I’m not a bot. I’m a chemist. I’m a human with a PhD trying to talk about science. My goal is simple, make people smarter, not angrier. Science, explained clearly. If you’re human too, drop a “Hi” so I know I’m not shouting into the botnet.

For most of history, getting older was an achievement. Modern medicine made it an expectation.

The greatest trick science ever pulled was making miracles boring. Clean water. Antibiotics. Vaccines. Safe food. Electricity. Anaesthesia. We stopped calling them miracles because they work.

The periodic table contains 118 elements. Everything you’ve ever touched is made from them. Chemistry is basically the instruction manual for stuff.

being on 𝕏 all day gives you the most broken view of science lol. spend 10 minutes on here and you’d think: > experts can’t be trusted > vaccines cause autism > GMOs are poisoning us > glyphosate causes cancer > nuclear power is killing us > natural chemicals are safe > synthetic chemicals are dangerous > scientists are bought by industry > some new study has just proved everything we know is wrong then you go outside… and people are like: “wait, there’s DNA in food?” the difference between science Twitter and the actual world is hilarious.

Yes. Air is composed of chemicals. ~78% nitrogen. ~21% oxygen. ~0.9% argon. ~0.04% carbon dioxide.

One of humanity’s greatest chemical inventions is so boring you probably used it this morning. Soap.

What molecule is GPT-6 Astra synthesising?

People worry that biotechnology is “interfering with nature.” Agriculture has been interfering with nature for 10,000 years. That’s why bananas don’t look like this.

🔴 EN DIRECT I Meeting de David Lisnard en Alsace nitter.net/i/broadcasts/1PJqrNkkd…

If a chemical is detected at one part per billion, modern chemistry has done something remarkable. Detection is not danger.

The modern world has a visibility problem. You see the pesticide. You don’t see the crop disease it prevented. You see the vaccine. You don’t see the child who didn’t get sick. You see the technology. You don’t see the disaster that never happened.

People are asking how AI companies will discover the next breakthrough drug. I think they're asking the wrong question. Generating molecules is a commodity. The limiting factor is no longer the ability to create hypotheses. It's the ability to test them in the real world.

I’m a scientist. I have worked in chemical industry R&D for >20 years. People talk about automated wet labs as if they’re the next great AI revolution. But there is a problem. They’re not new. Industry has been automating experiments for decades. Automated analytical chemistry: 1950s. Laboratory robots: 1980s. High-throughput screening: 1990s. Today we automate liquid handling, synthesis, biological testing, plant phenotyping and much more. Pharma and chemical companies have spent decades building the machines, protocols and infrastructure to generate experimental data at scale. So what does AI actually change? Potentially something much more interesting: Which experiment we run next. Generate 1,000 hypotheses. Choose the most informative experiment. Run it. Measure reality. Feed the result back. Choose again. Repeat. That loop could get dramatically faster. And here’s the irony: AI could make decades of investment in wet-lab infrastructure more valuable, not less. Because no matter how intelligent the model becomes, look at what never disappears from the loop: The experiment. AI can accelerate the thinking. Automation can accelerate the testing. But reality still gets the final vote.

If it’s entirely run by AI, what are the humans doing, repairing the robots?

The vaccine–autism myth started with one 1998 paper of 12 children. It was retracted, the author was struck off for dishonesty, and studies of millions of kids since have found no link. One fraud vs. millions of children

You should be suspicious when someone tells you science has been “silenced.” Especially when they’re telling millions of people.

A conspiracy theory has one enormous advantage over science: It never has to admit it was wrong.

I’m a scientist. I need to say this because the AI hype is getting ridiculous. AI can design a molecule in seconds. That doesn’t mean it discovered a drug. It discovered something we scientists have never been short of: Something to test. Someone still has to make it. Run the experiment. Measure whether it works. Check whether it’s toxic. And ultimately prove it works in the real world. AI hype tells us: “Prediction is discovery.” “Simulation is experimentation.” “Generating a molecule is developing a drug.” It isn’t. AI is making ideas incredibly cheap. But every new idea creates something AI cannot generate: Evidence. And the more hypotheses AI produces, the more experiments we’re going to need. That’s the irony nobody seems to be talking about. AI may not make laboratories obsolete. It may make them more valuable than ever. You can speedrun the thinking. You can’t speedrun reality.