Dr. Nick Mosey has been with Queen’s University since 2008. He is a theoretical & computational chemist, as well as an Associate Dean of Research under the Faculty of Arts and Science. He earned his BSc and PhD from the University of Western Ontario and has several years of experiencing teaching quantum mechanics and computational chemistry. His lab is focused primarily on using high-performance computing for method development and research on real-world applications.
What aspect of teaching is your most favourite?
Teaching gives me the opportunity to meet all kinds of curious and enthusiastic students. I love to be able to help them achieve that “aha!” moment when they have questions about a concept or problem. It also always keeps me on my toes when a student asks me challenging questions about the material that I myself have not yet considered in my line of work. I find it interesting when a student pushes me to question the comprehensiveness of my knowledge and experience. In this way, we can all be part of a continuous learning experience.
What are your current research interests?
I am a theoretical and computational chemist. My research covers two matters of interest: method development and applied research, where we use state-of-the-art simulations software to study real-world problems. My group’s applied research is motivated by the study of real-world phenomena, including: friction, lubrication, wear, energy storage and generation, and hydrogen generation. Method development, on the other hand, is a technique we employ to overcome the limitations of our simulation tools, as we often study small-scale systems over a short timescale. Therefore, to reduce the computational expense of performing more accurate calculations, we develop techniques that assist us in better reproducing experimental values by minimizing any ambiguity on method accuracy.
How did you decide to study chemistry? Who/what were your major influences?
Growing up in a small town, I knew I had a general interest in science and math, but a doctor was the person closest to a scientist I’d ever met. Initially believing I wanted to eventually apply for medical school, I took a variety of general science and math courses during my first year of my undergrad. However, my biology grades were not on par with my grades in physics and chemistry courses, and so I began to suspect if this reflected my lack of interest in biology in general. In later years, when I had my first exposure to research, I realized that I really liked theoretical chemistry and subsequently turned down any offers from med schools I applied to earlier. My 4th year thesis supervisor (who would go on to be my PhD supervisor) was a new faculty member during that time, and taking on a more senior position in his group gave me the independence and support I needed to excel in my research.
What do you feel is the most rewarding aspect of a career in research?
I love to figure out new things! Research is hard, no question about that. You need to come up with some feasible idea or concept that has meaning and ideally a potential to contribute to your field. However, at the end of the day, when your idea works or has promise (and be advised that this doesn’t always happen), that feeling is extremely rewarding!
What is unique about your field of study that has led you to pursue a career in it?
Theoretical chemistry is unique in the sense that we do not make or synthesize anything, chemical-wise, as we work in what is often coined as “dry labs”. We don’t wear lab coats, make mixtures, use flasks, or set up apparatuses. What sets us apart from other chemistry fields is that we can work with any system models we choose, in order to test or perform calculations on properties we care about. With our technology, we can focus on events and systems on the atomic level, in a precise, controlled, and clearly defined matter, devoid of dangerous chemicals or lengthy experiments.
Why or how do you think your field is of importance to industry?
Our applied work is highly important to industry and to the environment because we focus a great deal on minimizing friction and wear, and promoting efficiency in energy production. Our research on H2 storage and production has ties to moving towards finding renewable and clean sources of energy, which has positive implications for overcoming climate change. Furthermore, by reducing friction and therefore materials damage, we help to lower commercial costs and therefore lower energy demands. Consequently, fewer replacements will need to be made, and there will be a decrease in waste production.
What do you feel is the biggest myth or misconception people have in regards to what you do?
My research is often mistaken to be either really easy, or really difficult. Some think that my work is easily resolved with a click of a button, while others believe that in order to be a theoretical chemist you must be fully knowledgeable of quantum mechanics and advanced mathematics. To these misconceptions, I say that there is an interesting balance between “easy” and “hard” in theoretical chemistry. You do not need to exactly understand the quantum mechanics behind the numbers that emerge from your simulations, nor do you need to be an expert programmer to work with our software. As long as you know what the limits of your methods are, you will be able to use and tailor your tools the same way as any other experimental technique in a lab, as is true for all fields of science.
What advice do you have to offer students that are considering a career in research?
I believe that if you are looking to go into research, know that the task of finding something new is the very nature of research. In other words, the answer to what you are looking for will not be on Google. Thus, keep your available resources close, but don’t be afraid to push yourself to think independently and critically. Secondly, I would advise a prospective researcher to be open to receiving feedback in a positive way. It takes a bit of resilience to work in a field where your ideas are not always accepted or understood by others, but oftentimes others’ criticisms and perspectives are essential to helping us grow as scientists and communicators.
Where do you see your field going in the future? What direction is it taking, from either your own intuition or current events?
In terms of the resources we use to perform calculations, I am seeing a widespread shift in the use of graphical processing units (GPU) versus the very common central processing units (CPU) that we are familiar with. GPUs are highly optimized for the types of calculations we perform, and I’m finding that many people are moving towards using these new infrastructure in computational chemistry. I also believe that people are focusing more on data mining and machine learning, by running large banks of data through algorithms to get predictive outcomes, versus the traditional approach of reproducing results from known equations. Lastly, I feel that the obstacles that used to prevent people from performing simulations without the help of an expert, are disappearing. Many of our techniques are far more accessible and “black-box” in nature than in the past, such that you can do theoretical chemistry without necessarily being an expert in quantum mechanics.
Check out the original post: https://drive.google.com/file/d/16awUGz08jjiTwIMuYGov6hJ0cGhX0I4r/view?usp=sharing
The Chemistry Departmental Student Council Thanks Dr. Mosey for being our featured professor of January and for his time in this interview!
Comentarios