Chem General: Claydens a GOAT Edition

Organic is not a meme you fucking dip. Its the foundation for biochemistry/hydrocarbon polymers/pharmaceuticals/cleaning solutions/etc development and research. Delet yourself from existence

Total synthesis definitely not a meme. Organic chem is fun as hell, but I feel like the job prospects must kinda suck for industry. I think drug design could be pretty fun but that requires more than just organic chem knowledge.

Pure orgo degrees aren't worth it. Like anything in the sciences you either go into an applied degree or you're part of the top 5% of students who can compete for the academic positions in the pure fields.

desu if anything is a meme with virtually no real world applications or theoretical appeal beyond the memorization of boring rules, it's inorganic chemistry. it's funny in light of the comments in this thread that inorganic chem grad students can only get funding if they do work relating inorg to org, like organometallics. I think that's why they're so butthurt here.

MORONic acid

I like terpenic synthesis

This.
It's not easy, because orgo isn't an intuitive science like Gen chem. You need to have a clear understanding of functional groups to apply any kind of synthesis. But once you learn the root words, you become a lot more fluent with the language.

I prefer the polysix

Orgfag (not in total synthesis) here to discuss total synthesis:

>there are no hypotheses being tested and it's not curiosity driven
Total synthesis does contain legitimate hypotheses: if you treat a specific substance with certain reagents and catalysts, can you transform it into another specific substance? This hypothesis isn't unique to total synthesis, as every branch of synthetic chemistry (catalysis etc.) aims to answer this fundamental question. What distinguishes total synthesis from other synthetic fields, however, is that the leading lights in the field select molecules of tremendous biological importance, or those with complex architectures for which "canned" reaction conditions won't necessarily work.

That said: not all total syntheses push the barriers of synthetic possibility, and nothing is more tedious and miserable than reading through a "hammer and chisel" strategy where the target is made over an absurd number of steps which include an abundance of protection/deprotection schemes. Moreover, the net benefit to mankind is minor if after all of this effort you can only produce 10 mg of target compound. The most compelling total syntheses can be done through short sequences and produce reasonable quantities (>100 mg) of the target product. I think the field has struggled on the whole because not enough people want to be daring with syntheses, and perhaps don't have the "eye" for strategy that the current big shots have.

So what's the future of the field? I'd argue that with the advance of C-H functionalization methods, being able to access complex targets in a short amount of time will become a more fruitful endeavor because you can take the same intermediate through n steps and then derivatize it to m different products for a total of n+m reactions (rather than starting a new route for each of m molecules, making it m*n reactions). For now, though, the current field needs to become more robust.

What are some examples of applied degrees to do with organic chemistry? Forgive me, I know fuck all about higher education.

Ignore . The job market isn't paradise, but it's also not destitute: if you have a degree in chemistry with an emphasis on some sort of catalysis you'll be able to find work in pharma, general polymers, fragrances, flavorings, foods, etc. If you do total synthesis you'll probably be more likely to receive work in fields where you need to make decently-complex products (pharma, fragrances, flavorings) in a process setting.

>Total synthesis does contain legitimate hypotheses: if you treat a specific substance with certain reagents and catalysts, can you transform it into another specific substance?

That's worded as a question, not a hypothesis. And even if you fixed the wording, that's a lame ass "hypothesis". If that counts as a hypothesis, then I can call anything a science.
>If I mix the following ingredients and bake it, will I successfully make a cake???

I'm not disparaging the importance of total synthesis. My point is that it's not a science - it's engineering. A total synthetic chemist exercises the finest level of chemical problem solving. But they're more like "molecular engineers" than scientists. There is no time to stop and feed your curiosity in total synthesis. Curiosity only comes into play in the form of trying a reaction or strategy with unforeseeable outcomes and seeing if it works. That's just problem solving - you're trying to solve the problem of making the target.

An example of an organic chemist doing science would be someone doing mechanistic studies. Compare the curiosity in this question versus yours:
>Is the regioselectivity for this reaction due to sterics or stereoelectronics?

Total synthesis is extremely important, but it's not a science.

>And even if you fixed the wording, that's a lame ass "hypothesis".
>Total synthesis is extremely important, but it's not a science.

If anything, it's rigid empiricism makes it the only real science

solar panels baka

That is a hypothesis.

> Hypothesis: Based on theoretical proposals about the structure of this molecule and the potential interactions I've outlined it undergoing when combined with this reagent in this fashion, the following reaction, obeying these theoretical guidelines, should occur.

If the reaction does not occur, the theoretical guidelines that postulated it should are incorrect, and need to be revised.

This is science at it's most raw, not "molecular engineering".

incorrect for that case*

>That's worded as a question, not a hypothesis. And even if you fixed the wording, that's a lame ass "hypothesis". If that counts as a hypothesis, then I can call anything a science.
I mean, a hypothesis is fundamentally a question of "what if". If you won't accept it unless someone puts it up in fancier language, go with the wording that put up.

>Compare the curiosity in this question versus yours: [question here]
That's a subjective view of interesting, not gonna lie. I tend to agree more with you that new reactivity (and it's underlying mechanism) is more interesting than making big molecules, but I'm not about to dismiss the other side as "not science" because I don't really care about it. If you've ever met anybody doing a total synthesis, there's a *lot* of empirical work to make some of the reactions work. If you want a really frank look into that world, go read the Baran lab's blog and you can see how many routes/methods failed for no obvious reason. If it were 100% going to work (like baking a cake) I'd probably agree with you, but the targets of interest aren't as simple as cakes.

So I'm in a basic as fuck chemistry class right now, and I actually find a lot of it pretty interesting.

You guys definitely know far more about chemistry than I do, so tell me- what are your favorite chemical compounds, elements, and reactions?

dude weed lmao

boron makes some really cool clusters

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boranes

also inorganic benzene

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borazine

>t-too busy memorizing 5700 reaction mechanisms that i will forget 2 weeks after the course is over
>organic chem is hard

I was reading a novel a while ago and it mentioned cyclized benylisoquinoline. Any idea what this is? I'm pretty sure its a plastic or something but im a physicsfriend so I don't really know what I'm talking about. Book was Gravtiy's Rainbow if that helps.

Who else here is stamp collecting medicinal "chemistry?"

>tfw ochem II, cell bio, biochem I, analytical chem, anatomy, and abnormal psych final next week
>3 regular exams tomorrow
fucking kill me

See

...

I did organic chemisty just to do med, had to for entrance exams so called mcat and gamsat.

We never use that shit, except a bit in understanding, biochemistry, antibiotics, anti cancer, pharmacy....but ok we use but sort of different, you have to just know how things go together, somwhere between the intersection of biology and chemisty. Of course it helps a lot to be an engineer (mech) and have done thermo 1 and II and you can see its all just going down to the lowest energy level it can at all times, and then chemists and what not just slap names on it all to confuse everyone. Essentially you just need to know laws or thermodynamics, conservation of mass and chemistry just falls out of that automatically.

dude are you drunk

If I put DMSO on my arse and fart, will I be literally eating shit?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrocene

i dunno better try it and report back

Ethanol and THC because they're the chemicals that allow me to tolerate this shitty fucking studying

Is anyone here involve in any real research? Anything interesting you're examining?

I've worked at labs at UT Austin and Caltech, applying to grad school now. My UT work isn't terribly interesting but it's in inorganic chemistry with a lot of organic synthesis thrown in.

thanks based bob