Почти целиком органический номер Nature

[pH<7]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 05569.html впечатлит ли кого-нибудь это? (Выложите плз )

Ну и механохимическое раскрытие бензоциклобутена, которое было в новостях.

[pH<7]

Supplementary статьи Барана про синтез без защитных групп можно скачать тут (АХТУНГ, 38 мегабайт!)

[Cherep]

(АХТУНГ, 38 мегабайт!)

<offtopic>
Любители гламурных макинтошей ЯМР спектры вставлять не умеют.

Это я от завести, разумеется. Бо в нэйчуре статей нет, а в дисере страниц больше сотни с ЯМР спектрами и всё целиком 12 метров весит.
</offtopic>

[Cherep]

впечатлит ли кого-нибудь это? (Выложите плз )

Да, меня впечатлило алкилирование во 2-е положение. Статья в обменнике.

[pH<7]

This Nature paper is not as impressive as Baran makes it out to be. I don’t know why reviewers don’t stop him.

Let’s just take his synthesis of ambiguine H as an example.

Here is what Baran reports: 10 steps from commercially available material

Here is what a close look at the supporting info tells you: It is actually 15 steps.

Not a big deal, right? Just a little fudging to impress the community. But here’s the thing; IT IS A BIG DEAL! He has a 50% error in his step count. So lets take a closer look at how he perpetrates this academic fraud:

He starts his synthesis with a compound that he says is “4 steps from commercially available material”, but it is actually 8 steps. He has four steps written down, but the material he starts from isn’t available (1 extra step), and his four steps have 3 extra steps hidden in them. This guy apparently considers a reaction, workup, COLUMN, and another reaction as one step!!!! What the hell is that? He does it again in step c (figure 3 of the Nature paper). How is he counting steps? If you do a sequence in one day is it one step? What if you pull a couple of all nighters and run four reactions - is that one step? And this is nothing new, or an innocent oversight. He has done this in many of the papers he has published to date.

Check it out for yourselves, this is revealed upon inspection of the supporting info (but apparently the reviewers did not take the time to thoroughly review the paper).

Also, take a moment to consider that in his “gram-scale synthesis” of welwitindolinone A, the second intermediate in his scheme (Figure 4, compound 16 in the Nature paper) he is already at 9% overall yield from carvone oxide (which is not commercially available). The next two steps (26% not brsm, 42%) bring him to a stellar 1% yield with 3 steps still to go. Not that this is bad by any means, but it is certainly not the efficient route he sells it as (0.4% overall yield of the natural product).

Anyway - I don’t understand why everyone who does chemistry isn’t furious at this guy - You should be too. He is setting a falsely high standard of success and productivity for new professors - and you are going to measured against this standard. Unless you also lie about your research you can’t possibly measure up to this guy.

I encourage everyone to dig into his supporting info for all of his syntheses. We are scientists after all, which is to say we are skeptics. Why are so many so easily swayed by hype when the truth is right there…dig into that supporting info!

[Cherep]

Хи-хи.
А откуда это?

[pH<7]

http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/20 ... thesis.php

[Cherep]

Краткий перевод.

Фила Барана пинают за то что он якобы (я сам в детали не вдавался) докладывпает о меньшем количестве стадий, чем на самом деле есть.

[ИСН]

Печально, но обычное в общем-то дело, фигли.

Наконец мой знакомый заключил сам с собой условие, которого свято придерживается до сих пор: каждую пойманную им рыбу он решил считать за десять, и притом всегда начинает счет с десяти. Если, например, ему не удавалось поймать ни одной рыбы, он говорил, что поймал десять.

[pH<7]

Skeptic funny mention that. Dr. Baran gave a talk here at univeristy a week ago. It was all about the stuff in this nature paper. When talking about ambiguine H, he showed the picture of the student who worked on it, how many days it took him to make it, how much he made and the overall yield. When he put all that information the crowed was pretty wowed. Expecting this he then said how some people find this unbeliveable including reviewers. And proceeded to show quotes from reviewers of the paper that implied that he was not telling the truth and did not make the moleucule at all. So he said he had his student make it again and it only took him five days and had him get crystal sturctures for all the intermediates. That apparently appeased the reviewer.

там же