hypervalent_iodine

As far as I'm aware, the authors tend to be the ones making the images I was referring to. In any case, this was just a light-hearted thread about something I thought was amusing. Don't care? Good for you. As it happens, this thread doesn't need you to care about it, or even post in it if it truly doesn't appeal to you.

No, all of those are from moderately-very good journals. The first one is from Angewandte Chemie International Edition, which is one of the best as far as journals go, but worst so far as graphical abstracts / frontispieces are concerned. I don't know that I agree all that much about the comment on imagination. Maybe not, 'unfettered,' but science usually requires at least some degree of imagination / creativity. At least in my experience. You're right, though, that this is more a failing in compiling good graphics rather than creating art, per say. I suppose it's not that strange that chemistry should be particularly notorious for it. There's not as much of a call for fancy graphics unless journals want something for the online version or frontispiece as there might be in other areas. As a side note, I made a mock frontispiece last night for the review I finished up writing to parody the terrible ones seen so often in Angewandte. My boss actually wanted to use it. Probably a failing on my part.

I was searching for some inspiration for a frontispiece for a review I'm submitting and was once again surprised by just how bad some of them were - and all from some of the best chemistry journals out. I'm sure this can't be unique to chemists, but it sure seems to be especially prevalent in chemistry related papers / journals. Thought I'd share a few of the gems I came across. (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cs501366q) (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ac501953z) Edit: I forget where this one came from, but it's a clear favorite.

! Moderator Note Posts in this thread were split from here.

! Moderator Note I've split a number of posts from this thread into a new one, found here. Please keep this on topic.

! Moderator Note EdEarl, You have already attempted to discuss that particular article in another thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82029-should-meat-and-cheese-be-labeled-as-cigarettes-are-labeled/ If you have something new to add, please do so there.

I see you edited your post after my reply. I couldn't find anything beyond what imatfaal posted.

At a guess, I'd say imatfaal answered the way he did because, 'bore with two hearts,' doesn't make sense. What are you asking about?

! Moderator Note Speculations stay in the Speculations forum, please. Valkaes, I have hidden your recent post in accordance with this.

What did you want to discuss? This looks like some sort of essay.

! Moderator Note MrIxs, I have moved this thread to the Speculations forum. Please review the rules of this forum before posting. I appreciate that you claim these are not your ideas, but before this goes too far down a rabbit hole, I am going to request that you respect the fact that this is a science discussion forum. We are not a conspiracy forum and are in no way interested in where you say these ideas came from, only in the science. If you have come here to debate these ideas from the position that they must be true, you need to be more precise and rigorous. This means we need a model, predictions and scientific evidence to back up your claims. If you have genuinely come here to learn, then you are welcome to continue about your business. If this is not the case and if you cannot comply with the Speculations forum rules, this thread will be shut down very quickly.

! Moderator Note Harold Squared, do you have anything constructive to contribute here? in other words, have you any valid science to back up your counterpoints or issues with other posts here? If not, please don't bother posting in the thread.

! Moderator Note Or maybe, I saw this thread and thought, 'there's nothing here for discussion, this thread looks like little more than an advertisement.' Last chance. What do you want to discuss?

! Moderator Note Hi, Does this thread have a point for discussion? I have removed your link since all you've really done here is attempt to advertise it, which happens to be against the forum rules. If that's all you've come here to do, I will have to close this.

! Moderator Note mothythewso, If you feel like being able to use this forum, I suggest that you not insult other members with petty comments. It is not an appropriate or even an effective way to discuss a topic and it is absolutely against the rules. Any more posts like this will be trashed. ! Moderator Note overtone, if you could tone it down as well, it would be much appreciated.

Your problem is that your question is too broad. The number of synthetic amino acids would be huge and the number of possible ones much larger still. Why exactly do you need to know?

! Moderator Note MomentTheory, keep your posts on topic. Commander, as far as I know, once you edit your posts, that's it. They aren't saved. However, you might want to check with an admin. They are much more involved in that aspect of site maintenance than we lowly moderators. If you have any other questions about this, please PM someone.

I think you missed attaching the data. You'll also need to show some attempts before we help. Where are you getting stuck?

! Moderator Note MomentTheory, I have warned you previously about making insulting remarks. Cut it out. While you're at it, keep your posts in topic. I have hidden your recent post.

The C-terminus is missing the -COOH functionality.

! Moderator Note Please stick to the topic, Willie71.

Elfmotat, it is quite possible that biological differences play some role in which career or major a person chooses. However, to deny - as you seem to be - the effect of cultural influences on these choices because you think it absurd that a woman should be so weak as to not be able to make her own choices...well, perhaps you should go ahead and check your privilege. Social / cultural influences are an intrinsic, well-conditioned part of our reality and we make choices dictated by these influences every single day without even thinking about them. They don't have to be overt or make themselves very obvious to have a huge effect. I mentioned an episode of the Freakonomics podcast before. If you have the time, I really would encourage you to listen to it. It does a great job of looking at some of these things and I found it very interesting. http://freakonomics.com/2013/02/24/women-are-not-men-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ I particularly enjoyed this study, which looks at how likely a woman is to take a risk in patriarchal vs matrilineal societies: http://rady.ucsd.edu/faculty/directory/gneezy/pub/docs/gender-differences-competition.pdf

! Moderator Note You make comments like this and you genuinely wonder why you attract negative rep? Cut out the insults. They are not welcome here. I will hide any more posts of this nature from you. Do not respond to this mod note in-thread.

This reminds me of a discussion in another thread (http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79192-many-women-on-the-site/). I am both female and a chemist, so be surprised. Also: http://www4.lu.se/o.o.i.s/31332 Though I somewhat suspect that the value for chemical and biological scientists is contributed to more so by biology than by chemistry. Further in response to one of CharonY's posts, I found this article. http://www.rsc.org/images/womensretention_tcm18-139215.pdf I found it somewhat interesting because it reports (among other things) that the increasing numbers of females going into chemistry PhD's is not enough to increase the number of females at all levels. It states that, It also mentions that the overall experience for men completing chemistry PhD's tends to be more positive overall because their expectations are lower from the outset, which is an interesting point and not something I had really thought of myself. However, the overarching thing (at least for chemistry) seems to be that females are more likely to be put off because of the nature of academic research, possibly because of the work-life balance issues mentioned above. It's true that in theory, scientists have more liberty in their positions to create a greater work-life balance, but in practice I would have to question how many actually utilise that. I quoted this because it reminded me of a Freakonomics podcast I was listening to probably around the same time (http://freakonomics.com/2013/02/24/women-are-not-men-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/). It was a long time ago that I listened to it, but IIRC, they look at a couple of studies that address gender pay gaps. In one, I remember the authors set up this game where you had two options, one involved more risk but had a higher payoff and the other a smaller risk and low payoff. They found that in patriarchal societies, women were much, much less likely to go the risky route than men were. In one example of a matriarchal society (I want to say in India somewhere), the exact opposite was true. The other study found that in terms of salary and pay rises, women were less likely to negotiate for a higher pay for themselves than men, but if they were negotiating on behalf of someone else then the numbers were about the same. The example of the risk taking game seems to point to the idea that how likely a woman is to be competitive or take risks is driven by societal and cultural expectations more than any inherent properties. IMO, this ties back neatly to the quote in my old post: I'd also like to mention that I find it a little amusing that I'm the only female so far in this thread.