Janet Scott tells Nicola Nugent about getting the green message across, the solution to pollution...and edible ionic liquids.

What inspired you to become a scientist? 
When I was a little kid of 7 or 8, I told the teacher I wanted to be a scientist. The teacher thought this was unusual and it came as a surprise to my parents too. It was obviously something I wanted to do, but I forgot about it and went into something completely different - clothing design. But my brain wasn't being switched on in the morning and I cheekily told my father I wanted to go to university to study science. I sometimes found the studying boring, but I discovered that I liked being in a research lab.

What motivated you to focus on green chemistry?
Like most things, there was a lot of serendipity involved, but I have always felt strongly that scientists have an ethical responsibility to the rest of society. I hadn't thought about green chemistry during my PhD work, but when I got a job in industry, I was the R&D manager for a company that produces bulk pharmaceuticals. One of the things that struck me was that we sometimes produced huge quantities of waste. We had a process with an E factor of 2000, but it was still economically viable, so the argument that economics will drive greenness is not always true.

What projects were you working on at Monash? 
I was working on what we call 'cleaner synthesis technologies': a new reaction or a new reaction medium. But I also have a well-developed interest in supramolecular chemistry and intermolecular interactions. The two are quite complimentary, because using intermolecular interactions - weak forces - to control things will require less energy. In many cases it will produce less waste because it requires fewer bond-making and bond-breaking steps. We did make an edible ionic liquid - I haven't made the student eat it yet, but I think it should taste sweet. We're looking at that for a food labelling system.

Ionic liquids are often hailed as the green solvent. Are they as green as people seem to think?
The only people who hail them as green solvents as a class are people who are hyping their work. Somebody like Ken Seddon would never say that - he'll tell you that you can make the most toxic material you want as an ionic liquid, but that by careful design you can make very green ionic liquids too. If you're going to say an ionic liquid is green, you need to say why. In many cases, the lack of vapour pressure is the big reason, so even if the individual components were not good if ingested, you're not going to be accidentally exposed to the vapour.

What do you think will be the next big thing in green chemistry?
Anything to do with energy generation: the types of chemistry associated with hydrogen production, fuel cells, photovoltaics and so on are going to be critical. The current big thing in synthesis is catalysis, which has been a big thing for a long time because it's important, and will continue to be.

Until your recent move to Unilever, you were the deputy director of the Centre for Green Chemistry at Monash University. What do you think are the benefits of research centres like that?
Focus. Being able to define your core business as 'x' and in our case it's green chemistry. I think that people who have a broad knowledge are the most useful scientists, but having defined your goal as 'research in green chemistry' makes it very clear to the people in the centre where you're aiming.

How important is it to get the green chemistry message across to industry and the wider community?
It's critical, but it's also got to be done carefully. If you start calling everything green and people can see that some of it isn't, then you're doing more harm than good. Painting things a pale shade of green just so that you can make them fit in with some agenda is a counter-productive exercise. It's far better to point out that we live in a world that is the way it is because of technical innovation. In public lectures we say that green chemistry means being the solution rather than the pollution.

Do you think there is enough emphasis on green chemistry in undergraduate teaching of chemistry?
No, but I don't think that one should be introducing a plethora of courses in green chemistry. Monash run a course in green chemistry and it's fairly popular, but its only run at the third year level. One of the reasons is that, as I say to the students, 'if you're not a good chemist, you won't be a good green chemist'. I would like to see more introduction of green chemistry into the teaching of basic chemical principles. It's important for the moment to raise awareness, but I hope the buzz-word will disappear and that it will just be part of the reason for the existence of chemistry.

If you weren't a scientist what would you do?
Farming. I love gardening and growing things - I'm almost entirely self-sufficient in vegetables. The alternative career I could see for myself would be some sort of specialist farming, preferably where being a chemist could also add value.