Archives, Practice of science, workshop articles

Slipping Into the Masterpiece: Where Reactions Fail, Discovery Begins!

May 27, 2026

SHARE THIS

“You lose your grip, and then you slip / Into the Masterpiece,”

-Leonard Cohen

Cohen’s words about losing grip and slipping into a masterpiece have been read as a meditation on human surrender; the moment when the failure of a plan gives way to something larger than the plan ever was! He wasn’t writing about chemistry. But he could have been!

At the bench, chemistry is a discipline of control. We design reactions, predict intermediates, optimize conditions, and expect reproducibility. But some of the most transformative breakthroughs in the history of chemical science did not arrive through control; they arrived the moment a scientist stopped fighting an unexpected result and started listening to it.

Alexander Fleming didn’t set out to discover penicillin. He returned to find his bacterial cultures contaminated by mold, an apparent “ruined” experiment! (1). William Perkin was trying to synthesize quinine; he got a dark sludge that turned out to be mauveine, the first synthetic dye, leading to the birth of the synthetic dye industry (2). Roy Plunkett, working on refrigerants, encountered an unreactive solid which became Teflon, now coating cookware, spacecraft, and surgical implants worldwide (3). In each case, the failed result was not corrected – it was analysed. The scientists had to ease their grip to realize their discovery.

Even today, in laboratories running on protocols and precision, the unexpected has a way of showing up.

Consider a recent case from the Leibniz Institute for Catalysis in Rostock, Germany. A PhD student named Kushik set out to synthesize a phosphorus-based ligand for his research. But the reaction converted only one of the two reactive sites in his starting material. A less curious chemist might have noted the failure and started over. But Kushik decided to do a follow-up reaction and then examined its structure using X-ray diffraction. What emerged was not the expected product but a triazabutadiene, a completely different substance with all the nitrogen atoms retained rather than released as nitrogen gas. The question of why this is happening became the focus of the entire study. What began as a failed ligand synthesis turned out to be a new variant of the Wittig reaction, one of the most celebrated carbon-carbon bond-forming reactions in organic chemistry. The discovery, published in Angewandte Chemie in 2024 (4) opens new avenues for synthesizing molecules relevant to medicine and materials science. It was found entirely because someone chose to pursue a failure rather than discard it.

A few months later, and across the English Channel, the research team led by Professor Erwin Reisner at the University of Cambridge was investigating a photocatalytic reaction that required a specific catalyst to function (5). As standard practice, the PhD student David Vahey removed the catalyst entirely and ran a control, an experiment designed to confirm that without the catalyst, no reaction proceeds. Unexpectedly, the reaction continued, in some cases even with improved efficiency (5).

At this point, the result appeared not only as a failure, but as a contradiction of the working hypothesis. discrediting the very catalyst the team was testing. But they chose to investigate the anomaly further. And by analyzing the system under catalyst-free conditions, the team uncovered an entirely new reaction mechanism, one that requires no metal catalysts, no harsh conditions, only the energy of a blue LED lamp (5).

The result, published in Nature Synthesis in 2026, was the development of an “anti-Friedel-Crafts” reaction. Classical Friedel-Crafts chemistry demands strong acids and harsh conditions. This approach, however, operates under mild, LED-driven conditions. Crucially, it enables late-stage functionalization of drug molecules, potentially saving weeks of effort in pharmaceutical development (5).

Two stories, two laboratories, two failed experiments – and in both cases, the breakthrough lived inside the anomaly.

There is an unspoken practice embedded in good science that rarely makes it into the experimental method section: the practice of returning to failed data, sitting with results that don’t fit, and asking not what went wrong but what is actually happening here. It is unglamorous and often frustrating for the research scholars. And yet, failure rarely gets acknowledged. Grant applications demand results. Progress reports are written around successes. For the student sitting with anomalous data, wondering whether to pursue it, the pressure to move on is real.

From Alexander Fleming to the Cambridge team, in each case, the masterpiece was not created after failure, it was revealed within it. To lose one’s grip, in science, is not to abandon rigor perhaps, but to embrace the unexpected with curiosity, so that new reaction pathways and mechanisms can emerge!

References:

Shreyata Dey grew up amid the Terai-Dooars landscape of North Bengal, India; where the eastern Himalayas meet the plains. She earned her doctorate in organometallic synthesis and catalysis from the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, then moved to France for her postdoctoral research at the University of Strasbourg. She is passionate about writing at the intersection of science and human experience, with a keen interest in making complex ideas accessible to wider audiences. Outside the lab, Shreyata finds her equilibrium in music and literature.

This article was written as part of Club SciWri’s Science Writing Workshop, an initiative aimed at nurturing new voices in science communication and helping participants explore how to make complex ideas accessible to wider audiences.

Workshop conducted by Saurja Dasgupta, Sumbul Jawed Khan, Ananya Sen, Rohini Subrahmanyam, and Roopsha Sengupta