The tedious and time-consuming solvent exchange during aerogel production was sped up using a standard Soxhlet extractor. Optimizing the setup with a vent and molecular sieve allowed to save up to 80% of the production time compared to batchwise extractions while maintaining state-of-the-art samples of silica and polyurethane aerogels, i.e. MTMS aerogels with a thermal conductivity of 15 mW m−1 K−1 and PU aerogels with 17 mW m−1 K−1 and good mechanical properties even after freeze-drying, which is generally more stressful than supercritical drying. The syntheses had to be carried out in high-boiling solvents, but adaptation and optimisation were made possible rapidly due to the method developed.

Folgt unsere Welt einem geregelten „Tanz der Materie“? Lässt sich Magie in die Leer-stellen persönlicher und wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnis hineindeuten? Die Autoren gehen grundlegenden Fragen naturwissenschaftlichen Denkens nach und verdeutlichen anhand anschaulicher Beispiele, was unklare Begriffe wie „Plausibilität“ in der Naturwissenschaft bedeuten, was „Empirie“ ist und was die naturwissenschaftliche Methode für unsere Sicht der Welt bewirkt. Auf diese Weise entzaubern sie die Argumente von Pseudo- und Anti-Wissenschaftlern und verteidigen die Naturwissenschaften gegen Missbrauch. Hemminger ist Biologe und Psychologe – vor seinem Ruhestand beriet er zuletzt die Evangelische Kirche in Fragen um Religionspsychologie und Sekten. Beyer ist Professor für Molekulare Biologie an der Westfälischen Hochschule Gelsenkirchen.

Debunking pseudoscience is difficult, especially for early-career students and the public. Recently, in particular the Corona pandemic has spawned a whole range of pseudoscientific claims and conspiracy theories, many of which are publicly available in the style of scientific articles on preprint servers, in predatory journals, or in some cases even as regular scientific papers making it difficult to distinguish scientific papers from pseudoscience. One example is a recently published paper claiming that PCR is unreliable because DNA is thermolabile. While experts have the skills to recognize such pseudoscience, inexperienced early-career students usually have few chances to critically evaluate such claims. Here, we present some simple experiments that combine several aspects: (I) the analysis of a seemingly reputable publication, (II) planning experiments on the physicochemistry of DNA, (III) conducting and analyzing these experiments, and finally (IV) the refutation of the claim that PCR is unreliable. These experiments can be carried out in any standard laboratory with basic molecular biology equipment. They are therefore suitable for undergraduate programs and for high school courses. The model case described here enables students to critically evaluate these claims through practical investigations and to form their own informed opinion. The participants gained new insights into the planning of experiments and a completely new perspective on the subject of science and pseudoscience.