex and distinct from naturally occurring motifs that it is highly unlikely that the compound had ever existed before in the observable universe (it can be calculated that for even modestly sized molecules made from only a handful of elements, there are so many possible stable structures that there isn't enough matter in the observable universe to make a single molecule of each--not by several orders of magnitude!)
If this most stringent definition is not enough to claim "invention," why not?
And if it is, does it cease to be an invention if the compound had been intentionally made before? What about just naturally produced somehow? Or if it was not actually the intended product (if a new compound is made by accident, does it still count?)
-
What if another species elsewhere has already made said compound. In which case it does already exist somewhere in the universe.
-
If you have discovered the steps required to produce the compound then is it an invention? In the right circumstances and with the same steps the compound would occur without intervention. This is not true of say an internal combustion engine.
-
I agree with Jeff sort of.
If the compound could never exist in nature then you have invented it. If it does occur, or could occur, in nature then I would say you have invented the process.
On the other hand, take periodic table that predicts existence of certain artificial elements, does that prediction mean you can only discover them??
-
What if another species elsewhere has already made said compound. In which case it does already exist somewhere in the universe.
This is something I often consider when preparing a "novel" compound. I find it very pleasing that for compounds not previously made by humans (not the same as not previously disclosed by humans), the following statement must be true: "Either I am the first to behold this compound, or there must be intelligent life elsewhere." Either way, I am happy.
If you have discovered the steps required to produce the compound then is it an invention? In the right circumstances and with the same steps the compound would occur without intervention. This is not true of say an internal combustion engine.
I am not so sure that an internal combustion engine is less likely to occur by random accident than a synthetic compound such as 3rd generation Grubbs' catalyst (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grubbs%27_catalyst). The probability of any of the multiple reactions required to produce such a structure occurring is quite small, let alone all of them, in the correct order, at the right intervals and proportions. Especially given the wide variety of temperatures, pressures, and chemical environments involved--it would be just as ridiculous for a hot spring to distill out a pure organophosphine ligand directly into a dry-ice-cooled and highly alkaline solution of ruthenium as it would for a meteorite impact to produce a twisted metal working 4-cylinder engine.
-
If you want to be pedantic about it ... :P
-
my job title is Pedant :P
-
Regardless of whether a chemical exists somewhere else in the universe, I suggest that:
- If you find it in nature, you have discovered it
- If you find it by decoding DNA, you have discovered it
- If you go through a series of known steps to design and test a new compound, you have engineered it
- If you just generate thousands of random chemicals until you find one that works, you have created the right conditions to discover it
Invention implies a degree of novelty - at least to the extent that no-one else has previously described this product/process/application to the Patent Office (in that country).
But all of these are valuable approaches to developing important new compounds (eg a new antibiotic).
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants*
All Chemistry (and indeed, most areas of science, engineering, literature and law) builds on the work of others, and so is not entirely original.
*This is possibly a veiled reference to the short stature of one of Newton's rivals, Robert Hooke.
-
This has been a matter of serious debate between the European and American patent offices. A European patent gives priority to invention only, and must include words to the effect of "novel means of ....." doing something. Thus you can patent the means of making a molecule, or the use of a molecule (novel or known) to achieve a novel effect such as curing a fit of the vapors.
A US patent can be more widely drawn to include a discovery, hence the genome sequence responsible for cystic fibrosis was considered patentable as a discovered "means by which...." even though the beast itself and its actions were entirely natural and commonplace.
For this reason, European medical researchers are required to disclose to participants any connection with any US-funded investigation: you may inadvertently be giving away valuable intellectual or physical property (including your own genome) to which you have no further claim.
-
Lock all the American law makers in a room full of crocodiles and then patent the idea.
-
On the other hand, take periodic table that predicts existence of certain artificial elements, does that prediction mean you can only discover them??
You can't discover something that doesn't exist. Mathematics predicts that the Forth Bridge can exist, but Baker and Fowler are credited with inventing it.
-
On the other hand, take periodic table that predicts existence of certain artificial elements, does that prediction mean you can only discover them??
The (somewhat wobbly) theory of nuclear shells suggests that there might be an "island of stability" for elements somewhere around 114-130 protons.
- Discovering them would be an achievement
- Developing the techniques to produce them would be an even greater achievement - even in single-atom quantities
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability