Contrary to common belief, the primary literature is not 100% stiff. The correct figure is acutally much closer to 99.9%. There are true gems out there, if you just look hard enough. The following is one of my favorites, from JACS 1961, 83, 4729-31. (Available here.)

Propargyl cyanide explosion

What are your’s?

 

One Response to The primary literature is not 100% stiff

  1. Sebastian says:

    I just found a beauty of an article. Not sure if this counts as primary literature, but it’s by Weinberg and starts with a beautiful bit of prose about organic chemistry:

    “.. the organic chemist’s view of nature is unbalanced, even lunatic, but still in some ways more exciting than that of the biochemist. While the enzymologist’s garden is a dream of uniformity, a green meadow where the cycles of Calvin and Krebs tick round in disciplined order, the organic chemist walks in an untidy jungle of uncouthly named extractives, rainbow displays of pigments, where in every bush there lurks the mangled shape of some alkaloid, the exotic perfume of some new terpene, or some shocking and explosive polyacetylene.” – J.D. Bu’Lock.

    The article even ends with a poem.

    Look for: Perspectives in biology and medicine, ED Weinberg, 1971, vol 14 (4), 565 if you are interested. You can find the pdf on Google Scholar if your institution has no subscription to the journal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>