Its not the chemicals – Its the knowledge Gap

Science illiteracy and the rise of Chemophobia

Chemophobia is the irrational fear of chemicals which leads people to believe chemicals are

harmful at any level.

Stereotypical outcomes of chemophobia are the general public fearing ingredients they cannot

pronounce, only wanting “natural ingredients”, or avoiding vaccines and other proven health

benefits due to lack of understanding. 30% of individuals report being scared of chemicals,

and nearly all demonstrate a lack of basic scientific understanding proving the clear link between chemical illiteracy and chemophobia. But chemicals are all around us.

The smartphones in our pockets, medicines we take, food we preserve and everyday products

all depend on synthetic chemistry. But Chemophobia isn't really about chemicals, It's about

how gaps in scientific literacy shapes public perception. 

Science literacy, particularly chemical literacy, remains low across much of the public. Only 28% of Americans are considered to have civic scientific literacy, and 44% of Europeans want to “live in a world where chemical substances don't exist”. This demonstrates a clear knowledge gap between scientists and the general public. With many people unable to explain basic concepts such as: toxicity, dose and the difference between hazard and risk; the opportunity for misinformation, fear-based marketing, and distorted risk perception becomes significantly greater. When individuals feel uninformed, they naturally rely on educated guesses, or heuristics, to make decisions. While these heuristics may work in everyday life, when applied to chemical substances many people make biased decisions. 

One of the most powerful assumptions is that “natural’” equates to safety, while “synthetic” products are dangerous or toxic. This is usually because “natural” evokes positive feelings such as purity, health and environment. In contrast, “chemicals” often trigger images of toxins, or pollution. But under scientific scrutiny, this distinction collapses. For example, people without scientific background fall susceptible to biased risk perception of cleaning products labeled as “eco”. Many individuals believe that eco drain cleaners are healthier and safer than regular drain cleaners when both products contain very similar ingredients and the same warning labels highlighting the perception of safety being more important than facts. From a toxicological perspective, the origin of a substance tells little about its safety and what matters is its dose, exposure, and biological interaction, not whether something came from a laboratory or a leaf. 

Additionally, it is widely believed that trace amounts of a substance perceived as harmful can lead people to judge a product as wholly dangerous. 91% of the survey did not realize that the concept of “toxicity” means the dose makes the poison for everything, regardless of the source and identity of a chemical and fewer than a quarter of survey respondents correctly agreed that a small amount of a toxic substance is not necessarily harmful. This stands in contrast to the foundational principle of toxicology that “the dose makes the poison” where even something as “safe” as bananas can become “poisonous” if you eat too much of them. 

Chemophobia, while driven from lack of scientific knowledge, has public consequences. The rise of the anti-vaccine movement, increase in cost of “natural” products and the increased spread of misinformation and fear about everyday products are all consequences of the rise of chemophobia. But evidence suggests that basic scientific understanding reduces extreme fear of chemicals. People who understand dose response relationships and recognize that “natural” and “synthetic” are not safety categories tend to show lower levels of chemophobia. Furthermore, education does not eliminate chemical concerns but refines it. 

To improve scientific literacy, science education should be strengthened at every level and public communication about risk, uncertainty and regulation in a digestible way for the public should be improved. The Royal Society of Chemistry reports that 58% of women and 45% of men not feeling confident enough to talk about chemistry demonstrating a systemic issue in the scientific knowledge gap rather than individual disinterest. If large portions of the public feel unequipped to engage in conversations about chemistry topics, it creates ground for misinformation, and fear-based narratives increasing the chances of chemophobia. The education of students about toxicological principles, especially the difference between hazard and risk as well as synthetic vs natural would help improve perceptions and eradicate chemophobia. 

Reference:

Siegrist, M., Bearth, A. Chemophobia in Europe and reasons for biased risk perceptions.

Nat. Chem. 11, 1071–1072 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41557-019-0377-8

Image:

‘Free From Sulfates, Phosphates, and Parabens’: What Is Chemophobia and How Is

It Tackled at ITMO | SCAMT

Playing God or Playing Smart? The Ethics of CRISPR

 Should CRISPR be banned for use? In a piece from the Innovative Genomics Institute titled “CRISPR Ethics,” the institute outlines the major ethical questions surrounding CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) gene-editing technology. The article explains that CRISPR allows scientists to precisely modify DNA and holds great promise for treating genetic diseases. At the same time, it raises concerns about human germline editing, the possibility of “designer babies,” and the need for strong global oversight. At its core, CRISPR is a chemical system: the Cas9 enzyme catalyzes the hydrolysis of phosphodiester bonds in DNA, allowing scientists to break and reform covalent bonds in the genome. The discussion is framed partly in response to the 2018 case in China in which embryos were edited, prompting international debate and calls for tighter regulation.

                                            

CRISPR gene-editing systems function by directing Cas enzymes to a targeted location in the genome, where the enzymes make a precise cut in the DNA.   https://www.livescience.com/58790-crispr-explained.html

From a chemistry perspective, CRISPR operates at the molecular level. The Cas9 enzyme cuts DNA by breaking specific chemical bonds in the DNA backbone, relying on principles such as molecular structure, bonding interactions, and enzyme catalysis. The specificity of CRISPR depends on chemical base-pairing interactions between guide RNA and DNA, which are governed by hydrogen bonding and molecular geometry. The effectiveness and safety of CRISPR-based therapies also depend on chemically designed delivery systems that transport gene-editing components into cells. Although often categorized as biology, CRISPR is fundamentally applied molecular chemistry in living systems.

The article places the controversy in a broader social and regulatory context rather than presenting CRISPR as inherently dangerous. It distinguishes between therapeutic uses, such as correcting serious genetic disorders, and enhancement applications that raise deeper ethical concerns. In doing so, it avoids reinforcing chemophobia. Scientists are portrayed not as reckless experimenters, but as actively engaged in ethical reflection and global governance discussions.

Overall, the article connects chemical principles to real-world medical innovation while also encouraging critical thinking about regulation, risk, and societal responsibility. Rather than promoting fear, it presents CRISPR as a powerful chemical technology that requires careful and informed oversight.

https://innovativegenomics.org/crisprpedia/crispr-ethics/#Introduction 

Is Spicy a Taste or Pain?

Spicy Isn’t a Taste; It’s Chemistry (and a Little Self-Sabotage)

Source: The Guardian  “Why do people love spicy food, even when it hurts to eat it?” (Nov 10, 2025)
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/nov/10/why-do-people-love-spicy-food-even-when-it-hurts-to-eat-it

Spicy food is one of the only times we voluntarily eat something and then immediately act like we regret every life decision, sweating, tearing up, and chugging water like it’s going to save us (spoiler: it usually doesn’t). But that “burn” isn’t actually a flavor like sweet or salty. It’s chemistry messing with your nervous system.

The article explains that “spicy” is not a normal taste. The burning sensation comes from capsaicin, a chemical in chili peppers that triggers heat- and pain-sensing nerves in your mouth. Your brain reads that signal as heat and irritation, which is why spicy food can cause sweating, tearing, and a burning sensation. The article also explains why many people still enjoy spicy food: with repeated exposure, the body can become less sensitive, and the brain can start treating the discomfort as “safe,” kind of like enjoying a roller coaster or a horror movie.

The Chemistry: Why It Burns

Capsaicin binds to TRPV1 receptors, which are proteins on nerve cells that normally detect dangerously high heat. When capsaicin binds, it activates the receptor and sends a signal that feels like burning, even if the food isn’t physically hot.

Why Water Doesn’t Help

Capsaicin is mostly nonpolar (hydrophobic) because it has a long hydrocarbon “tail.” Water is polar, so it doesn’t dissolve capsaicin well (“like dissolves like”). When you drink water, the capsaicin often doesn’t wash away; it can spread across your mouth and contact more TRPV1 receptors, which is why the burn can feel worse.

Why Milk Helps

Milk can interact with capsaicin much better than water. Casein proteins form structures called micelles (like tiny molecular “soap bubbles”) with hydrophobic regions that can trap capsaicin and help pull it off your mouth tissues, so less is left to activate TRPV1. If the milk has fat (whole milk, yogurt, ice cream), that helps too because capsaicin is fat-soluble, so it dissolves into the fat instead of staying stuck in your mouth. In short, milk helps remove capsaicin, while water mostly moves it around.

Resources

1. The Guardian. “Why do people love spicy food – even when it hurts to eat it?” (Nov 10, 2025).

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/nov/10/why-do-people-love-spicy-food-even-when-it-hurts-to-eat-it

2. Penn State University (Research News). “Proteins in milk — not just fat — may help reduce oral burn from spicy food.” (Jan 31, 2024).

https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/proteins-milk-not-just-fat-may-help-reduce-oral-burn-spicy-food

3. First picture: https://scitechdaily.com/dinner-too-spicy-scientists-discover-natural-anti-spice-compounds/

4. Second picture: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Capsaicin

5. Third picture: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Transduction-mechanism-by-which-capsaicin-activates-TRPV1_fig3_381575553

New Solar Fuel Boils Water in Half a Second

Can chemist bottle sunlight? In the continuing search for energy that does not rely on fossil

fuelssolar energy remains a key focus. An active area of research in the solar energy field is in molecular

solar thermal (MOST) energy storage. A MOST system absorbs UV light and stores it for release

on demand at a later time. A MOST molecule absorbs sunlight and transforms it into a high energy isomer

that traps energy in its chemical bonds. Then a trigger is used to revert it to its original state, and this

process releases heat.

A recent Science article reports an advance in renewable-energy chemistry. Researchers at UC

Santa Barbara and UCLA have engineered a pyrimidone-based MOST molecule that can store sunlight

for up to three years. What is remarkable about this molecule is that it is water-soluble and stores 1.65

MJ/kg of stored energy, the most of any MOST compound to date. This is more than a lithium-ion

battery. The new compound, when triggered by an acid catalyst, released enough energy to boilapproximately a half milliliter of water in half a second.

This MOST system was inspired by the structure of DNA whose bases absorb UV light and form

pyrimidones. The researchers engineered a new molecule by adding methyl groups to the hexagonal ring

of one of these pyrimidones. The UV light is absorbed by the molecule and creates a new bond that forms

two square units from the hexagon. When acid is used to break the bond, the isomer returns to the original

shape and releases heat. The isomer that is created is called a Dewar-photoisomer, and its bonds are

highly strained which allows it to store a large amount of energy. The system can be recharged with light

and can be reused over and over again.

The scientific community is excited about this advance because it appears scalable and is easy to

synthesize. The water solubility opens up new possibilities for its uses. One drawback is that it takes a

long time to charge, so extensions of the research should focus on charging it more rapidly.

Articles used: https://cen.acs.org/energy/solar-power/Engineered-molecule-stashes-enough-

sunlight/104/web/2026/02 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aec6413

The Flu Isn't What You Think It Is 

& Why You Should Get Your Vaccines Every Year

Image above is from:www.bcm.edu

            Something smaller than you can see has taken over a hundred million lives. It is an invisible killer. The flu is an amazing shapeshifter and has been here for generations and generations. Why get a vaccine? What is in a vaccine? What is the flu? Recent times has people scared to get vaccines but this article will set the record straight. 

            So what is the flu? Influenza, or "the flu," is a virus, meaning that is is a non-living vessel that has the genetic material inside its capsid or "shell" to replicate. The flu cannot replicate on its own and requires the host to replicate. The Flu is a respiratory infection that can spread from person to person via coughs or sneezes or even infected surfaces. 

        The flus that infect people are influenza type A and B. They are composed of eight segmented strands of RNA. These segments contain the instructions for making new viruses and are crucial for how they cause infection. In the picture above you can see these surface proteins labeled HA (hemagglutinin) and NA (neuraminidase). These spikes are what interact with your cells and are the main targets for fighting the virus.

           Influenza is always changing due to antigenic drift and shift. Drift is when small mutations happen in the virus's RNA over time. These alter the structure of the surface proteins mentioned above (HA and NA) slightly. These slight variations can drastically alter your bodies immune system to effectively fight the virus. Shift is when a major change happens. The segments of RNA swap genetic material and can create new types of viruses that our bodies have not seen before. This can lead to pandemics and fast spread of the flu. 

Image from: www.monash.edu

            Why get the vaccine each year? The flu strains are constantly circulating and changing year to year. Scientists and professionals monitor the changes happening in the flu and can track the individual RNA sequence changes in the virus. This is important because scientists are able to match the vaccine to what is going to be or most likely to be the strain that is most likely to infect people. Last year's immunity may not fully protect you for the next year, because the flu this season may be different from last year. Getting the current vaccine is important because they match it to what is going to infect you that year. It is designed for the incoming flu season, not for any other year but the current one based on the data they collect. 

            What is in the vaccine? While the flu vaccine does contain the virus, it contains an inactive or dead virus, so it's unlikely to make you sick. Other ingredients are present in vaccines. For example, formaldehyde is included to inactivate the viruses and bacteria that could contaminate the vaccine during production. While formaldehyde is toxic at high doses, the amounts in vaccines are harmless. Formaldehyde is also a product of digestive function. In some multi-dose vaccines, there is also thimerosal, used to prevent the growth of bacteria and fungi that could contaminate the vaccine. The vaccine also contains stabilizers like sugars or salts to help maintain the effectiveness during transport and storage, as well as preservatives to keep the vaccine safe and viable. Vaccines are always tested and are safe for the general population to consume. Medical professionals would not give the vaccine if it was not safe.

            Vaccines are safe! Not only are they safe, but they decrease your risk of getting sick and build your immunity while lowering the symptoms if you do get infected. The more people that take the vaccine, the more people are safe. Getting your vaccine should be a part of your general health routine, because they create a safer space for you and the people around you. Something that you can't see has shaped parts of human history, caused pandemics, and has evolved over time, year after year. The flu is not just a simple cold. It is a virus that adapts to survive, but science adapts too. Through research, monitoring, and vaccination, we have tools to reduce its impact and help humanity. 

Articles Used:

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/php/viruses/genetic-characterization.html

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/php/viruses/change.html

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/php/viruses/index.html

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/php/viruses/change.html

https://www.lung.org/blog/reasons-flu-shots

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321207#ingredients

When in Rome… You Prescribe What?

 

Ancient Romans really used poop as medicine—and chemistry proved it 

  Credit: Credi 

A recent Phys.org article “Poop as medicine? A Roman vial's chemistry backs up ancient

medical texts” reports that scientists just found the first real evidence that ancient Romans

actually used human poop as medicine. Old medical textbooks have referenced this practice

before, but nobody had any direct physical evidence until now. Dr. İlker Demirbolat, a

professor at Cumhuriyet University, got their hands on an ancient Roman glass vial

called an unguentarium, estimated to be around 1,800 years old, that managed to preserve

a small amount of dried residue inside.

They analyzed the residue using Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry, or

GC-MS for short. Basically, it’s a technique that separates substances into their

chemical components for identification. What did they find? Molecules called coprostanol

and 24-ethylcoprostanol. These are strongly indicative of fecal matter, and the ratio of

chemicals pointed to a human source. There was also carvacrol, a chemical from thyme oil,

which was likely used to help cover up the smell.

 

 

 

 

Without analytical chemistry, this whole discovery wouldn’t even be possible.

GC-MS lets scientists pick out chemical “fingerprints” from ancient residues,

nearly 2000 years old. Thanks these characteriation techniques we knowancient doctors like Galen weren’t just making up weird poop treatments,

they actually did them.

On a larger scale, the researchers think the Romans prepared this fecal

medicine for therapeutic treatment and thyme could have been added to keep

the patient from gagging or refusing the treatment due to the smell. It sounds gross,

and rightly so, but it lines up with something we do today: fecal microbiota transplants

or FMT. Doctors actually use these to treat serious gut infections. So, as much

as we cringe, the core idea—using gut bacteria to heal—still matters.

If I’m honest, I never thought I’d be reading about ancient bottled poop in a

conversation about chemistry, but here we are. It’s really gross, but kind of

amazing that chemistry can still pull secrets out of an ancient bottle after almost

2,000 years. And the weirdest part? Modern medicine is just a more refined

version of the same principle.

 

 Paul Arnold, Phys.org (Feb 4, 2026)

https://phys.org/news/2026-02-poop-medicine-roman-vial-chemistry.html

 

Are Black Plastic Kitchen Tools Toxic?

 Do we need to get rid of our black plastic kitchen tools?  Katie Okamoto reports in a recent New York Times piece that "research suggests that there's a chance that black plastic in particular may contain low levels of toxic chemicals.  But she then notes that "a math error in one high-profile study led the authors to issue a correction, though the authors maintained there conclusion stands."

Let's look at that study and that error.  Joseph Brean at the National Post examines the paper and it's conclusions.  The study found that "using contaminated kitchenware could cause a median uptake of 34,700 nanograms of decabromodiphenylether," a fire retardant known as BDE-209.   By contaminated kitchenware they mean black plastic kitchenware.  The fire retardant makes it's way into the utensils by way of the recycling of plastics from various electronics, usually from Asia.  The BDI-209 is considered toxic by the EPA which has set a reference dose at 7000 nanograms per kg of bodyweight per day.  The reference dose is a dose below which there is not a serious risk toxic consequences.  The authors of the study then calculate the reference dose for a 60 kg adult as 42,000 nanograms per day and conclude that their median uptake is 80% of the reference dose.  The problem is that the reference dose for a 60 kg adult should be 60 x 7000 or 420,000 nanograms per day so that their median uptake number is on 8% of the reference dose which hardly seems cause for concern.  Nevertheless while the authors published a correction fixing the number they did not change their conclusion.

Okamoto goes on the list possible health problems from plastics in general including the dangers of microplastic generated from degradation of plastics in the environment.  She also notes that black plastic is difficult to sort and reuse in typical US community recycling processes.  She recommends replacing black plastic utensils with silicon utensils which seem functionally equivalent and not especially expensive.

While Okamoto's conclusions seem reasonable a least for customers purchasing new utensils, the information available hardly justify throwing your black plastic utensils away. The message might be that research from advocacy groups needs to be viewed with some skepticism.  The research discussed here came from the advocacy group "Toxic Free Future" and was published in Chemosphere, a peer-reviewed journal.  This is discouraging since the error is a simple one and it's discovery should have triggered some change in the conclusions of the paper which it did not.