A reader who's attending the International Congress on Heterocyclic Chemistry in Glasgow later this year sent me a note about it. Like many such meetings, they have guidelines for presentation and poster abstracts. But this one was done by someone who's been around the block a few times.
The sample abstract is from a team from the University of Utopia (and in case you're wondering, ".ut" is apparently the internet domain for Utopia). And the authors, in a nice touch, are Black, Schwartz, Nero, Fekete, and Čzerný. (Too bad the other students in the group - Siyah, Dubh, and Musta - couldn't make it onto the list). But here's the text of the thing itself:
Two fundamentally different but complementary transition metal catalyzed chemo-, regio-,diastereo-, enantio-, and grantproposalo-selective approaches to the synthesis of a library of biologically significant nano- and pico-molecules will be presented with the focus on reaction mechanism and egocentric effects. The role of the nature of the metal, ligand, solvent, temperature, time, microwave, nanowave, picowave, ultrasound, hypersound, moon phase, and weather in this catalytic, sustainable, cost-effective, and eco-friendly technology will be discussed in detail.
If nothing else, that's about as grantproposalo-selective as it gets, right there. . .
1. J-bone on March 2, 2011 10:07 AM writes...
What? No gold catalysis?
Permalink to Comment2. henry's cat on March 2, 2011 10:31 AM writes...
he he.
Authors of the book referenced in the sample abstract:
Einstein; Zweistein; Dreistein
Genius. Is this some wag's idea of a ninja-lol? Wonder how long it will be before a serious abstract template replaces it...
Permalink to Comment3. Anonymous on March 2, 2011 11:00 AM writes...
They did get Svart and Noir into the references. But ref 4 is the best!
Permalink to Comment4. MoMo on March 2, 2011 11:28 AM writes...
In this presentation all 75 topics in this "technology will be discussed in detail"-within 20 minutes.
Sign me up.
Permalink to Comment5. BioBrit on March 2, 2011 11:52 AM writes...
What, no reference to Green?
Permalink to Comment6. Anonymous on March 2, 2011 12:43 PM writes...
That is a terrible abstract example!!! I thought a good abstract shouldn't tell you that something "will be discussed in detail", but instead gives the reader a thumbnail sketch of the poster/paper/presentation. Publication of such abstracts are worthless, since if you weren't there to see the poster, then this abstract tells you absolutely nothing. I'm not so sure that these people have been around the block.
Permalink to Comment7. Jon on March 2, 2011 1:21 PM writes...
Is there an equivalent of Poe's Law for the sciences? Because I can't tell if Anon. 12:43 PM is serious.
Permalink to Comment8. Anonymous on March 2, 2011 1:27 PM writes...
I am serious. An abstract that states "we did such and such chemistry and will present details" is truly worthless to those that can't make such a meeting. Why not give a brief sketch of the details, instead of saying that results "will be discussed in detail"? Don't journal editors get on your case about such drivel? Same is true for a poster or presentation abstract. Sure, it may only be published in a proceeding book, but I've seen plenty of meeting abstracts cited. How do you verify that the citation is appropriate? Or more likely that you go looking for it in hopes to learn something, only to discover that they tell you squat since "results will be discussed in detail".
Permalink to Comment9. Anonymous on March 2, 2011 1:41 PM writes...
I agree, it would be nice to know more about the biologically significant pico-molecules but they don't share a thing!
Permalink to Comment10. HelicalZz on March 2, 2011 1:43 PM writes...
#8
"I am serious. An abstract that states "we did such and such chemistry and will present details" is truly worthless to those that can't make such a meeting. "
I think it is to hide that they might be infringing on my broad method patent for the Utopian "selective approaches to the synthesis of a library of biologically significant nano- and pico-molecules" Wherein I list 'The Spirit of Buckminster Fuller' as a co-inventor.
Zz
Permalink to Comment11. johnnyboy on March 2, 2011 1:43 PM writes...
Either anonymous 12:43PM has a wickedly wry sense of humour, or he/she has the unfortunate habit of only reading the last sentence of every paragraph.
Permalink to Comment12. DRG on March 2, 2011 2:46 PM writes...
What I'd really like to see is a green nano-organocatalytic approach to libraries of privileged natural product-like scaffolds.
Permalink to Comment13. Anonymous on March 2, 2011 2:50 PM writes...
Someone's not getting it, and it must be a "cultural" difference, since I work in tox and am not a chemist. If you had the choice of the two hypothetical abstracts below, which one would be most useful to you as you develop compounds and want to screen against toxicity?
1) A novel antidiabetic compound, acting through the GLP pathway, was evaluated in rats and monkeys by gavage dosing for 1 month. Novel toxic effects were observed and are discussed in detail.
2) A novel antidiabetic compound, acting through the GLP pathway, was evaluated in rats and monkeys by gavage dosing for 1 month. Novel toxic effects were observed in both species and and consisted of myofiber degeneration of Type I (oxidative) myofibers. Most prominently affected was the soleus muscle. The mechanism of toxicity was considered to be on-target and due to.....
Permalink to Comment14. Dr. Demented on March 2, 2011 3:03 PM writes...
Ummm...Anonymous? You're the one not getting it. That abstract was intended as a wicked, tongue in check, hilarious spoof that illustrated the format that actual abstracts should take. I, for one, found it to be brilliant.
Permalink to Comment15. A-W on March 2, 2011 3:06 PM writes...
Too funny. The role of the moon phase and weather, indeed. What about sun spot cycles?
Permalink to Comment16. anonymous on March 2, 2011 3:09 PM writes...
I recognize it as a spoof. However, should the organizers be recommending the format of "details will be discussed"??? I don't see it as value added. They could've easily written a spoof that stated specifically what moon cycles were important. If you set the bar low for format... Garbage in, garbage out.
Permalink to Comment17. Erik T on March 2, 2011 3:09 PM writes...
The authorship of Black, Black, Black, Black and Black should perhaps give it away.
Permalink to Comment18. Anonymous on March 2, 2011 3:51 PM writes...
I recognize it as a spoof. However, should the organizers be recommending the format of "details will be discussed"??? I don't see it as value added. They could've easily written a spoof that stated specifically what moon cycles were important. If you set the bar low for format... Garbage in, garbage out.
Farkin' magnets, how do they work?
Permalink to Comment19. MoMo on March 2, 2011 4:15 PM writes...
Nero doesn't mean "Black". Must of been too timid and cowardly to say politically incorrect, at least in wussy circles, "Negro".
Another reason these blood-sucking-pay-for-minimal-knowledge conferences exist. Not only do they take money away from babies in the field, they are led by them.
Stay away and save your money by looking up the authors and pre-empting their vapid and rehashed presentations.
Permalink to Comment20. milkshake on March 2, 2011 4:17 PM writes...
Black, Schwartz, Nero, Fekete, and Čzerný author list is of course a borrowing from a review spoof, about chemistry and natural occurence of porkanes (published quarter century ago in a Czech chemistry journal Chemicke Listy). I wonder if Prof. Pavel Kocovsky from Glasgow had hand in writing the sample abstract, it sounds just like his kind of humor.
Permalink to Comment21. Jon on March 2, 2011 4:58 PM writes...
A Powerpoint-type presentation of porkanes:
http://www.5z.com/cchs/porkany/sld001.htm
Permalink to Comment22. B on March 2, 2011 5:29 PM writes...
Methinks that Anonymous 12:43 has no sense of humour whatsoever. Speaking of egocentric effects...
And @MoMo - nero means black in Italian.
Permalink to Comment23. Momo on March 2, 2011 5:46 PM writes...
Well Ereeeecuuuuse me. Still a time killer.
Permalink to Comment24. biologist on March 2, 2011 6:22 PM writes...
Here's the Neuroscience equivalent:
http://neurodatabase.org/docs/Aardvark.pdf
"Arachidonic Acid Anomalously Accumulates after Archetypic Apoptosis at Aardvark Association Areas."
Permalink to Comment25. k on March 2, 2011 8:53 PM writes...
What happened to Kuroi?
Permalink to Comment26. Anthony on March 3, 2011 1:00 AM writes...
Shortly before reading your post, I saw the following BMJ article. I wonder how they got it past the IRB:
http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459.full
Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials
Permalink to CommentBMJ 2003;327:1459 (Published 18 December 2003)
27. schinderhannes on March 4, 2011 9:08 AM writes...
Is "Willie & Daughters" in Ref 4 PC?
ROTFLH
Permalink to Comment28. Iroquois on March 4, 2011 10:54 AM writes...
@ Anon 12:43. You're point makes sense. Its just that its not the first thing that springs to mind when you read something tongue-in-cheek such as this.
Permalink to Comment29. Anon 12:43 on March 4, 2011 3:42 PM writes...
@ 28: Iroquois,
thank you. You seem to be the only one that has understood my point. The particular item I was pointing out is a pet peeve of mine, and having served as an associate editor for a journal, I asked a lot of authors to rewrite the abstract of submitted papers due to using that wording.
Permalink to Comment30. Anonymous on March 12, 2011 2:41 PM writes...
Perhaps by it being the Christmas issue of the BMJ.Or did I, too, miss the snark?
Permalink to Comment