All molecules matter. Simple ones like O₂, CO₂, and H₂O matter because their interplay sustains all life on earth. Perhaps life elsewhere, too, but that remains an enigma.

Complex molecules like DNA matter, and they are intensely personal since nucleic acids specify each creature’s individuality.

In between are countless millions of other molecules that affect life as we understand it and countless millions more that are biologically inert, taking up space and mass, but nonetheless central are to the formation and sustenance of the universe.

The Chemical Abstracts Service lists about 23 million substances. If they all matter in some way or other, could anyone possibly have the unmitigated chutzpah to select the ten that matter most?

Setting aside reservations about hubris, a panel of ten chemists from academe, industry, and CHF did so and created the stunning museum exhibit entitled Molecules That Matter. Their selection can doubtless be debated—this is the fun of such “best of” lists—but they managed to select four drugs, three polymers, two hydrocarbons, and one insecticide. No partridge in a pear tree.

The new exhibit at CHF is an awe-inspiring display of the interplay of science, material culture, and visual art. A series of five lectures complements the thinking behind the exhibit. This series, which runs through December, is a chance to hear scientists, authors, activists, and artists explain how chemistry shapes our lives.

The first lecture last week was by Robert Langer, Institute Professor at MIT. He started life (well, adult life anyway) as a chemical engineer, but his work now spans the central notions in contemporary chemistry: chemical materials and chemical biology. Ranging from targeted nanoparticles containing therapeutic agents to cartilage tissue engineering that can reconstruct damaged bone or skin, his work anticipates a future bursting with scientific progress.

If you have a chance, run, don’t walk, to hear Professor Robert Langer speak.

It would likely be a precarious day if Congress ever invited chemists to come in and talk about their work.

Imagine the scene, with lights blazing, cameras clicking, reporters noting, and a few chemists from the trenches holding forth. The actual scientific content would, of course, be excellent.

But the communication of that excellence would probably not live up to the standard of the research itself. Most scientists are used to talking to each other, lecturing to students, making presentations at meetings, and employing the various channels we know for sharing information among fellow practitioners.

Congresspeople—or any group of educated nonspecialists—don’t know our language, understand our acronyms, or comprehend the many unstated assumptions we take for granted in usual scientific dialogue. No doubt that after some days of such hearings the legislators would cut the funding to NSF, NIH, DOE, and on down the alphabet.

Can the Chemical Heritage Foundation do anything about this state of affairs? We already do a good job of interpretation of the chemical and molecular sciences through our research on the history and impacts of science, as well as through our museum, collections, conferences, and publications.

But maybe we should also consider ways we could educate chemists of all stripes to be more effective communicators themselves. I’m thinking of workshops, retreats, classes or similar gatherings that would provide scientists with tools, skills, and connections for effective outreach to the public and to policy makers.

The complex issues of our times colliding with our flourishing media culture could surely benefit from such an endeavor. Any advice out there in blogsville?

No, there hasn’t yet been the hoped for Science Debate between the presidential candidates. I have written about it twice before, though (7 January 2008 and 1 September 2008), and, like bad serialized movies, it keeps coming back.

This time there is progress, even if it isn’t fully satisfying.

Both Senators Obama and McCain have responded in writing to a set of 14 science policy questions posed by the originators of the Science Debate idea. The questions and a side-by-side comparison of the answers are available on the Science Debate site. And the blogosphere is loaded with commentary.

My reaction? At one level, I’m delighted they responded and put some thoughts into public view.

But I don’t kid myself into thinking that either candidate actually wrote the responses. If I were cynical (not my usual predilection), I would even wonder if the good senators had any influence over what was said in their names or even read the final Q and A.

So the chance is lost to discern how they might approach science policy issues, to watch their minds in action, to gauge their interplay of knowledge and curiosity, to separate clearheaded analysis from electioneering.

But judge for yourself, and let me know how you like their answers on subjects we care deeply about, ranging from genetics, to climate change, to stem cells, to water quality, to space, to research funding.

Most discussions of energy policy wind up conceding two points:

1. Replacing carbon-based fuels (oil, gas, coal) with renewable ones is important because of the potential for long-term climate disruption; and
2. The carbon replacement alternatives will rely not on a single solution, but on a mixture of energy sources.

Makes sense to me. And, while it is surely a complex and nuanced subject, the staff at Nature have provided an excellent and digestible review of the available substitute energy sources: hydropower, nuclear fission, biomass, wind, geothermal, solar, and ocean energy [454 (2008): 816--823].

For each source, there is an analysis of the advantages, disadvantages, and potential contribution to worldwide electricity production. The bottom line? No single source can save the day, but a judicious combination may. And solar—a nearly inexhaustible source—looks to be able to carry a major load with proper commitment to research and technology innovation.

So please, read the article yourself and you’ll be well equipped with good arguments for both the “drill, baby, drill” and the “no nukes” crowds.

Isn’t science sweet?