Robert Burns Woodward (1917-1979) is as well known to chemists as his namesakes are to poets and journalists. His contributions to the synthesis of organic compounds cannot be overstated and a staggering number of now-famous professors passed through his labs at Harvard.
Chemistry was and is a huge field but the part that most people see is beakers, retorts, and churning solutions cooking up complex molecules. This is where Woodward became a legend at an early age. His unshared 1965 Nobel Prize was for “for his outstanding achievements in the art of organic synthesis” and not for any specific synthetic accomplishment. Interestingly, he felt that he deserved a share of the 1973 Nobel to Fischer and Wilkinson and would certainly have shared in the 1981 prize to Fukui and Hoffman, had he lived long enough.
My education was in physical chemistry, far removed from organic synthesis. I scarcely recall seeing any of the faculty members from that area when I was in graduate school – the field is that fragmented. Unlike many others of my stripe, I enjoyed my undergraduate organic chemistry classes although I struggled in them. Legions of students have been told that the subject is to be endured, not enjoyed, and requires only memorization. This is utter claptrap. If taught well, and Berkeley did (at least back then), it is like learning a language; alphabet to words to grammar, sentences, literature, and interpretation. Those with an artistic bent also find a lot of fun in the complex three-dimensional structures that are represented out of necessity in two-dimensional drawings. You can’t speak this or any other language by memorizing a dictionary. Organic’s problem is that the material has to be presented and assimilated in such a short time.
Woodward’s generation of chemists didn’t have the modern arsenal of apparatus to determine the composition and structure of what they had made. In fact, they helped develop – or at least drive the need to develop – x-ray crystallography, magnetic resonance, optical and mass spectroscopy, and a variety of other methods closer to physics and physical chemistry. Deduction and inference played a starring role. E.J. Corey, only a few years younger than Woodward, later developed retrosynthetic analysis into a fine art leading to his own unshared Nobel in 1990. Corey looks at complex molecules as assemblies of successively smaller molecular fragments. Some of these might exist as stable compounds, others as hypothetical fragments that could be prepared with the right hooks for further use. Any molecule may be disconnected in several ways and the chemist has to use physical laws, experience, and intuition to decide which approach makes the most sense. Repeat recursively and it is usually possible to get to a relatively simple path from a desired product to commonly available starting materials – a common examination question and a standard tool in the modern chemist’s repertoire.
Some thirty two years after my undergraduate degree, I find myself using the retrosynthetic approach far from its original use. I try to look at problems as a nested collection of subproblems, going down the tree until they become relatively tractable. At the end of this, I have a plan that has traded off time, cost, and risk ending up with a list of materials, procedures, checks and crosschecks, time and personnel estimates, and a good idea of which step or steps pace the effort. In engineering, these map to schedules, risk analyses, bills of materials, assembly, test, and reporting plans, quality control, critical path analyses, and cost although in no particular order. People who do this are called System Engineers in my industry and many companies have claimed to have invented the concept.
Looking backward is how organic chemistry students are encouraged to approach problems if they want to succeed in their courses. The temptation is of course to apply it everywhere and that’s not quite so appropriate. It works if there’s a clear idea of what needs to be done. What sets Woodward, Corey, and their equivalents in other fields is knowing what to go after and what to set aside. That can be done many ways but it helps to be brilliant. If the computers can be taught to do that as they have been taught to do systematic decomposition, it’s over for us. A second temptation is to over-romanticize. These accomplishments in synthesis are usually the result of large research groups implementing a plan and doing the long, often tedious bench work which, when complete, is associated with the group leader’s name. This is where chemistry and high-energy physics intersect. This method of chemical training is imperfect and is periodically questioned when things go horribly wrong at the human level. The scientific and artistic merits of the work have to be assessed in that light.
There are not many films or recordings of Woodward and his equally legendary multi-hour lectures. He transcended his field and his institution, given leeway to do what he liked how he liked it. Dylan Stiles has unearthed a gem from the Harvard archives – a rare departmental seminar from 1972 where Woodward presents the 15-year collaborative effort between his group and Albert Eschenmoser’s lab resulting in the total synthesis of the large, unwieldy, and beautiful Vitamin B12. The introduction by Prof. David Dolphin is itself thirty minutes long with insights into the departmental culture of that time. The main event is a brutally clear and patrician exposition while the speaker chainsmokes in-between sips of his daiquiri. The grainy black-and-white visuals are charming but somewhat hard to read. Nathan Werner’s slides from a 2010 seminar are a very useful supplement.
Via the Youtube Channel of Dylan Stiles:
prof premraj pushpakaran writes — 2017 marks the 100th birth year of Robert Burns Woodward !!!
Indeed it does. It is safe to say he has achieved scientific immortality.
Woodward had a brillant mind that was fully immersed in Organic and Physical Chemistry.
He was characterized by Creative ways in problem solving.
In a rare lecture given in Munich in the fifties he outlined a 18 point plan in addressing any synthetic problem.This paper was found in the archives at Harvard University.This is an extremely valuable paper as it outlines beautifully his methodolgy of thinking which has alluded many of his post docs and Ph.D students.He was a true Artist who had a romantic streak that puzzled his colleagues.He loved to outthink every Chemist and most of all the molecules that he played with.In order to achieve this he became the molecule in an Artistic sense;he truely loved crystals being the end result of his creations!!!He taught us the value of General Principles and the need to apply them in a practical sense.It turns out thatTheory coupled with phyiscal measurements was a very powerful means to achieve Chemical greatness!!!
It sounds like you had the opportunity to meet (and perhaps work with?) him! He had passed away by the time I started on my college chemistry studies so all I have to go on are historical records. His artistry is on full view on this lengthy video on the cephalosporins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp8B_Epj6dc where he draws everything out in both senses of the term.
As a physical chemist, I see your point about how he was fully at home in multiple parts of the field, pulling in methods when they were ready and quite possibly driving their development. I can find no record of him working with Edward Purcell on applying magnetic resonance methods to chemical problems but I am sure they must have known about each other’s work.
He does give the impression that he wanted to be aloof from all but a few people who he considered his peers. The refusal to entertain questions in the cephalosporin lecture is surprising by current standards. I will look for the Munich lecture and the 18 point plan. I’m far removed from synthetic chemistry but appreciate what chemists have done over the past 100+ years with whatever technology and theory were available to them. I’ve found Corey’s retrosynthesis methods to be very useful in attacking problems with no chemical content whatsoever. Working backward from a goal has a way of focusing the mind. I would be interested in Woodward’s own approach.
Thank you, very much for writing.
The 18 point Plan that Woodward adopted pretty well gives you the fundamental approach.This amazing Plan covers off all the key points that woodward applied in his synthetic strategies.
Woodward kept this approach very much to himself except when he gave this lecture in Munich in the 50s.I do not think that their are any other persons who have this document.I call it Woodwards Secret way of thinking!!!!It has made a tremendous difference in my thinking strategies and Tactics.
Joseph Paisley in Toronto.