One of the books I have been reading this summer is titled This Idea Must Die.
It is hard to kill an idea and this book really isn't about doing so. Rather, it is a collection of short essays from 175 leading thinkers around the world on what ideas in their discipline are no longer relevant, are holding up progress or are simply wrong.
For example, several of the authors write about putting string theory aside. They contend string theory cannot be falsified nor does it meet the requirements of a good scientific theory by being open to experimental testing.
On the other hand, there are authors who argue our notion of a four-dimensional universe is the idea that should go the way of the dodo. We should open ourselves to 10- or even 11-dimensional space.
It is an interesting book with an interesting premise and interesting authors.
However, few of the articles explicitly address chemistry so I thought I would add my own. The idea that I think must die is the concept of organic.
By this, I do not mean to get rid of organic chemistry. This is the sub-discipline of chemistry which addresses the millions of possible compounds built up carbon skeletons with functional groups such as alcohols, amines, acids and carbonyl groups.
Organic chemistry is a well and truly respected discipline. It has provided enlightenment about many of the molecules of nature. It has been the bane of many a medical school student. And it has provided us with an understanding of life.
But this is where I run into problems with organic. First of all, organic is not synonymous with living. The concept of vitalism has been laid to rest.
The idea that there is something inherently different between the inanimate and animate world - that inorganic and organic are two separate magisterial - just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
The idea was shattered by Friedrich Wohler in 1828. He was attempting to synthesize ammonium cyanate from silver cyanide and ammonium chloride. However, instead of generating a salt, the product of the reaction was urea - a well-known and characterized organic compound. At that point, it was believed only living organisms could produce urea.
Indeed, in the early 1800s, urea was viewed as one of the hallmark molecules of living organisms and yet here was a clearly inorganic synthesis generating the compound from inorganic salts. The boundary between living and non-living chemistry dissolved quickly in scientific circles.
However, at an even more fundamental level, it should be obvious to anyone who has studied plants that living and non-living are constructs of the human intelligence and not of the physical world. Carbon dioxide and its aqueous cousin carbonate are integral to the generation of all plant life. Carbon dioxide is also the end product of respiration.
Animals cannot live in an atmosphere with too much carbon dioxide. We suffocate. On the other hand, plants take in carbon dioxide to generate sugars and oxygen through photosynthesis. Animals take in oxygen - an inorganic chemical compound - along with sugar to generate energy while breathing out carbon dioxide and water, both of which are inorganic species.
Further, fertilizers are compounds of potassium, nitrogen - in the form of ammonia and nitrates - and phosphates. Plants require iron, copper, magnesium and boron to survive. Yes, as chemistry has evolved over the past almost 200 years, we have come to realize the full range of elements necessary for living organisms.
So, the term organic is no longer solely the domain of living organisms. Its connection to the now discredited vitalism leaves the term in limbo at best.
Used to indicate organic chemistry, it is an acceptable term. These are the class of chemical compounds predominantly composed of carbon and hydrogen frameworks.
However, to use organic as a way of signifying the substance has some form of connection to living things - to use organic as short hand for the concept of vitalism - is an idea which must die.
Worst of all is the notion that because something is organic, it must be better or healthier for you is just patently absurd.
The most dangerous compounds we know about are botulinum toxin and certain snake venoms. Both are the product of living creatures and both can kill at a microgram level. To put that in perspective, 0.000007 grams of botulinum toxin will kill a healthy 70 kilogram male.
These are deadly.
On the other hand there are many compounds, including something as simple as table salt, which if used correctly and in moderation are essential for our well-being. Table salt is definitely not organic.
So my nomination is that the term organic - that there is some inherent good to products generated from living organisms - is an idea that must die.
