From owner-chemistry /at\ccl.net Thu Mar 12 09:17:01 2009
From: "lerouvin-.-loria.fr" <owner-chemistry . server.ccl.net>
To: CCL
Subject: CCL: Computational Chemistry - Arm chair Scientists !!!
Message-Id: <-38818-090312091340-18419-GoidoYOIwaKigdbs5Ahugw . server.ccl.net>
X-Original-From: lerouvin:loria.fr
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=ISO-8859-1;
	DelSp="Yes";
	format="flowed"
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:13:18 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0


Sent to CCL by: lerouvin[*]loria.fr

Hi Soumya,

Well as a {theoretical/computational chemist / molecular modeler / =20
bioinformatician / pick whatever you like} I was sometimes told as =20
being "disconnected from reality" when I tackled some complex tasks =20
involving coding during extended periods of time... Well I probably =20
looked like one of those "armchair scientists" glued to the chair in =20
front of the computer indeed, so no offense... I always took remarks =20
that I was spending too much time "on the dark side" as useful =20
reminders that I should never be careless with validation.

Colleagues more versed on the experimental side of chemistry might as =20
well try to perform synthesis projects so time-consuming, complex and =20
exotic that they end up looking like "mad professors" - the movie type =20
always ready to attempt ramdom and often disastrous experiments in a =20
creepy basement. If you spot one that dared to call you an "armchair =20
scientist" in the past, then it's payback time  ;-)

VL


"Soumya Samineni soumya_samineni-#-rediffmail.com" =20
<owner-chemistry++ccl.net> a =E9crit=A0:

>
> Sent to CCL by: "Soumya  Samineni" [soumya_samineni|*|rediffmail.com]
> Dear all,
>    With the ever increasing computational power, there has been an  =20
> enormous growth in the theoretical/computational chemistry (  =20
> personally i feel the word "Theoretical Chemistry" has been abused  =20
> by considering it as an alternative word for "Computational  =20
> chemsitry" by people practising computational chemistry). while  =20
> people doing computational chemistry are also growing like mushrooms =20
>  and the volume of pages occupied by it has also exploded, the =20
> number  of people doing the theoretical chemistry (analytical) is =20
> dwindling  with time.
>   Any ways: It would be nice to hear comments from the leading (and  =20
> novice) experts of computational and theoretical chemistry regarding =20
>  the general feeling of the experimental community (who consider =20
> that  they toil pretty hard physically for every bit of the sentence =20
> they  write .. ) that we are "Arm chair scientists", who like to =20
> quench  our thirst for science sitting before a computer all through =20
> the day  and gulping loads of liquids !!
>
> I hope a small debate would make things more clear.
>
> regards
> Soumya
>
>