laughing

Being a student, Susumu Kitagawa read a book that spoke of an old Chinese philosopher, Zhuangzi, who defended that we must question everything we believe useless. Even if you do not contribute an immediate benefit (or we cannot see it), that does not mean that it is not valuable. Kitagawa was able to devote himself to that idea in any field of human activity. But, as the book was from the Japanese physicist (and Nobel) Hideki Yudaka, he decided to devote himself to basic science. The most useless among the useless. What is the point of working on something like that? In 92, when he presented his first molecular construction, the truth is that his work honored that uselessness: “A two -dimensional material with cavities where acetone molecules could be hidden.” The curious thing, however, is that “he used copper ions united together by larger molecules” such as pieces of a puzzle. The curious thing for us now, of course. In the first half of the 90s, no one made the slightest case. Kitagawa I wanted to continue working With this type of materials, but the answer (again and again) was always the same: No. in the following years, each and every one of the aid he asked for were denied. He, of course, did not give up. Not even when in 97 he created a stable material (capable of absorbing and releasing methane, nitrogen and oxygen without changing shape) luck smiled at him: nobody saw his appeal. Not that they were wrong, but there were already better things. What sense did it have to continue working on something like that? The desire not to need ‘luck’ The answer to that I had Omar Yaghi. In that same year 1992, Yaghi achieved his great research project under the premise that “the traditional way to build new molecules was too unpredictable.” Until that time, chemicals were dedicated to putting things in a bowl, heat them and see what happened. Yaghi aspired to find more controlled ways of creating materials. Jordano’s team began to obtain good results when he began combining metal ions with organic molecules. They had found, so to speak, their Lego pieces: the elements that kept together and stable the most diverse molecules. Are you familiar? It was just the same approach that, independently, had launched Kitagawa. And yes, indeed, nobody thought it was something very useful. At least, it did not generate very useful things. Back to the origins Then, both Kitagawa and Yaghi were traced background for this new way of chemistry. There they met A speculative article Published in 89 by the journal of the American Chemical Society. The author, Richard Robson, worked in Australia and had been spinning all this since 1974. In those years, Robson He was in charge of converting wood balls into “atomic models” with which students could create molecular structures and familiarize themselves with the world of chemistry. To do this, he asked the university workshop to pierce holes in the balls. In this way, thanks to wooden rods (chemical bonds) atoms could be built. Immediately, Robson realized that the holes could not be placed at random. Each atom, forms chemical links in a specific way and, if I wanted to do the realistic model, needed to mark where the holes should be drilled. That is what gave him the track: in the position of the links there was an incredible amount of information. Moreover, those links hid the key to building new molecular structures easily and easily. Three ways to reach the same way of building the world Johan Jarnestad/Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Metalorganic structures (which are called this type of structures) They serve almost everything: Capture carbon dioxide, separate water PFAS, administer drugs to the body or manage extremely toxic gases. Some may catch the ethylene gas from the fruit (to mature more slowly); Others may encapsulate enzymes that break down the remains of antibiotics in the environment. That is, we talk about one of the most versatile technologies of today and, for years, they were something completely useless. What he said before: pure basic science. An uselessness so enormous that the world can change. Image | Boasap (modified) In Xataka | The “Curse of the Nobel” not only affects the authors: also the publishers who publish them suffer their effects