Getting to Know History of Chemistry

COLIN A. RUSSELL AND GERRYLYNN K. ROBERTS

History of Chemistry Research Group, The Open University

1.1 Trends in History of Chemistry Literature

In the twenty or so years between the appearance of this volume and that of its predecessor, the history of chemistry may be said to have undergone something of a sea-change. Partly, of course, this reflects changing fashions or 'trends', as it might be more polite to call them, within the history of science itself. A strong tendency to provide exclusively social explanations for scientific events was already under fire in the 1980s and the extreme form of sociological reductionism observable in the 1960s is now rarely seen. Instead, we have a much broader approach, with a widespread recognition that, while science undoubtedly is a social phenomenon, it is certainly much more than that. Hence respect is given to all kinds of interpretative schemes, including also those that take seriously the internal structures of scientific theory and practice.

Some of the most impressive work in the history of chemistry over the last twenty years has been performed by people who are, or have been, chemists by profession. This is a remarkable swing of the pendulum. Such efforts should not necessarily be consigned to the dustbin of 'Whiggishness' (where all history is read from the standpoint of the present day and seen as an almost inevitable progress to the current situation of triumph and success). Some contributions by workers active in chemical research demonstrate a quite sophisticated approach to history (even their own). These stand in the tradition of 19th-century historians of science who, contrary to popular belief, were not in their dotage and were very alert to events that proved unfavourable to their own approach to chemistry. For a critique of the rather dated view that there is something inferior about history written by professional chemists, it would be hard to recommend anything more appropriate than a brief essay on 'Historians of chemistry' in a book by the eminent biochemist Joseph Fruton. Another writer facing this issue is R. W. Cahn, author of a history of materials science, a closely related field to chemistry. Examining the question as to whether 'it is acceptable for someone trained as a scientist' to write the history of a science, he comments on historical treatments of his own science, which have all been written by working scientists. His conclusion represents a substantial body of opinion: it is 'far better to be read by other scientists, who may on the whole be assumed to be in favour of science as a vocation'. Today, controversy between self-styled 'historians of chemistry' and those they dubbed 'chemist-historians' has been subsumed in an alliance in which the latter hold a distinguished place. It is striking how frequently those who write as chemists use well-developed techniques of historical research, bringing fresh insights as they look back on their own subject. So let us see how in practice the history of chemistry has altered in character during the last couple of decades.

In the first place, historical interest appears to have shifted from the classical to the modern period, and especially to the very recent past. Thus a new historical interest in physical organic chemistry is so considerable that Chapter 5 is devoted to it alone. There must be several reasons for this stress on 20th-century developments and it is tempting to speculate. It could be argued, for example, that there is little new to learn about classical branches of chemistry and that the subject is virtually exhausted. However, some major incursions in the last few years have demonstrated the fallacy of such a view, for in fact the development of (say) organic chemistry has been far more complex than most of us have realized until quite recently. In its institutional aspects, there is much to be learned about the design and construction of laboratories and about the growth and decline of individual schools all over Europe. However, it takes time for these perceptions to take root.

Another explanation for the retreat to modernity may well lie in the need for contemporary chemists to gain public acceptance at a time when, partly for environmental reasons, the whole of chemistry is in some state of disrepute. One way to win favourable public attention is to display recent research in the best light, and that may sometimes be accomplished by retailing a story of gradual progress until the present enlightenment has arrived. This would help to explain the large number of references in this volume to work by chemists on the history of their own branch of study. The remarkable recent emphasis on fullerenes may not be unconnected with the award of the 1996 Nobel Prize in chemistry to (and subsequent Knighthood of) Harold Kroto and (in Britain at least) with political mileage to be gained by such publicity.

Furthermore, the emergence of oral history as a systematic technique of historical investigation may have favoured interest in the history of contemporary chemistry. Properly handled interviews of practitioners of chemistry of the recent past can provide a rich repository of historical source material on the informal and affective aspects of doing science, which seldom enter the written record. A study of the origins of the Krebs cycle is a powerful example of the potential of oral history. The specialist history of chemistry centre, the Chemical Heritage Foundation in Philadelphia, has undertaken a systematic programme of chemical oral histories.

A second feature of the current literature is a strong emphasis on chemical biography. Biographical writing in general has acquired a new vogue, even eclipsing the novel in some quarters. History of science is no exception, though the number of major biographies of important chemical figures is relatively small. However, there are plenty of essays on a smaller scale that describe the lives of lesser mortals; and there are some that attempt two-page coverage of chemical giants. Such ambitious cameos are not necessarily to be derided. They may well convey to a newcomer far more vivid impressions than lengthy tomes replete with footnotes could hope to do. Indeed, the professional historian may have something to learn from them in terms of communication skills and even content.

A sub-set of chemical biography is of course that written by the subjects themselves. The current efflorescence of autobiographical writing by chemists may well be a further reflection of their desire to portray their science in a good light and so help in its general promotion. The most...