A Cold Take on Quantum Computers

Article written by Zack Savitsky on Science.org

Quantum materials always get talked about like futuristic technology, but the reality is that they are here and they are being used. Simulating molecular interactions for drug discovery, AI optimization, and advanced semi/super conductors are just a few areas where new materials are being utilized for quantum computing. One thing that each of these uses shares in common with one another is their temperature dependence. These tiny electronic chips will only show quantum material behavior at temperatures close to 0K, or absolute zero, a notoriously difficult temperature to reach.

The most common method of cooling in the lab past the 173K temperature of ice is liquid nitrogen, which reaches a temperature of 77K, which is nowhere near cold enough to eliminate the amount of thermal motion necessary for quantum materials to work effectively. Current quantum computers have begun utilizing liquid helium to achieve a temperature range of 4-0.22K, which is much closer to the ideal 0K. More specifically, Helium-3 is used, a rare isotope that contains 3 neutrons instead of the standard 2 that Helium-2 has. This creates the challenge of scarcity, where Helium-3 is very difficult to acquire. 

Helium-2 on its own is rare enough, only taking up 5ppm of the Earth's atmosphere, and Helium-3 is only 0.0001% of that amount, so natural methods of acquiring this gas are not feasible for the industrial scale. During the Cold War in 1955, the development of Hydrogen Bombs as an improvement to the Atomic Bombs led to the creation of Tritium, or Hydrogen-3. This unstable isotope of Hydrogen will slowly decay into Helium-3 through beta decay, where a neutron is converted into a proton, releasing an electron and an antineutrino

Cooling quantum computers with liquid Helium functions by using Helium-4 to cool down to 4K, which boils off, with Helium-3 then being introduced and compressed, which cools down the mixture even more. At this point, the mixture separates into two layers: helium-3 on top of a mixture of both. As some atoms of helium-3 leave the mixture, replacements diffuse down from the layer of pure Helium-3, resulting in heat being drawn from the environment. Boiled off Helium can be captured and reused, allowing the process to continue until temperatures near absolute zero are reached.

Possible solutions for the Helium-3 supply issue have been theorized, such as extracting it from the tritium made in certain heavy water nuclear power plants or harvesting it from the Moon, where solar wind does not get deflected like it does for Earth, resulting in a buildup on the surface. Other cooling options are available, but this method will be left behind if a better source of Helium-3 is not found, because the demand for quantum computers will only continue to rise.

https://www.science.org/content/article/helium-3-runs-scarce-researchers-seek-new-ways-chill-quantum-computers

Chemists Breaking Bad!: The Modern Model for Street Drugs

 How Cracking the Code of Party Drugs Dramatically Increased Synthetic Drug Development

Present day, as outlined by The New York Times, drug development is ever evolving. With information, academic and informal, being more available than ever before, it comes as no surprise that it is being used for some bad, such as street drug development. However, the bigger problem at hand is the recent discovery of how older drugs can be used as model systems for illicit drug synthesis, and how a surplus of information is being used by irresponsible chemists to harm society at an unprecedented rate. 

Since the 1980s, party drugs such as MDMA, made illegal in the U.S. in 1985, (Figure 1) have been synthesized and consumed for its stimulant and psychedelic effects (NIH).

Figure 1. Chemical structure of MDMA.

Where the problem begins is the discovery of the ease at which alternative drugs with similar effects could be synthesized, a prime example of this being methylone (Figure 2) and its easy addition of oxygen, more specifically a oxygen with 2 bonds to a carbon, known as a ketone.

Figure 2. Chemical structure of methylone.

Methylone was the first largely produced and consumed new-age drug of its class, synthetic cathinones, more commonly known as "bath salts" being legally sold in the U.S. in 2010, and was also the start of using templates for drug development due to the high amount of manipulations that can be made to get desired drug effects such as increasing or decreasing potency, addictiveness, and of course avoiding the law by dodging substance bans. For those more chemically inclined, it can be noted that the transformation to methylone can be done many ways. Commonly, a coupling reaction followed by the oxidation of an added alcohol to the desired ketone (while this information will be shared as its rather basic, most chemical reactions used to achieve the compounds in this blog will not be for obvious reasons). 

What exactly is a cathinone? It is a compound that follows the general structure of figure 3. More specifically, it contains a carbon ring (denoted by the the connecting points of the lines, and 3 additionally lines depicting double bonds that make it a benzene ring, the fancy chemical name, in blue), a oxygen atom (yellow), a carbon backbone highlighted in tan, as well as a nitrogen atom shown in green. To obtain the desired characteristics of cathinones, as mentioned earlier, the most relevant groups are the carbon ring, carbon backbone, and nitrogen atom. This is seen in methylone (Figure 2), where an additional ring was added to the carbon ring and a carbon atom was added to the nitrogen. 

Figure 3. Structure of a cathinone and its distinct characteristics.

Figure 4. Structure of dopamine.

The primary difficulty and concern of cathinones is their resemblance to dopamine (Figure 4). Due to this, the brain's ability to regulate dopamine is disrupted and causes a false euphoria that is addicting and dangerous. Due to the side effects of these drugs, high blood pressure, heart attack, and many more acute and chronic issues that result in death or disability can be caused. 

Further efforts result in the synthesis of MDPV (Figure 5) which was "too extreme" causing abnormally high amounts of psychosis, the synthesis of ethylone (Figure 6, a much simpler compound due to less abstract additions, and less extreme compound), NEP and eutylone(Figure 7 & 8, used as adulterants in other drugs), as well as NNDP throughout the early 2010s to present day.

Figure 5. Structure of MDPV.

Figure 6. Structure of ethylone.

Figure 7. Structure of NEP.

Figure 8. Structure of Eutylone.

Figure 9. Structure of NNDP.

Unfortunately, the progress does not stop with NNDP. In 2019 after the Chinese ban of fentanyl and its variants, the rediscovery of nitazenes (Figure 10) and their opioid properties become a mainstream interest among nefarious chemists. Similarly to cathinones, the three ends of nitazenes are the malleable sites used by chemists to alter drug properties.

Figure 10. Structure of nitazenes, as well as their areas of interest.

By the end of 2024 at least 22 nitazene molecules have been identified. The greatest concern with this class of drug is the cost of production and sale being extremely low, as well as the potency. As reported by NPS Discovery, some nitazenes are reported to be 90 times more potent then fentanyl. For reference, morphine, a commonly used drug in the medical world for pain management, is 100 times less potent than fentanyl. This means some nitazenes are 900 plus times more potent than industry standard pain medication!

Who is making these compounds? Historically, unregulated labs operated by a mix of trained chemists and informally trained individuals in China, India, as well as smaller illicit operations in Mexico are largely responsible. However, it is important to note that the ever changing nature of laws around the synthesis of these drugs has created a need for more diversity in location and scale of operation. 

This dire situation in the losing war against drugs begs a few questions to be asked. Should published research be more limited to avoid the public knowledge of drug synthesis techniques? How can one stop a problem so far beyond management on the street level? What awful drug will hit the streets next?

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/04/08/health/illegal-labs-potent-drugs.html

https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/mdma-ecstasy-molly

Weight Loss by Design: The Chemistry Behind Ozempic

Ozempic has become widely used beyond its original purpose of treating type 2 diabetes, gaining major attention for its strong effects on weight loss. Coverage emphasizes both its medical benefits and the growing controversy around its popularity, including side effects, high cost, limited supply, and debate over non-diabetic use.

At the physiological level, semaglutide works by mimicking the natural incretin hormone GLP-1. This hormone regulates blood glucose and appetite by stimulating insulin secretion when glucose levels are elevated, suppressing glucagon release, and slowing gastric emptying. These coordinated biochemical effects reduce blood sugar spikes and increase satiety.          

Figure 1. Molecular representation of Ozempic showing how the semaglutide structure is designed to mimic GLP-1 and interact with GLP-1 receptors through specific molecular shape and binding sites. The diagram highlights the importance of structure–function relationships in pharmaceutical chemistry, where small changes in molecular arrangement determine receptor activation, biological response, and drug stability in the  body.  

The function of Ozempic is fundamentally determined by molecular structure and intermolecular interactions. The active compound, semaglutide, is a synthetically modified peptide composed of amino acids arranged in a specific three-dimensional conformation. This structure is designed through pharmaceutical chemistry to closely resemble endogenous GLP-1 while improving stability.

From a chemical standpoint, the drug’s biological activity depends on molecular recognition, where semaglutide binds to the GLP-1 receptor through highly specific non-covalent interactions such as hydrogen bonding, ionic interactions, and hydrophobic effects. These weak forces determine binding affinity and receptor activation, meaning that even minor structural changes can significantly alter pharmacological activity.

A key chemical modification is the increase in metabolic stability. Natural GLP-1 is rapidly degraded by the enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4), resulting in a very short half-life. Semaglutide is engineered with structural changes that reduce enzymatic recognition and slow degradation, extending its half-life to allow once-weekly dosing. This is an example of structure-based drug design, where molecular modifications are used to control reaction pathways in biological systems.

Media coverage of this medication often reflects a tension between scientific advancement and public concern. Reports highlight significant therapeutic benefits, but also emphasize risks, accessibility issues, and social debates about cosmetic versus medical use.

From a chemistry communication standpoint, the framing can influence perception. When discussion focuses only on side effects, it may reinforce chemophobic thinking, the assumption that synthetic molecules are inherently harmful or “unnatural.” However, when the mechanism is explained in chemical terms, it demonstrates that the drug is a precisely engineered molecule designed for a specific receptor target. This challenges chemophobia by showing that biological effects arise from predictable molecular interactions rather than vague notions of “chemicals being bad.”

This topic is well-suited for a chemistry-in-the-human-environment course because it connects molecular structure, enzymatic reactions, and receptor chemistry to a widely discussed modern pharmaceutical. It also demonstrates how chemical design directly impacts human physiology and how media framing can shape public understanding of chemical science.

https://www.novomedlink.com/diabetes/products/treatments/ozempic/about/mechanism-of-action.html 

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/10/05/health/weight-loss-drugs-serious-digestive-problems

How Funding Cuts Are Disrupting the Next Generation of Chemists

In a typical year, the path to a PhD in chemistry is demanding but predictable. Students in their senior year of undergrad apply in the fall, hear back in the winter, and commit by spring, often April 15th. Typically PhD offers, especially in stem, come with research funding, lab placements, stipends enough to live within the area, and a clear next step into research careers.

 With unstable federal research funding: Now is different.

Across the United States, chemistry graduate admissions have been thrown into uncertainty about their futures in academia. Students are being accepted and then waitlisted, others are receiving offers, only to have them rescinded weeks later and some aren't hearing back from all their schools until far after the April 15th commitment deadline, making decisions difficult. Some programs have even quietly reduced their incoming class sizes or have canceled admissions entirely.

Universities rely heavily on federal agencies to fund graduate education in the sciences and these funds don’t just pay for experiments but they support stipends, tuition, and the infrastructure that keeps labs running. Recently, however, funding has become uncertain due to cuts, delays, and policy changes which have left universities unsure of what resources they’ll actually have in the coming years. Faced with that uncertainty, many departments are making a difficult choice to prioritize current students over incoming ones. From an administrative standpoint, it’s a defensive move. From a student’s perspective, it’s destabilizing with the consequences being immediate and personal.

Students who once felt secure in their plans are now navigating a confusing landscape:

• Acceptance letters that don’t materialize into official offers

• Waitlists that replace earlier admissions decisions

• Deadlines that suddenly disappear

• Programs that reverse course after commitments have already been made

No matter the qualification of candidates, everyone is affected. In some cases, universities have rescinded offers because they can no longer guarantee funding for stipends which is an essential component of most PhD programs.

This results in a cycle defined not by competition alone, but by unpredictability forcing students to rethink their futures. While some students are considering taking unplanned gap years, others are abandoning graduate school entirely in favor of industry roles, even if those positions are limited to entry-level work without an advanced degree.

For many, the concern isn’t just this year but it’s what comes next. If fewer students are admitted now, the next admissions cycle could become even more competitive, as a backlog of applicants collides with a new graduating class. If every year there's more applicants and limited spots, the Chemistry PhD becomes a rarity and what was already a narrow pathway into academia is becoming narrower still.

Still, it's too early to know whether this is a short-term disruption or the beginning of a longer shift in how scientific training is funded and structured, what is clear is that the current moment is testing the resilience of both institutions and students. Professors are advising patience, students are weighing backup plans ,and the future of the academic pipeline remains uncertain.

https://cen.acs.org/careers/employment/Chemistry-majors-stress-over-futures/103/i9

Photo: https://cen.acs.org/careers/US-science-research-gutted-2025/103/web/2025/08

How Does a Spacecraft Come Back to Earth Without Burning Up?

Artemis II rocket

With Artemis II drawing more attention to the Orion spacecraft, I thought one of the most interesting questions was: How can a spacecraft return to Earth at such high speed without burning up? When Orion comes back from a mission around the Moon, NASA says it reenters Earth’s atmosphere at about 25,000 mph and faces temperatures of nearly 5,000°F. That is hot enough that protecting the astronauts is not just an engineering problem but also a chemistry and materials science problem.

The key idea is the heat shield, which for Orion is made primarily from a material called Avcoat. NASA explains that Avcoat is an ablative material. That means it is designed to slowly break down, char, and wear away in a controlled way during reentry, rather than simply trying to resist the heat forever. In other words, the spacecraft survives because part of the heat shield is intentionally sacrificed. As the material heats up, physical and chemical changes in the shield help carry heat away from the capsule rather than letting that heat pass directly inside.

 

Avcoat 

This is where the chemistry becomes really important. During reentry, the air in front of the spacecraft is compressed so intensely that it becomes extremely hot. The heat shield then undergoes thermal decomposition and ablation, meaning chemical bonds in the material break, gases are produced, and the outer layer chars and erodes. NASA describes this process as a controlled burn-off that transports heat away from Orion. So the shield is not just a passive barrier; it actively uses chemistry to protect the spacecraft.

What makes this even more interesting is that NASA learned from Artemis I that the chemistry and gas flow inside the ablative material have to be managed very carefully. In its 2024 update, NASA said gases generated inside Orion’s Avcoat during reentry did not vent and dissipate as expected in some areas, which caused pressure to build up and led to cracking and loss of some charred material. That shows how small details in material chemistry can become mission-critical when a spacecraft is returning from the Moon.

I think this topic is so interesting because people usually imagine space travel as mostly rockets and engines, but the return to Earth depends just as much on chemical reactions, heat transfer, decomposition, and material design. A spacecraft survives reentry not by avoiding extreme heat, but by using smart chemistry to manage it. 

Source: https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/after-15-years-1000-tests-orions-heat-shield-ready-to-take-the-heat/

Your Houseplant Is Doing More Than Just Sitting There

 

Your Houseplant Is Doing More Than Just Sitting There

Plants have some pretty surprising ways to fend off infections. We often think

of them as just sitting there, but this article dives into how they activate defenses

all over when trouble strikes in one area. This process is called systemic acquired

resistance, and it helps prepare other parts of the plant before they get hit.

The research comes from a study by Dan Smith, focusing on the chemicals

involved. Salicylic acid was the main player everyone knew about, but it takes

about 24 hours to ramp up after an infection. So, scientists figured there must

be something quicker to kick things into gear. It turns out that jasmonate moves

in quickly, within hours, and then salicylic acid follows up to support it. Together,

they create a layered defense system that seems to work well.

Since plants don’t have immune cells or blood to send signals, everything

relies on chemicals moving from cell to cell. Each cell picks up on these signals

and activates defense genes. It sounds complex, but the researchers used

luciferase from bioluminescent bugs to make the plants light up when the

immune response is activated. This allows them to observe the whole process in real-time.

This research is really important for farming because pests and diseases can

destroy up to 40 percent of crops each year. With a growing population, we need

plants that can better withstand these threats. Understanding these natural defenses

could lead to a reduced need for pesticides, which would be a win for public health

and the environment.

The article also challenges the idea of chemophobia, where people think all chemicals

are harmful. In this case, these plant hormones are just part of their survival strategy,

and they might even help address global food issues. Chemistry plays a beneficial role

in biology, its not something to be afraid of.

For a class like CHEM 100, this topic fits perfectly. It connects molecules to real-life

applications, like how they regulate plant systems and promote sustainable farming.

Some sections might feel a bit technical, but overall, it clearly illustrates the connection.

 

Source: “Moment of Science: New study sheds light on plant immune 

responses” by Dan Smith (Mar. 17, 2026)

https://www.13abc.com/2026/03/17/moment-science-new-study-sheds-

light-plant-immune-responses/ 

A single amino acid could determine if your medicines work

Do you know people who swear by Tylenol as a pain reliever and other people who say it doesn’t work for them at all? One of the unsolved mysteries in chemistry is a clear explanation for why medicines work differently in different people. The chemistry of drug development can seem straightforward on the surface. There are receptors on the surface of human cells that respond to signals from things like hormones and drugs and determine how the body reacts. Drug makers create medicines that target these receptors in an effort to treat illness. Although drug makers design drugs that bind tightly to certain receptors, the drugs are not always as effective as expected, and the effectiveness can vary among patients. Research reported in a recent ScienceNewsToday article (based on an ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters paper) provides a possible explanation for why. 

A team of scientists in Japan studied the histamine H1 receptor, which is involved in allergic reactions, inflammation, and other functions in the body, and how two isomers of a compound called doxepin bind to this receptor. Researchers found that the z isomer bound to the receptor with much higher affinity than the e isomer and that a single amino acid, Thr1123.37, was responsible for the difference. They then created a mutant receptor and studied how each isomer reacted with each receptor. In particular they measured the binding energy and the balance of two thermodynamic forces, enthalpy and entropy, in the binding process. Enthalpy describes how strongly molecules stick together and entropy describes how much freedom they have to move. The researchers discovered that small differences in compounds, such as the difference in a single amino acid, can change the balance of the enthalpy and entropy forces in the bond which can dramatically impact the tightness of the bond.

Differences in binding energy for two different isomers of doxepin

This research may help explain why some drugs work better than others, even when they look very similar. Understanding the impact of the entropy and enthalpy balance on binding can help drug makers design drugs that are even more selective for the target. This article has the potential to reduce chemophobia because it reminds readers that chemistry is essential to maintaining human health. It shows scientists using their knowledge to help people in their everyday lives.

Primary Source:

ScienceNewsToday, Editors of. “This Tiny Molecular Sentinel inside Your Cells Decides How Your Body Heals.” Science News Today, 15 Feb. 2026, www.sciencenewstoday.org/this-tiny-molecular-sentinel-inside-your-cells-decides-how-your-body-heals. 

Secondary Source:

Kaneko, Hiroto, et al. “Enthalpy–entropy trade-off underlies geometric isomer selectivity in histamine H1 receptor–doxepin interaction.” ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters, vol. 17, no. 2, 27 Jan. 2026, pp. 490–494, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsmedchemlett.5c00696. 

Finding an Extraterrestrial Vacation Destination

Why finding water is not the only hurdle

Finding life elsewhere in the universe might require considering more than one “Goldilocks zone.”

Elen11/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Space exploration has been a major focus of the scientific community ever since the first human was successfully put into space. Learning more about these planets, stars, and other celestial bodies has only grown the curiosity for what might exist in our universe. The biggest mystery that has yet to be solved is identifying a planet that could support human life in the ways that only Earth seems to be able to. 

For a planet to sustain life, certain elements are required to be a part of the planetary composition. The primary compound that researchers look for is water due to nature's dependence on water as a biological solvent and building block for all organisms. What many individuals tend to forget is that the human body is complex and contains many necessary elements that you wouldn't think to be required for survival. "A chemical 'goldilocks zone' may limit which planets can host life" published in Science News, dives into the two biggest secondary essential elements, Phosphorus and Nitrogen. 

While water is necessary for structure and function in biological systems, phosphorus and nitrogen play the vital role of composing the structure of genetic material and various proteins. The natural abundance of these two critical elements is balanced by the presence of oxygen due to how these three elements bind to iron, which is what many planet cores are made of. If more oxygen is present, iron in the mantle will bind with it, enabling more phosphorus in the mantle, but it carries nitrogen into the core. A reduction in oxygen reverses this effect, resulting in higher concentrations of nitrogen in the mantle and less phosphorus. Considering these two processes results in the "goldilocks zone", just the right amount of oxygen to keep ample amounts of both nitrogen and phosphorus available in the mantle for biological processes.

Many more elements are required for human survival, some that you would never think to consider. LibreTexts outlines in this table which elements are found in the bulk of biology, as well as macrominerals and trace elements.

Elements like magnesium are used as cofactors in over 300 enzymatic chemical reactions for energy production and protein synthesis, while calcium and phosphorus are the primary components of bone structures. Trace elements are less commonly found, but still just as important. Iron is the required metal center for heme groups that are found in blood and are responsible for oxygen transfer. The chemistry of life is far more complex than it would seem, and many factors would have to be considered when searching for a suitable planet for humans. Whether or not we ever discover a planet that checks all of these boxes remains a mystery, but that will not stop humanity from chasing the dream.

Primary Reference:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/chemical-planets-core-life-oxygen

Supporting References:

https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/General_Chemistry/Book%3A_General_Chemistry%3A_Principles_Patterns_and_Applications_(Averill)/01%3A_Introduction_to_Chemistry/1.09%3A_Essential_Elements_for_Life

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3341892/#:~:text=Bone%20is%20composed%20of%20various%20types%20of,as%20well%20as%20to%20form%20new%20bone.

https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Magnesium-HealthProfessional/#:~:text=This%20is%20a%20fact%20sheet,are%20kept%20under%20tight%20control.

Molecular Architecture or Magic?

 Metal-Organic Frameworks as the Future for Environmental Science

(Susumu Kitagawa, Richard Robson, and Omar Yaghi, CNN)

        Environmental concerns regarding climate change are at the forefront of science and our future, what if someone told you chemicals contributing to this phenomena could be grabbed right out of the air! Sounds pretty good right? As documented in the CNN article Nobel Prize in chemistry goes to scientist trio for Harry Potter-like work in molecular architecture, the 2025 Nobel laureates, Susumu Kitagawa, Richard Robson, and Omar Yaghi, have opened up many avenues for removing problematic chemicals, harvesting water from the air, and catalyzing reactions in a very unique way. 

        Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) are carbon based crystalline structures created with a positively charged atom such as copper ions and a complementary chemical group attracted to said ions, for example a nitrile group. Making these structures with "arms" allows for the formation of cavities in which the amazing functionality of MOFs originates.

(Image from the official Nobel Prize X account)

        The uniquely created structure's cavities were first utilized in 1997 when Kitagawa made a breakthrough from developing a molecule that could not only absorb methane, nitrogen, and oxygen but also release it! Remarkably, Kim Jelfs, professor of chemistry at Imperial College London, said, "one gram of a MOF material can have the same surface area inside its pores as a football pitch", hence Heiner Linke, chair of the committee for chemistry, dubbing these compounds akin to "Hermione's handbag" from the Harry Potter novels. Additionally, these molecules have very impressive stability. Take MOF-5 for example, known a classic molecule in the field, that has Zn2+ nodes linked by benzene-1,4-dicarboxylate (BDC), which even as an empty structure can be heated to 300 degrees Celsius without collapsing! 

(MOF-5, image from Wikipedia).

        In terms of practical use, MOFs have already been used by Yaghi's research group to pull water from the desert air of Arizona. How does this happen? MOF's absorb compounds primarily through, van der Waals forces, electrostatic attractions, and hydrogen bonding to later be displaced out of the MOF via changes in pressure, temperature, pH, or by introducing more molecules to displace trapped compounds.

         Great hope is held in the many climate change and chemical reaction applications that could benefit from these compounds. Only time will tell what spells these magical compounds will cast to improve the world.

References: 

https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/08/science/nobel-prize-chemistry-intl

https://x.com/NobelPrize/status/1975861353907695717/photo/1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOF-5

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. China is mentioned in the context of a major ethical controversy: it describes how, in November 2018, a Chinese scientist, He Jiankui, announced the birth of twin girls whose embryos he had edited with CRISPR (editing the CCR5 gene to purportedly protect them from HIV infection). This action sparked international outcry and condemnation because it violated widely-accepted ethical norms and lacked proper oversight, and He was later sentenced to three years in prison — an event that highlighted the need for clear guidelines and oversight on human embryo editing.

                                            

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. 

CRISPR-based therapies are advancing within established regulatory frameworks—particularly through the requirements of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other global regulators, with early-stage trials (Phase I) focused on safety and dosing and later stages (Phases II and III) designed to generate the efficacy data needed for formal approval. It notes the historic first approval of a CRISPR-based medicine (Casgevy) for sickle cell disease and beta thalassemia, and discusses how financing and reimbursement arrangements (e.g., with state Medicaid programs and the UK’s NHS) are evolving as part of translating these approvals into real-world treatment access. The article also emphasizes that the first personalized CRISPR therapy, developed and delivered in six months, sets an important precedent for rapid regulatory pathways for “platform therapies” in the U.S., potentially shaping how future bespoke and on-demand gene-editing treatments are evaluated and cleared by regulators.

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 

https://innovativegenomics.org/news/crispr-clinical-trials-2025/