Letters: March 2026

Bullying in the lab

The article ‘Fighting for my love of chemistry’ reminded me of my experience of bullying in a chemistry lab.

I was a victim of sabotage when doing my PhD in a UK university in the 1980s. Simple preparations of starting materials failed whenever my back was turned. I was ridiculed and my abilities as a chemist mocked.

For months I racked my brain trying to solve the problem, while my prospects of getting a PhD faded. I was humiliated and embarrassed, my confidence shattered, my enthusiasm gone and I sank into depression. Gradually it dawned on me that someone was sabotaging them, probably by adding hydrogen peroxide. Suggesting this generated more ridicule. A postdoc even accused me of sabotaging my own work! But he was not my suspect. It was the one orchestrating the ridicule – my supervisor’s assistant. Perhaps, being on the autism spectrum, I was too slow to think outside the chemistry box and too trusting of others.

My supervisor was dismissive and called me a troublemaker. Only when another student voiced concerns was it taken seriously and I was moved to another lab. The only staff member who sympathised was the head of security. When I went to him he named my suspect before I did. He had suspected him of thefts and other incidents of sabotage but, like me, was stymied by lack of proof, except for one occasion when the suspect sabotaged an NMR machine. He was given a warning, when he should have been sacked.

I had been driven to the brink of nervous breakdown, and my physical health suffered. I did get my PhD, but the experience still haunts me. Years later I came across the Hare psychopathy checklist. I was disturbed, but not surprised, to find that my suspect ticks more than half the boxes.

Name and address supplied

‘One Max is as good as another’

Philip Ball’s fine article about Christian Bohr and the Bohr effect concludes with his influence on Max Delbrück. For my father, Max Perutz, understanding the Bohr effect was an obsession. Ball also mentions the understanding of the Bohr effect in terms of Monod’s and Jacob’s allostery theories. In June 1978 my father wrote to me after giving the Monod memorial lecture at the Pasteur Institute in Paris:

‘… the director gave a solemn introduction in which he said what a great honour it was to have Max Delbrück speak in memory of Monod. [That] gave me a chance of telling the audience of a similar mixup at Caltech where Delbrück remarked that one Max is as good as another. Anyway for me it was a flattering confusion.’

It was my father who developed the application of allostery theory to the changes in quaternary structure of haemoglobin from the relaxed (R) to the tense (T) structures, including the explanation of the Bohr effect in terms of making and breaking of specific hydrogen bonds (see DOI: 10.1038/228726a0 and DOI: 10.1038/228734a0). However, what is good for Homo sapiens is not necessarily right for a frog, a crocodile or a fish. In Max’s 1983 article on species adaptation in a protein molecule, he offered molecular explanations of why bony fish have an enhanced Bohr effect (known as the Root effect). Xenopus toads have a strong Bohr effect but European frogs only have a weak one. For crocodilians bicarbonate is an effector but proton concentrations do little (see DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040299 and DOI: 10.1016/s0065-3233(08)60298-3).

Ball dwells on father/son influence for the Bohr family. Since Max can no longer speak up for himself, I have taken the liberty of writing on his behalf.

Robin Perutz FRSC FRS
University of York, UK

PFAS and inhalers

Andy Extance’s article on medical inhalers provided interesting insights into the complexity of decision-making when balancing environmental regulation, cost and therapeutic benefit.

It occurs to me that the hydrofluorocarbons described in the article as being potent greenhouse gases may also be restricted under PFAS regulations in the future. As PFAS is a rather hot topic in recent years, it would be nice to know a little more on that aspect.

Morgan Thomas MRSC
Yokohama, Japan

Flame-proofing fabrics

I read with great interest the article by Julia Robinson covering flame retardants in children’s products derived from cotton and viscose. The main problem appears to be the toxicity of the chemicals used; the market leader for workwear is Proban, based on tetrakis-hydroxymethyl phosphonium chloride derived from the reaction of phosphine with formaldehyde in hydrochloric acid.

I was involved in a University of Leeds spin-out company (Perachem), that patented a low toxicity flame-proofing system based on applying potassium phosphite/urea which could fix phosphite ester residues on cellulosic fabrics following a simple baking process. Infra-red analysis confirmed that the phosphite salt produced a covalently bonded cellulose phoshonate ester. Urea on heating decomposes to ammonia and isocyanic acid; isocyanic reacts with the phosphite anion to produce a reactive anhydride intermediate that subsequently reacts with cotton cellulose hydroxyl group to form the cellulose phosphonate ester.

To meet the severe work-wear laundry standard it is necessary to incorporate a bonded nitrogen compound in addition to a bonded phosphorous ester. It was thus necessary to after treat with a cationic polymer.

It was frustrating that our new flame-resist process did not gain market acceptance even though Perachem and Archroma promoted the system world-wide. The biggest obstacle was that the market leader Proban met a 70x washing standard at 70°C – we could meet at least 60 such washing cycles. It is important to note that the severe washing requirement at 70°C do not apply to the household washing conditions used on children’s wear. Clear advantages of the phosphite/urea system included no harsh handle of the finished goods, formaldehyde-free chemistry, and no reduction of commonly used dyes in the pre-coloration of fabrics.

After Perachem closed in 2019, full details of the new process were published. 

David Lewis FRSC
Via email

Chemistry World welcomes letters, which should be concise (normally fewer than 300 words) and timely. Those selected for publication are subject to editing for clarity and length. Letters should be marked ‘for publication’ and sent to chemistryworld@rsc.org.

We do not routinely acknowledge letters.