Mmm, Sausage: Solving the Conundrum of Carbon

Chances are, you’re not like me: you cringe when someone says the word “chemistry.” Your memory of it vaguely harkens back to an undergrad class whose knowledge you flushed once you finished the final. That’s okay — my goal for this series is to change that paradigm, make it understandable to all, and provide some entertainment.

We previously discussed the hot mess that is chemical combination (aka “bonding”) theory for organic molecules in the 19th century — it was all over the place. Further, it became quite heated between factions of different theories, and there was snark everywhere. Here’s my attempt to summarize the overall problem in one sentence: theories were being applied to organic molecules that were derived from binary inorganic molecules. A modern chemist could quickly see how that would be a problem: carbon (the basis of organic chemistry) forms chemical bonds through the sharing of electrons (called “covalent bonds”) whereas inorganic compounds form bonds (called “ionic bonds”) from the transfer of electrons — trying to apply bonding theory from inorganic compounds to organic ones would surely lead to complete and epic failure.

If none of that last sentence made sense to you, don’t worry — all you need to know is that organic chemistry theorists were trying to apply logic to organic molecules that didn’t fit with the nature of them. Keep in mind, though, scientists were working with what they had, which was a plethora of knowledge of inorganic compounds (since the early 18th century)…