RSC Blog

In another landmark case, setting new bounds for sanity, the ASA have banned an advert that suggests drinking beer gives you courage. The advert breaches the ASA guidelines.

Of course, no one would want to encourage the drinking of beer. I am delighted that the ASA has such a rigorous policing policy. But I’m not sure that anyone will have been misled here – ask most people and I think the odd drink ’will have bolstered most people’s confidence’ at some time or another.

So humour is well and truly dead at the ASA. Pity then that they don’t take their roles more seriously over the 100% chemical free fertiliser. The £1 million prize is still on offer – perhaps a pint of courage might help the ASA to admit they’ve got their earlier decision wrong. Ever thought about 100% chemical free beer? That’s got no courage at all!

As expected, even an offer of £1 million hasn’t brought the next Nobel Prize winner out of the woodwork to present me with a 100% chemical free material. In light of some exceptional dedication and tenacity, however, I have awarded a “Highly Commended” prize.

Stephen George, from Australia, sent us by FedEx these sample vials, containing semiconductor nanocrystals in toluene solution:

CdSe/ZnS Core Shell nanocrystal quantum dots in toluene - not exactly 100% chemical free but the best we've had yet!

Mr George’s claim is based on the exciton confinement properties of such nanocrystals – they create a so-called  “quantum dot” where electrons are restricted in three dimensions.

The claim was that an “electron is not a chemical and that the solution/matrix is just a container.” Like other less well thought out claims we’ve heard, the necessity of the container rules this entry out from winning the prize. Mr George’s contention that a material’s properties are defined by its electrons only was also in dispute.

Having said all that, Mr George set about this challenge in a scientific manner, not regurgitating the same nonsense the advertising companies do, but methodically assessing the best candidate based on his own research. His entry is clearly streets ahead of claims of “100% chemical free organic olive oil” that I have received!

The following day I had an invoice from FedEx for the postage. In recognition of Mr George’s enthusiasm and creativity, although his entry is not eligible for the £1 million, I will reward him by paying the FedEx bill of £42.44. Not a bad second prize, but I won’t be giving out any more.

Thanks again to Stephen George for his creative entry.

At long last, someone in Government is taking talk of falling science exam standards seriously. At an Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC) press conference on Thursday, Lord Drayson – the UK Science Minister – reportedly said ‘No dumbing down on my watch. We need to make sure that we provide the stretch for the brightest and best” in a reference to a question about recent media coverage of standards not being what they were. A BBC news report of his remarks can be found here.

So the RSC’s petition and Five-Decade Challenge report have made an impact at the highest level. We’ve managed to start the debate about what we assess in exams and what is needed for the UK to remain internationally competitive. (more…)

We’ve turned our attention to the examination standards in schools this week. Richard Pike, CEO of the RSC, was interviewed on the Today programme on Radio 4 – the BBC’s flagship agenda-setting news radio programme this morning about the 5-Decade Exam Challenge report that we have published, and our Downing Street web site petition. Currently we’re adding one name a minute.

Much of the UK media has taken interest – see today’s BBC News Online, Daily Telegraph, Independent, Daily Mail and Times. (more…)

I’m beginning to feel a bit sorry for the Adverting Standards Authority. Everyone I meet tells me how stupid the decision was to allow a fertilizer to be described as 100% chemical free. Last week it came up on my appearance on BBC Radio Wales’ Jamie & Louise radio show. We had a good discussion about the stupidity of the decision and how it was an insult to the public. I was also able to take the opportunity to praise the quality of chemistry in the Welsh Chemistry Departments and to highlight the excellent work done by our members Jim Ballantine and Bill Williams who take a magic of chemistry show to thousands of primary schools every year. (more…)

Note: this is a transcript of a column I did for Radio 4’s “Cutting Edge” on Thursday 30 October 2008.

To say it was a surprise was an understatement. As I read a set of papers at my desk in the Royal Society of Chemistry office an advert for a product that was ‘100% chemical free’ glared out from the page. This from a company that sells products to make things grow in the garden. Just what were people supposed to be buying? Or more importantly what was being sold? Was it a con? Surely not, because the adverts were in the mainstream media. And if you check now using Google or your favourite search engine, you can find the web page that proudly announces that the product has ‘100% chemical free ingredients’.

So it’s a puzzle then. Nearly everyone would know that plants need nutrients to grow but if these are not chemicals what are they? Have the laws of nature been circumvented by a company whose achievements have yet to be recognised by the Nobel Prize committee?

Digging deeper, a sadder story emerges. Somehow, and in the face of the intelligence of the UK public, the company is single handedly seeking to redefine the subject of chemistry. Just think of all of those text books that will have to be scrapped; exam certificates burned and the cost of re-educating all those teachers.

Wow! I’m now looking forward to ‘100% chemical free table salt’ – that’ll solve the heart health problem in the ‘West’. In search of sanity I turned to my 12 year old daughter, Alexa. This young member of the public told me, ‘it’s stupid ‘D’ for that is what she calls me, everyone knows materials are made of chemicals, so it can’t be 100% chemical free.’

In search of some official balance on the ‘100%’ chemical free problem, I turned to the Advertising Standards Authority. Maybe they could temper the definition so that the public are not misled, nor be sold an item on the basis of poor science or at the very least an inaccurate description? You can guess the answer – the ASA ruled that this description was fine and would not mislead the public because people would know that 100% chemical free didn’t mean that – it meant something else. It meant ‘all things are chemicals except things that are 100% chemical free which are made of 100% recycled or naturally occurring materials’.

As I checked my calendar to ensure it wasn’t the 1st of April, I consoled myself on how wrong I was to worry about this. Perhaps I should offer the ASA a million pounds to put in my hand a material that is ‘100% chemical free’: what a staff incentive scheme that would be! But what is the point if they don’t understand the science or the implications of getting it wrong. Thinking about it more, I’d be happy to give the money to the first member of the public who could bring me any material I consider 100% chemical free – but of course they won’t enter because it’s patently impossible!

Where does all this get us? Well, it looks like misleading the public is fine and the subject of chemistry is being redefined. So let the re-education in our schools begin and let’s not worry about building a knowledge based economy in the UK. Let’s stick to intangible services and exotic financial products that no one understands until it’s too late. These sit well alongside 100% chemical free fertilizers that help things grow.