Tag Archives: October2016

Library, October 2016, PubMed Tip of the Month

PubMed Tip of the Month: Searching for Chemicals & Drugs

October 11, 2016 Laura Pavlech

Use the common name: PubMed is not primarily a resource for chemical information, so forget what I said in my column about not searching by name. Enter the common name for a chemical, drug or other substance in the main search box. Scroll down the results page to the ‘Search Details’ box in the right-hand column to check to see if the name you entered matched a MeSH term.

Use the standardized name: To search by standardized name in PubMed, replace any brackets or parentheses with a hyphen (if not already present). You can either spell out or enter the symbol for Greek characters such as β.

To search for: 1-[(3,5-dichloro)-2,6-dihydroxy-4-methoxyphenyl]-1-hexanone

Enter: 1-3,5-dichloro-2,6-dihydroxy-4-methoxyphenyl-1-hexanone

Search the MeSH database: Didn’t find what you were looking for when you searched by name? Try searching the MeSH database. Select ‘MeSH’ from the dropdown menu to the left of the main search box. Enter a component of the name.

To search for: alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid

Enter: isoxazolepropionic

Try a unique identifier: In either PubMed or the MeSH database, enter the CAS RN or FDA Unique Ingredient Identifier (UNII, identifier assigned by the FDA Substance Registration System to substances in drugs, biologics, foods and devices) for a substance. If searching PubMed, then enter the identification number, followed by the field tag ‘[RN]’. For example: 69-93-2[RN]. I find this method of limited utility, partly because CAS RNs have not been added to MeSH since 1998.

Library, October 2016, On the Shelf

On the Shelf…

October 11, 2016 Laura Pavlech

For work…

Lab Math, by Dany Spencer Adams

Location: HHSL Book Stacks, Sackler, 5^th Floor, QA40.A34 2014

Authored by a Tufts biology professor, this is a handbook of measurements, calculations and quantitative skills for use at the bench. The book describes various mathematical principles, basic statistics, and tasks involving numbers, such as calibrating lab equipment and making solutions.

And leisure…

I Contain Multitudes: The Microbes Within Us and a Grander View of Life, by Ed Yong

Location: HHSL Book Stacks, Sackler, 5^th Floor, QW 4 Y55 2016

This well-reviewed book, by the science writer Ed Yong, explores the relationships between animals and the microbes that live in, on, and around them.

Events for Students, October 2016

ICYMI: Mentoring Circles Kickoff

October 11, 2016 Jessica S. Elman

As part of my resolution to better understand my career goals and options by attending more seminars at Tufts and then sharing my experiences with you, I decided to join the Tufts Mentoring Circle Program. Here’s a brief breakdown of the program’s kickoff event, which was held on October 6th in Sackler 114.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the program, the mentoring circles, open to all graduate students and postdocs at Tufts, are meant to provide a social and educational experience for mentors and mentees alike, bringing together people who, based on a previously submitted survey, have similar career goals and interests. At this first event, the circles, which have an average of five or six people per group, were brought together to meet one another and discuss objectives for the year. Since on my survey I indicated a strong interest in industry, my group consists of postdocs with the same inclination and a mentor who currently works as a scientist at a prominent pharmaceutical company in Cambridge. My experience will be unique to my personal goals, as those who stated an interest in academia are grouped with other academia-bound grad students and postdocs, similarly to how those who are working towards an alternative non-academic career, like science writing, are also assigned to one another for the duration of the program.

After we introduced ourselves within our groups over pizza and salad, the organizers of the program gave a short presentation on tips and suggestions for how to have a successful circle. The importance of preparing for and attending every meeting was heavily stressed. We were also encouraged to mix up the format our meetings—instead of always just going to a coffee shop and talking, we can go to events together like symposiums, seminars, or even networking events. As someone who finds networking to be an intimidating and nerve-wracking experience, the prospect of having someone come along and act as a safety net seems fantastic and will make me more likely to attend.

After the presentation, groups were left to themselves to chat, set goals, and eat more pizza. In my group, every person had the opportunity to talk about what their dream job might entail—whereas some of the members had pretty specific career ideas, others, including myself, could only speak in broad strokes about factors like work-life balance, travel, and flexibility. The meeting was casual and fun, and it was actually a relief to hear some postdocs, even a few years out of graduate school, have undeveloped ideas about their careers and are still figuring out where they want to end up. Together, we decided on topics that we would like to discuss and goals that we would like to achieve throughout the year and we signed a “Mentoring Circle Contract” that stated the following: “We understand that each of us is responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of our shared communications, meeting regularly at the times we have agreed upon, and actively participating in circle discussions”. Though this was only our first meeting, I can tell we all have a lot to learn from one another and I am excited for the new professional and friendly circle I am now a part of! It’s like joining a club where the main project is you and your career.

Definitely keep an eye out for the program’s announcement next year, and also keep in mind that American Women in Science (AWIS) is another organization through which some of you can join a similar circle.

articles, October 2016

CRISPR Interference Battle: Still Duking It Out?

October 11, 2016 Ila S. Anand

At the moment in the USPTO office, a fierce battle is occurring between two scientific teams over patent rights associated with core CRISPR/Cas technology. On one side of the dispute is Jennifer Doudna’s team from UC Berkeley. On the other side is Feng Zhang’s team from the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. Both teams were the first labs to demonstrate that the Cas9 enzyme can be directed to cut specific sites in isolated DNA. It will be intriguing to find out who is finally the victor of this contentious debate.

The story of the patent dispute has been lengthy and drawn-out. Jennifer Doudna’s team first filed for patent rights over CRISPR/Cas technology back in May of 2012. Feng Zhang’s team subsequently filed their patent application in December of that same year. Interestingly, Zhang’s team beat Doudna’s team to the punch over patent rights because in October of 2013 they submitted their application for expedited review. Expedited review required the Broad to undergo “accelerate examination,” where they were required to respond quicker to questions asked by the USPTO office. Due to the expedited reviewing process, the patent was ultimately granted to Zhang’s team in April of 2014. Shortly after this event, eleven other CRISPR-related patent applications were filed by the Broad Institute. To counter-attack the Broad’s prompt monopoly over CRISPR-related patents, Doudna’s team requested a patent interference against all CRISPR-related patents filed by the Broad. The USPTO office finally declared the patent interference in January of 2016.

Historically, a patent interference has been a procedure to resolve disputes between two parties over who was the “first to invent.” However, in March of 2013 the USPTO altered the patent system from “first to invent” to “first to file.” Under these new rules, Doudna’s team would have won the CRISPR patent rights because the team was the “first to file” their patent. But since both parties filed their patents before March 2013, the interference procedure defaults under the outdated “first to invent” rules.

The “first to invent” rule has blurred the lines of who is the true proprietor of the patent rights. For over nine months, both parties have been providing evidence claiming they were the “first to invent.” The Broad asserts that Zhang’s team was the first group to demonstrate that CRISPR/Cas technology has applications in editing genes in mammalian cells. They argue that Doudna’s team only described using CRISPR/Cas in bacteria, not in eukaryotes. This distinction is important because some of CRISPR’s most lucrative, future applications will be in gene editing therapies for human diseases. Doudna’s team countered the Broad’s argument by claiming that although her team only demonstrated the use of the technology in bacteria, transferring the technique to mammalian cells was “obvious” and any “person of ordinary skill,” such as a postdoc, could have made that inference. This observation is also important because one of the hallmarks of patentability is that an invention cannot be obvious to a person of ordinary skill. Doudna’s team asserts that the obviousness of the Broad’s patent would make it invalid. The Broad subsequently counter-argued that the shift from bacteria to mammalian cells was “anything but obvious.” This type of back-and-forth between the USPTO, UC Berkeley, and the Broad has been continuing for the last nine months and updated details of the case can be viewed on the Broad’s CRISPR Patent Interference Updates webpage (reference is listed below).

Patent interference cases can last up to two years before appealing to the Federal Circuit. Due to the intense, ongoing clash between the two academic teams, attorneys expect the end date of the CRISPR patent interference case to be sometime in 2017. However, a recent twist in events may close the case completely by the end of this year. This past week, UC Berkeley attorneys submitted a 2013 dated email to the USPTO office. This email was from Feng Zhang to Jennifer Doudna describing his team’s first, published CRISPR paper and mentioning that he has been “very inspired” by her team’s work. This is enough evidence to imply that Zhang’s team had adapted from Doudna’s team’s work and that Zhang’s team was not the “first to invent” the CRISPR/Cas technology. The Broad understands that it’s difficult to counter this piece of evidence. Since the submission of this email, the Broad has asked patent officials to remove four CRISPR-related patents from the interference case in hopes that they can demonstrate novelty of the patents in other ways that are separate from the initial Zhang team’s CRISPR patent. If the Broad can separate these patents from the interference case, then both UC Berkeley and the Broad can walk away with some intellectual property. We will see in the forthcoming weeks how the case plays out.

Although intellectual property was at stake for the two scientific teams, the interference case has been rather unusual in nature. Why has the fight been so bitter and acrimonious? One explanation could be that it’s not the academic institutions that are footing the legal bill for the case but the biotechnology companies that are relying on licensing the patent. Both Doudna and Zhang have started up genome editing companies and if one of those companies has proprietary rights over the CRISPR/Cas technology, that company can collect huge royalties from patent licensing. Perhaps another reason why the dispute has been rancorous is because Doudna and Zhang have their eyes set on a Nobel Prize. CRISPR/Cas technology is revolutionizing the way we do basic science research, the way we treat diseases, and the way we practice agriculture. For these reasons it’s very likely that the scientists behind the technology will receive a Nobel Prize. Regardless of the outcome of the patent interference, the scientific community is certain of one thing: CRISPR has definitely made its mark in patent law history.

References:

CRISPR Patent Interference Updates. Retrieved from https://www.broadinstitute.org/what-broad/areas-focus/project-spotlight/crispr-patent-interference-updates
Begley, S. (2016, August 16). CRISPR patent fight: The legal bills are soaring. Retrieved from https://www.statnews.com/2016/08/16/crispr-patent-fight-legal-bills-soaring/
Cohen, J. (2016, October 5). Dramatic twists could upend patent battle over CRISPR genome-editing method. Retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/10/dramatic-twists-could-upend-patent-battle-over-crispr-genome-editing-method
McCall, A. (2016, June 5). The CRISPR Clash: Who owns the groundbreaking, DNA altering technique? Retrieved from http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/06/05/crispr-clash-dna-technology/id=69650/
Ledford, H. (2016, September 21). The Titanic clash over CRISPR patents turns ugly. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/news/titanic-clash-over-crispr-patents-turns-ugly-1.20631

October 2016

Presidential Candidates Talk Science: Where They Stand on 20 Important Issues

October 11, 2016 Kayla Gross

by Nafis Hasan, Drew Hooper, & Kayla Gross

Science policy, though intertwined with many other aspects of national and international issues, is not the usual focus of a presidential election and often boils down to just a few questions during a debate. In an effort to change this narrative, in 2008, several scientific and engineering organizations initiated a challenge to the presidential candidates by asking them to participate in a science-focused debate. By crowdsourcing questions, ScienceDebate.org presented the candidates with 20 questions addressing the most immediate and important STEM-oriented issues that affect the American public and published their answers online. In its third iteration, this movement has recently posted the 2016 candidates’ responses.

With the election drawing nearer, we decided to review their answers and provide summaries which are listed below.

	Clinton	Trump	Johnson	Stein
Innovation	Establishes education, especially in computer science, as foundational for improving national innovation Improve open access between government-funded scientists and private sector groups for “commercialization of research results”	Reduce barriers for entry into free markets to allow entrepreneurs to flourish Emphasis on space exploration & “research & development across the broad landscape of academia”	Reduce tax burden allowing more private investment in innovation Government should not pick winners and losers by imposing priorities Requests for Applications skew science towards “fashionable topics”	Reduce Pentagon spending to free up dollars for innovation investment “Level playing field” with living wage and paid sick leave will lead to more innovation
Research	Concerned about US “underinvestment in research” Improve funding for (1) young investigators and (2) “high risk high reward” and/or long-term projects	Improve efforts towards sustaining “viable space program” and institutional research	Government should get out of the way, allow scientists to determine regulations Private companies will invest in basic science research More transparency in funding to reduce waste	Top priority is climate change Science policy should better reflect preferences and needs of citizens
Climate Change	Acknowledges the severity of climate change and its consequences. Proposes 3-tiered plan to reduce fossil fuel dependence through technological advancement, increase investment and reliance on cleaner energy alternatives and cut energy waste. Also proposes to increase jobs in the clean energy sector. Launch $60 billion initiative to partner with local govts for cleaner energy alternatives.	Believes climate change to be a hoax created by the Chinese, as evidenced by his speeches, and still refers to it in quotation marks. Believes that limited resources would be better spent in other avenues such as clean water and food production.	Acknowledges the threat of climate change and the contribution of humans to it.. Believes that market forces will be able to bring tangible reductions in carbon emissions rather than governmental regulations and international treaties.	Believes climate change to be the “greatest existential threat that humanity has ever faced”. Proposes a “Green New Deal” which will create 20 million jobs and completely switch to clean energy sources by 2030. Also proposes to end subsidies to fossil fuel companies and phase out nuclear energy. Advocates for more investment in sustainable agriculture and infrastructure.
Biodiversity	Emphasis on preventative approaches to protect at-risk species from becoming endangered International collaboration for research, information sharing, & conservation efforts	Necessary to move away from “special interests” controlling decisions about federal land	Innovation, free trade, and prosperity will enable better environmental protection Private ownership of land leads to better stewardship	Ban pesticides that threaten pollinators Invest in clean air and water, zero-waste manufacturing processes, and sustainable agricultural practices
Internet	Advocates internet to be kept as “a space for free exchange, providing all people equal access to knowledge and ideas.” Proposes to build on Obama administration’s “Cybersecurity National Action Plan” and put in place a Chief Information Security Officer. Cyber attacks to be treated just as any other attack and will be responded with serious political, economic and military approaches.	Believes that the govt should not “spy on its citizens”. Any attack on the Internet deemed to require “utmost protection”, and a “proportional response” to “eliminate any threat to internet infrastructure”.	Advocates for protection of user privacy and encryption. Wants to scale back National Security Agency’s role to provide cyber defense rather than being on the offensive. Proposes more education on cyber security.	Propose to keep the internet free by supporting public broadband, supporting net neutrality laws, negotiate international treaties to ban cyber attacks with the UN’s help. Opposes the “Online Piracy Act” and other legislation that would “undermine freedom and equality on the internet”.
Mental Health	Implement changes to health care system so that mental health & physical health are considered and treated in tandem Improve awareness and training of medical & other professionals in mental health areas	Increase federal support to states to improve treatment options Recognizes that “a comprehensive solution set must be developed”	Delivery of treatment is the key challenge, and state solutions are better than federal ones Drug war prevents treatment by criminalizing drug abusers	Implement Medicare for All, including mental health care, Supplemental Security Income for mentally ill, and public education on mental illness Provide rehabilitation services for mentally ill prisoners
Energy	Proposes a “smart energy policy” that will be at the intersection of economy, environment and security concerns. Advocates for more usage of cleaner energy sources, with a short term focus on solar power. Also wants to discourage fossil fuel dependence by cutting subsidies, investing more in clean energy technology and infrastructure. *Also see “Climate Change” answer for more details.	Believes achieving “energy independence as soon as possible” as the goal of the US govt and American people. Proposes said goal can be achieved by “exploring” all possible energy sources. Also believes that the market will determine the best sources of energy for consumers.	Government interferes with proper acquisition and use of energy Nuclear power is underused and overregulated Market will dictate use of renewable energy sources	Rapidly transition to 100% clean energy End fracking, offshore oil drilling, and nuclear power by pulling subsidies
Education	Committed to implementing improved computer science education at the primary, secondary, and collegiate levels to meet current job market needs, especially in underrepresented populations	Education models need to be changed as “one size fits all” does not work and thus should be determined at the local or state versus federal level Will “allow market influences” to improve education	Federal standards are unnecessary and counter-productive Rely on competition among states to incentivize high academic achievement	Pre-school through university should be “tuition-free and world-class” Replace Common Core based on input from educators, parents, and communities Increase federal funding of public schools
Public Health	Establish consistent budgeting for rapid responses to public health crises Expand training programs as well as available resources to current government divisions	Resources are limited and thus assessment of areas with most need is required	Federal government’s role should be limited to “superbugs” and epidemics that cross state lines	Health data should be shared, not proprietary, to better monitor trends Save money through a more preventative approach to public health
Water	Wants to work with both public and private sector to provide clean, safe water and improve water treatment technology. Proposes to build a multi-agency “Western Water Partnership” to improve access to clean water. Also proposes a “Water Innovation Lab” to develop novel technology for better water resource management.	Acknowledges the crisis and proposes to invest in infrastructure development to provide clean water to everyone. Proposes increased desalinization approach and better infrastructure to meet the demands of clean water.	Failure to protect water supply as in Flint, MI is criminal Federal government should step in when local and state officials fail or engage in misconduct	Investing in infrastructure will ensure clean water and prevent future crises
Nuclear Power	Fund research for advances in nuclear power Reduce amount of weapons-grade nuclear material globally	Continue to rely on nuclear power as important part of energy independence	Maintain robust safety and security standards, and continue using nuclear power Invest in newer, safer, less wasteful types of reactors	End nuclear power subsidies, and phase out nuclear power completely by 2027
Food	Proposes to increase investment in sustainable agricultural practices through the “Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development”. Proposes to invest more in rural business through “Rural Business Investment Companies” that would drive growth and jobs in rural areas.	Believes that the market forces should be able to provide the agriculture industry with the best solutions. However, also believes that food availability is a “national security issue” and therefore federal govt should be involved to provide a safety net for farmers.	Federal management of agricultural, including subsidies, has created imbalances	Label GMOs and regulate to make sure they are safe Support regenerative agriculture and sustainability
Global Challenges	Proposes to appoint US’ first “Special Envoy for Climate Change” and lead the world in responding to climate change. Also proposes to build a global “Climate and Clean Air Coalition” on an international level and make climate change a major diplomacy issue. Also proposes to build a “Rapid Response Fund” to respond to national and international crises.	Wants to make sure that the US is experiencing economic growth due to his belief that “a prosperous America is a much better partner in tackling global problems”.	Use diplomacy and trade to engage with the world and solve global problems	International institutions should be strengthened to tackle climate change and pandemic disease
Regulations	Employ environmental, health, and energy regulations that “use the best available science”	Keep, rescind, or add regulations based on science Balance economy with protection of citizens	Federal regulations should be reduced wherever possible Patients in extremis should be free to use experimental medicine FDA should be used more for informing the public about risk and less for regulating therapies	Rely on science advisors to formulate regulations
Vaccination	Globally eliminate childhood diseases through vaccination Educate parents about dangers of not vaccinating their children Bridge “innovation gap” between research and production of new vaccines	Invest in comprehensive vaccination program as a public service	Federal government should assist in the event of national or regional outbreak Engage with partner countries to combat international outbreaks	Universal health care needed to ensure everyone has access to critical vaccines Increase public trust in regulatory agencies by removing corporate influence
Space	Wants to build on current progress in US’ space exploration by ensuring funding for NASA’s programs.	Supports a “strong space program” from employment and educational perspectives. Propose to work on a global scale to expand space exploration.	Space exploration should be encouraged in the private sector	Lead international collaboration to ensure that space technology benefits all people Sign International Treaty for the Demilitarization of Space Leave space exploration and research agenda up to scientists, not military or corporations
Opioids	Proposes a $10 billion initiative to fight the opioid epidemic by expanding the “Substance Abuse and Treatment block grant” and other federal-state partner programs. Recommends “rehabilitation and treatment over prison for low-level and non-violent offenders”.	Wants to “stop the inflow of opioids” into the US.	Drug laws and “crony capitalism” of legal opioid sales have largely driven the opioid addiction crisis Decriminalize and reschedule drugs, particularly cannabis	End the war on drugs and focus instead on research, education, and treatment
Ocean Health	Proposes to “oppose efforts in Congress that seek to weaken” established regulations on overfishing. Also wants to “act globally to address the fisheries crisis” and proposes better tracking of seafood sources. Also wants to protect coastal habitats and coral reefs.	No mention of oceans, fishing, coral reefs or coastal habitats in answer.	Focus on protecting our own coastlines and territorial waters Ocean pollution and over-harvesting will depend on international agreements and market forces	As part of total climate change response, conserve fish stocks and coral reefs “with or without Congress” (i.e. through executive action)
Immigration	Proposes to “staple” a green card to Master’s and PhD degree holders in STEM fields. Proposes to support “start-up visas” for tech entrepreneurs from abroad to invest in the US. Wants to streamline immigration process for “lawful residents” for easier naturalization, as mentioned in her comprehensive immigration reform.	Rebukes the tech companies for abusing the H1-B visa program. Endorses “legal” individuals for extended stay in the US after achieving their degrees, however, was unclear on which status they would fall under.	Believes that a “robust” H1-B visa program will increase growth, innovation and wealth. Wants market forces to determine immigration of labour and would streamline the immigration process for all labor types and skills.	Supports the H1-B visa program, and believes immigration issues should be studied within a global economic context. Supports more “international development and demilitarization”. No specific comments on “scientists and engineers who receive their graduate degree at American Universities.”
Scientific Integrity	Supports open access to government-funded findings through implementation of incentives for scientists to “share data, code & research results” Invested in bolstering public trust in scientific findings, preserving non-partisan nature of science research, and maintaining penalties for fraud & dishonesty	Committed to eliminating political bias in research as “science is science and facts are facts” .	Increase transparency to reduce influence of political interference on scientific integrity Respect diversity of thought in research centers	American public distrusts scientific regulatory agencies because of corrupting influence of pharmaceutical corporations Stop the “revolving door” between political and corporate positions, and “clean up” regulatory agencies to improve public trust in science

And finally, members of our writing team have provided their opinions on where these candidates stand when it comes to STEM:

Andrew Hooper: The perennial policy debate in the U.S. boils down to a critical role for the federal government in ensuring parity and safety through regulation from the perspective of the political left (Clinton, Stein), versus the stifling of creativity and market forces by over-regulation from the political right’s point of view (Trump, Johnson). Thus there is a greater burden on Clinton and Stein to provide detailed agendas for tinkering with regulations and bureaucracies to improve them, while Trump and Johnson tend to fall back on broad statements about the free market, federal overreach, and misspent tax dollars, promising massive overhauls to get the federal government “out of the way” of entrepreneurs, innovators, and educators.

Nafis Hasan: The US govt’s scientific policy, since World War II, has largely focused on development of a technocratic superpower, with a delicate balance maintained between environmental and economic concerns. As such, the obvious split between the centre and left-leaning candidates (Clinton, Stein) and the right-leaning ones (Trump, Johnson) is reflected on how this status should be achieved. Both Clinton & Stein advocate federal govt’s regulations in areas of concern such as climate change, energy and water, whereas Trump (in cases where he does acknowledge the crises) and Johnson are more likely to put their trust in the free market, a Friedmanian ideology that wreaked economic havoc in countries where it was tested. While Clinton seems to have the most thought-out plans for all the 20 topics covered, she is lacking in concrete details in some cases; it is also concerning that Clinton doesn’t openly support protection of user privacy and data encryption, which the other three candidates have all favored. Stein, true to her party’s namesake, favors a much stronger stance on climate change, water and energy crises; however, her plans might be deemed a bit too “idealistic” for the American public’s and legislators’ tastes. Both Johnson and Trump, while making a few good points, advocate for measures that would largely remove federal regulations and govt programs that have kept the standard of living in this country from free-falling. By and large, the choice for the next President of the US should be quite obvious for the scientific community.

For related reading on these topics, check out:

Grading the Presidential Candidates on Science (Scientific American)
Open Letter To The Presidential Debate Moderators (Huffington Post)
An Open Letter Regarding Climate Change From Concerned Members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (ResponsibleScientists.org)

Library, Notes from the library, October 2016

Notes from the Library…Finding Chemical & Drug Information: Part I

October 11, 2016 Laura Pavlech

In the course of your research, you may need information about chemical properties, structures and reactions, and articles from the chemical, biochemical and drug literature. In this month’s column, I will cover resources for finding chemical information. Next month, I will discuss drug information resources.

First, a few tips on searching for chemical property or reaction information. Different resources use different naming conventions for chemical substances. Thus, searching by substance name is the least efficient way to find chemical information. The following approach is recommended:

Structure: Utilize structure editor in resource to draw substance. Most effective method of searching, but available in all resources.
Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS RN): The Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) of the American Chemical Society assigns unique identification numbers to chemical substances, e.g. 1007-32-5. Highly accurate method of searching, but not 100%, particularly in databases not produced by CAS.
Molecular Formula: Effective search method, but may retrieve a long list of results.

Now that you know a little about how to search for chemical information, you need to know where search. All the resources listed below are accessible from the ‘Find Chemical & Drug Information’ page in the Sackler School Biomedical Sciences Research Guide: http://researchguides.library.tufts.edu/c.php?g=275784&p=2706564.

Here are a few resources for finding property information:

CRC Handbook of Chemistry & Physics: The electronic version of this classic reference book provides tables of property data for organic, inorganic and biochemical compounds. To search by structure, property, or molecular formula, click the flask icon in the upper right corner of the homepage.

Knovel Critical Tables: Collection of interactive tables that provide physical, thermal and electrical properties of chemicals compounds and solvents. Good for approximate values, but tables do not include information about conditions under which properties were measured. Search by CAS RN; structure search not available.

Merck Index Online: Encyclopedia of chemicals, drugs and biologicals with links to reference articles in PubMed. Good for quickly finding structure, property and toxicity information. Search by structure, CAS RN, molecular formula or name.

For chemical literature, as well as property and reaction information, try these databases:

Reaxys: Database of references to chemical journals, books, conference proceedings and patents. Comprehensive indexing that extracts property, bioactivity, reaction and synthesis data from the literature means you can get experimentally-derived property data for organic, inorganic and organometallic substances without having to sift through the studies yourself. Good for detailed information culled from the chemical literature. To find property information, select the ‘Substances, Names, Formulas’ box on the Reaxys homepage. Search by structure, CAS RN or molecular formula.

SciFinder: This Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) database offers property data on organic and inorganic molecules, proteins and polymers as well as experimental procedures, conditions, yields and solvents for chemical reactions. SciFinder also provides references to the chemical, biochemical and chemical engineering literature from the CAplus and MEDLINE databases. Registration required to use this database. To register, follow instructions on the page that opens from the link above.