Can you trust your results like a skydiver trusts their altimeter?
As my computer buzzed with the livestream of high-altitude skydiver Felix Baumgartner standing on the edge of a stratospheric balloon preparing to free-fall, my colleague pointed at the gas chromatogram on a different part of the screen. ‘See that inflection there? That’s hydrogen. You said that’s where it comes out!’
‘Yes,’ I replied. ‘But that inflection couldn’t be a signal, nor this or this,’ I said as I circled my cursor around two similar baseline inflections. ‘With this method and the need of a reliable signal to noise, this shows nothing.’
‘But there could be something there.’ They stood back. ‘This reaction is very trace. Take that peak, integrate it, and get me an hourly yield. This proposal is due shortly, and this is a great confirmation!’
The integrity of your data is paramount. Decisions are based on it, money flows by it, careers, programs and reputations are made and broken by it. Much like a skydive from the stratosphere, experimental chemistry holds an allure of exploration and risk. This must be framed by method development, qualification, and responsible conduct of research.