One of my professors told me that organic chemistry has become a tool for biological research, rather than an active research field of its own.

Is this assertion valid? Does it describe correctly the general attitude towards organic chemistry in research institutions today?

  • $\begingroup$ Not sure if this actually counts as a valid (Chemistry) question here. Perhaps it's (somewhat) better off on Academia.SE? $\endgroup$ – paracetamol Nov 14 '17 at 14:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Have you considered asking this at The Table? O:) $\endgroup$ – paracetamol Nov 14 '17 at 14:54
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Do believe organic chemistry is alive and well. Consider, e.g., chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3979/… $\endgroup$ – hBy2Py Nov 14 '17 at 15:08
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @hBy2Py I think it's been fairly well demonstrated that we can synthesise more or less anything given enough time and money. These games are enjoyable intellectually, but I'm not sure they're adding much value any more (sadly). But that doesn't mean organic chemistry is dead. Pure synthesis, I feel, is but there are so many other things that synthesis can be applied to. Just need to get out the bunker a little :) $\endgroup$ – awjlogan Nov 14 '17 at 15:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ How many journals are there now publishing synthetic chemistry papers? Seems like there's a new one every year. Doesn't sound like a subject in decline to me. $\endgroup$ – Waylander Nov 14 '17 at 16:59

The closest thing to organic chemistry would now be the shape and sequencing of protiens and or DNA. That field is best left alone as it takes too much time to pay anyone to get any applicable results. Advances in things like machine learning are promising to the unraveling of these complex structures. Humams are better at recognising the patterns hence the "fold it" game.

| improve this answer | |

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.