"Why Did Science Hijack Term "Organic" To Mean Carbon-Based?" Topic

Then again, it sure has been very convenient to news media when they declare the existence of "organic" compounds on that there planet, or that moon over yonder, isn't it?

So, maybe it was to help with funding? :)

Dan
PS. Shouldn't they have come up with something new of their own, something coined by a truly modern "scientist"?
link
TMP link

I was an Organic Chemist. Briefly.
So the current and faddish usage of the term amuses me.

Maybe because "Gluten-Free" sounded a little odd?!?

Who knows why?!? They're only scientists.

It stems from "vitalism" in which proto-scientists believed that all living matter had a "vital essence" that separated it from other mundane matter. Since nearly all of those compounds contain carbon, organic chemistry is now more or less chemistry that involves carbon bonds.

I'm a geographer, not a chemist… but I do have an appreciation for the history of science and epistemology ;-)

Well Martin, since we're both fans of the history of Science, we both appreciate how science "evolves" from the past. Chemistry grew out of alchemy. Astronomy grew out of astrology. Etc.
Do you still put dragons and mermaids in the margins on your maps?

Shouldn't they have come up with something new of their own, something coined by a truly modern "scientist"?

Why?

Uhh, because it's a confusing/misleading use of the original term, even to today's society?

I thought you brainiacs all about precision and clarity, and breaking away from ambiguity, alchemy and such? Or did I get that wrong?

Dan

Looks like the period from 1824-1828:

link

"Vitalism survived for a while even after the rise of modern atomic theory and the replacement of the Aristotelian elements by those we know today. It first came under question in 1824, when Friedrich Wöhler synthesized oxalic acid, a compound known to occur only in living organisms, from cyanogen. A more decisive experiment was Wöhler's 1828 synthesis of urea from the inorganic salts potassium cyanate and ammonium sulfate. Urea had long been considered an "organic" compound, as it was known to occur only in the urine of living organisms. Wöhler's experiments were followed by many others, in which increasingly complex "organic" substances were produced from "inorganic" ones without the involvement of any living organism."

MHoxie,

So, was that the first time they became aware of any carbon-based compounds that had not been produced by organisms?

Or was that just the first time they duplicated a compound that is normally produced by an organism?

Dan

Uhh, because it's a confusing/misleading use of the original term, even to today's society?

Confusing to whom? From your own link the term "organic" has meant the modern term for "from organized living beings" since 1778. The carbon molecules that make up all life on Earth were all created abiogenically in exploding stars. These complex molecules eventually led to life, hence the term "organic". Now, just because we find the same and other organic molecules in space without living creatures you want a new name? Because you are confused?

As to your thread title of "Why did scientists hijack the term "organic" maybe read up on the scientists of the 18th century and find out why.

Honestly, Dan, xeno-biologists are having difficulty coming up with concepts of life without carbon as a basic block. It's really that useful, at temperatures we're used to.

Parochial is us.

Now, would you prefer 'ugly bags of water?'

Doug

@TheBeast: "Now, would you prefer 'ugly bags of water?'"

Lol, of course not. I believe the right Trek term is "ugly bags of mostly water"!

@Bowman, Martin et al, I still find it baffling how you haven't noticed or, if you have, you think it unimportant, that the public's natural understanding of the word "organic" still is the original one, meaning derived from or produced by an organism.

In other words, saying that organic material has been discovered on Pluto for example, still brings to the mind of most people the idea that organisms have actually produced that material.

I don't think I can't make the point any simpler.

I guess it all depends on who your target audience really is when these discoveries are announced, and if the objective is to make the general public understand or just the more educated members. Or, God forbid, perhaps keeping the term ambiguous is somehow intentional, to make the discovery more sensational (and fundable)?

Dan

The term 'Organic Chemistry" was coined in 1806. Back was noted when it was the consensus that all carbon compounds were produced by living organisms.

It has history and science can be pretty tradition minded.

So the wikimonster has carbon dioxide discovered in 1640, with its properties further studied in the 1750s:

link

Carbon monoxide was suspected in antiquity, and identified as a carbon compound in 1800:

link

Cyanogen and Prussic acid in 1815:

link

link

So, they were aware of non-organic carbon compounds even before they produced organic compounds in the lab. I guess the Vitalistic beliefs made it difficult to accept that organic carbon compounds were not all that different than their non-organic brethren.

I thought this was going to be a rant about "Organic" foods.
As stated above I do have a little knowledge of Organic Chemistry, and find the organic food craze lacking in…..nomenclatural accuracy.

As for the science evolving, well, isn't it supposed to evolve? Except when it's "settled" of course and politically acceptable.

@Bowman, Martin et al, I still find it baffling how you haven't noticed or, if you have, you think it unimportant, that the public's natural understanding of the word "organic" still is the original one, meaning derived from or produced by an organism.

And I'm equally baffled that you are baffled. When I took Organic chemistry I was told it is the chemistry of living things. That doesn't automatically preclude the same molecules forming outside of the living things. It just means to be alive, you will have to have these compounds.

In other words, saying that organic material has been discovered on Pluto for example, still brings to the mind of most people the idea that organisms have actually produced that material.

Is this a widespread problem? If so thanks for doing this public service. I await your new terminology. I can't help what the public thinks. I know that every one who has taken any science beyond high school understands that organic molecules can be abiogenically formed and certainly preceded life here on Earth.

……..and find the organic food craze lacking in…..nomenclatural accuracy

Yep. What would food be but "organic"?

Even though there is a very widespread inorganic material that most animals eat in one form or another. Care to guess what?

So the wikimonster has carbon dioxide discovered in 1640, with its properties further studied in the 1750s

But to be fair to Goragrad and others, discovering CO2 from burning charcoal and limestone, doesn't prove an inorganic source. I think once the microscope was invented, people knew that limestone was made from the bodies of living organisms. They already knew that charcoal came from wood and plant material.

I'm with Bowman, Martin, MHoxie on this one. The problem, if it really is a problem, is either lousy science education if it's not being covered in high schools, in which case this conversation should be about the education system, or it's lousy students who weren't paying attention.

It's like people who wipe out in 4WD vehicles because in their minds 4WD = Never Wipes Out.

I vote for option B. I remember discussing urea in grade 11 chemistry…