HYLE – International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, Vol. 7 (2001), No. 1.Copyright 2001 by HYLE and the authors.

Book Reviews

Ars Mutandi: Issues in Philosophy andHistory of Chemistry, ed. by NIKOSPSARROS & KOSTAS GAVROGLU,Leipziger Universitätsverlag, Leip-zig, 1999, iv + 190 pp. (ISBN 3-933240-89-1)

Ars Mutandi is a compilation of paperspresented at the International Confer-ence on the Philosophy of Chemistryand Biochemistry and Adjacent Histori-cal Problems held in Athens, Greeceduring April 1996. The proceedings arecomprised of seventeen papers submit-ted by participants from eleven differentcountries and may be divided into sevendifferent sections; Falsificationism andChemistry (2 papers), Chemical Episte-mology and History of Chemistry (2papers), Shaping Chemistry (4 papers),Chemical Entities (3 papers), Chemistryand Quantum Mechanics (2 papers),Chemistry and Its Neighboring Sciences(3 papers) and Chemical Heritage of theAncient Greek World (1 paper). Thiswide variety of topics provides the readerwith a great deal to contemplate andponder.

Ars Mutandi begins with a brief, fourpage, Introduction by the editors. NIKOSPSARROS and KOSTAS GAVROGLU pro-vide the rationale behind holding an in-ternational conference on the philoso-phy and history of chemistry and discussthe increased level of attention the fieldis deservedly receiving. My first readingof the Introduction caused significantconcern because of the poor level ofEnglish. Fortunately, the papers are wellwritten and highly polished. Hopefully,the Introduction will not scare any po-tential readers away, as it is not indica-tive of the proceedings as a whole.

The first section, Falsificationism andChemistry, involves F. MICHAEL AKER-OYD (Bradford, UK) and MAUREEN

CHRISTIE (Melbourne, Australia) takingopposite sides of Popper’s idea of falsifi-cationism. Akeroyd argues in support offalsificationism in his paper “Popper andBiochemical Sciences” with supportfrom examples involving cell-free fer-mentation, pneumococcal transforma-tion, thermophilic bacteria and the iso-lation of enzymatic RNA. Akeroyd con-cludes his argument that “a large portionof the history of biochemistry supportsthe position of Karl Popper” (p. 4).

Christie take the opposite view andargues against Popper’s “asymmetrybetween confirmation and falsification”(p. 7) in “Falsification and Direct Con-firmation in Scientific Theory Adop-tions”. She bases her argument on ananalysis of the Antarctic ozone hole andthree competing explanations; the pres-ence of chlorinated compounds, a majorclimatic change, or increased solar activ-ity. Analysis of data resulted in the firsthypothesis being adapted because of thestrong negative correlation between theClO and O3 mixing ratios. To Christie,this example refutes Popper’s ideas be-cause the first hypothesis was adoptedthrough positive reaffirmation and notfalsification. The problem with her ar-gument is that while valid for the initialcomparison of competing hypotheses,the strong negative correlation does notprove the first hypothesis to be correct:it simple makes it more tenable than thecompeting hypotheses. With the limitedresources available for studying thesource of ozone depletion, focusing onthe strongest hypothesis was the only vi-able path to follow.

The second section, Chemical Episte-mology and History of Chemistry, in-cludes contributions from URSULAKLEIN (Berlin, Germany), “Do We Needa Philosophy of Chemistry?” andMICHAEL ENGEL (Berlin, Germany),“Naturphilosophische Überzeugungen

62 Book Reviews

als forschungsleitendes Motiv – Dieasymmetrische Synthese von Pasteur bisBredig”. Klein’s analysis of chemistry’sprogress from focusing on a material’sphysical properties “into a coherentsystem embracing chemical substancesand their transformation” (p. 25) nicelyoutlines chemistry’s growth from a de-scriptive, into a synthetic, endeavor.

In an effort to see German re-introduced as a language used in inter-national conferences, Engel’s contribu-tion to the proceedings are in his mothertongue, German. While this is a noblecause, he has done his scholarship a dis-service by limiting its audience to thosewho read German, or those willing tofind someone to translate. The conse-quences of his actions are quite severefor young scholars in North America, asmany doctoral programs have eliminatedtheir foreign language requirements. Asa result, many readers will simply skipEngel’s contribution. As the editors statein their Introduction, “English is in factthe contemporary lingua franca, whichmeans that it is no more the possessionof only a single nation, but of the hu-manity as a whole” (p. ii).

The section on Shaping Chemistrycontains the greatest number of contrib-uted articles and also incorporates thegreatest variety of topics. GENNADIYKOPYLOV (Moscow, Russia) discussesdevelopment and structure of the naturalsciences in “The Engineering World andChemistry: An Outline of the ResearchProgramme”; DANIEL ROTHBART (Fair-fax, USA) discusses the convolution ofexperiment and theory in his “The ‘De-sign’ of Nature through Chemical In-strumentation”; JOSEPH EARLEY, SR.(Washington, USA) comments on “thequestion of compound individuals” (p.75) in “How Do Chemists Know When‘Many’ Become ‘One’? Can Others DoIt Too?”; and REIN VIHALEMM (Tartu,Estonia) argues that chemistry is distinctfrom both physics and biology in “CanChemistry Be Handled as its Own Typeof Science?”

Rothbart’s article provides an excellentexample of how philosophical issues can

be explored in the chemistry curriculum.For example, his statement, “When dataare acquired, abstract theoretical judge-ments are not all removed from the ex-periment; rather, such judgements arechanneled through the instrument to so-lidify the formulation of the specimen’suniversal character. Through the media-tion of the instrument, the physical realis united with the conceptual real.”makes a great discussion topic for an un-dergraduate instrumental analysis course.

The forth section, Chemical Entities,includes “A Conceptual Profile forMolecule and Molecular Structure” byEDUARDO MORTIMER and LUIZ OTÁVIOAMARAL (Belo Horizonte, Brazil);“Fullerenes: The Philosophical Aspectsof their Discovery” by DANUTASOBCZYNSKA (Pozna n, Poland) and “Arethere Laws of Nature in Chemistry?” byNIKOS PSARROS (Marburg, Germany).The first of these contributions exploresthe interesting question of what is meantby ‘molecule’ or ‘molecular’. Specifically,the example of PF5 – a compound with-out a unique structure – and physicalproperties such as melting point, dielec-tric constant and dilation are discussed.Again, this is a rich source of materialfor discussion in undergraduate chemis-try classes.

Sobczynska’s article on the transfor-mation of fullerenes from a theoreticalentity to an experimental one is a won-derful example of history in the making.Finally, Psarros’ piece provides a won-derful comparison between the resultsand consequences of an experiment.

The contributions of VINCENZOAQUILANTI (Perugia, Italia) and VA-LERIA MOSINI (Rome, Italia), respec-tively entitled “Sceptical Chemists in aWorld of Atoms and Quanta” and“Wheland, Pauling and the ResonanceStructures”, constitute the section onChemistry and Quantum Mechanics.Both authors have done an excellent jobof dealing with chemistry issues and notfalling into the philosophy of physicsparadigm. If the reader were still unde-cided with respect to the need of philo-sophical studies of chemistry at this

Book Reviews 63

HYLE – International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, Vol. 7 (2001), No. 1.Copyright 2001 by HYLE and the authors.

point in the book, Aquilanti puts thosefears to rest when he states, “no expertin quantum mechanics can take the placeof a chemist whose problems arise fromhis direct experience of substances underspecific experimental conditions” (p.120).

Similarly, Mosini’s comparison of re-alist and instrumentalist views in her dis-cussion of resonance structures under-scores the significant contributions thatphilosophical studies of chemistry offer.This article also contains a wonderfulcomparison of the Valence Bond andMolecular Orbital theory’s explanationsof resonance structures during the firstpart of the 20th century that proved en-lightening and a joy to read.

The section on Chemistry and ItsNeighboring Sciences contains three ar-ticles, “In vitro vs. In vivo: The Problemof Justifying the Biological Relevance ofBiochemical Studies” by ROGER STRAND(Bergen, Norway); “Research Practice ofModern Bioinorganic Chemistry and theErotectic Conception of Explanation”by EWA ZIELONACKA-LIS (Poznan, Po-land); and “A New Kind of ChemicalComputer-based Chemical Conver-sions” by LECH SCHULZ (Poznan, Po-land). While each of these discussions isspecific to a chemistry sub-discipline,they each have wider implications uponfurther examination. For example,Stand’s discussion of the relevance of Invitro testing in an In vitro world can eas-ily be extended to the realm of compu-tational chemistry where the results areonly as accurate as the theory. As com-putational speed and power continues togrow and we become increasingly de-pendent upon simulations of the virtual-kind, these issues will come to the fore-front of philosophical discussion.

The final section, Chemical Heritageof the Ancient Greek World, contains asingle contribution entitled “Experi-mental Techniques and Laboratory Ap-paratus in Ancient Greece” by EVAN-GELINA VARELLA (Thessaloniki, Greece).While we often think of ancient Greeceas the realm of philosophy and the an-tithesis of science, Varella’s excerpts

from the ancient literature highlight thepresence, and importance, of a variety ofexperimental techniques. Although avalid argument may be made that the ex-amples are of technology, not science, itis interesting, and sobering, to read labo-ratory procedures from a time past.

In conclusion, Ars Mutandi is a worth-while addition to a personal, or institu-tional, library. The issues discussed arevaried with something for everyone whois interested in the pertinent issues in thephilosophy of chemistry. Numerous ar-ticles lend themselves to inclusion in theundergraduate curriculum as discussionpieces. This is an important aspect sincea growing awareness of philosophical is-sues will only occur if we expose ourstudents to their existence.

Shawn B. Allin:Department of Chemistry & Physics,

Lamar University, Beaumont, TX 77710-0022, USA; allinsb@hal.lamar.edu

64 Book Reviews

Chemia: Laboratorium mysli i działan[Chemistry: Laboratory of Thoughtsand Actions], ed. by DANUTASOBCZYNSKA & PAWEŁ ZEIDLER,Uniwersytet im. AdamaMickiewicza w Poznaniu, Wy-dawnictwo Naukowe InstytutuFilozofii, Poznan, 1999, 218 pp.(ISBN 83-7092-049-7)

What is chemistry? Or more exactly,what is all included in chemistry? Is thisscience only a less-developed branch ofphysics? These and similar questionsproceed like Ariadne’s thread throughthis field of science as expounded in thePreface of this interesting book, inwhich scholars from several countries tryto give answers.

One of the crucial problems stressedin the Preface is the lack of philosophyin chemistry, since this science origi-nated by experiments and basically con-tinues in the same way. As a result,chemistry, unlike physics and biology,did not develop its philosophy beforethe eighties of the 20th century! Instead,it was alchemy that produced its ownphilosophical background, though un-fortunately erroneous, allowing for theexistence of the dreamed transmutationof base metals into precious ones. It is amatter of discussion, however, whetheror not to agree with the authors’ claim inthe Preface that alchemy was a prescien-tific form of chemistry. The relationbetween alchemy and chemistry deservesdeeper discussion that is beyond thescope of this book and should be for-mulated rather carefully, because craftssignificantly contributed to the devel-opment of chemistry too (a detailedpicture is given by U. Klein: Verbindungund Affinität, Birkhäuser, 1994). An-other point for discussion is the state-ment that the main goal of chemistry isthe preparation of new compounds. Ac-cepting this view would mean stressingchemical synthesis, but modern chemis-try is about more problems than this.Biochemists, for instance, deal withtransformations of known compounds

and search for relations between differ-ent processes and for mechanisms stabi-lizing various compounds, such as pro-teins. We could also mention physicalchemistry, with its very blurry borders(see J. Schummer: ‘Physical Chemistry:Neither Fish nor Fowl?’, in: The Auton-omy of Chemistry, 1998), which yet in-fluences other branches of chemistry.These comments on the Preface alreadydocument how broad and deep theproblems appear when we approachchemistry from the point of view ofphilosophy. This book represents a valu-able attempt to do so, and to discusschemistry within broader limits, touch-ing such diverse points as its language,its view of matter, and, most of all, itsposition among the natural sciences.

Some of the problems arise from sci-entists’ conviction that they think logi-cally, although gaps in their logic some-times appear. According to R. HOFF-MANN, V.I. MINKIN, and B.K. CARPEN-TER, who provide the example of Ock-ham’s razor, it is sometimes useful toadd philosophy to logic. (Their contri-bution to this book is a translation of anEnglish paper published in HYLE, 3(1997), 3-28.) As their starting point,they use a general formulation of thisfamous rule, according to which it is notnecessary to look for complex explana-tions when a simpler one suffices. Aftera brief description of Ockham’s life, theydiscuss particular cases of how his philo-sophical approach can be applied tochemical problems. As an example, theytake the chemical reactions of tetraedricboron and discuss the proliferation ofpossible reaction mechanisms beyondnecessity. In Ockham’s razor they see alogical rule that suggests how to workwith experimental data. Since the reac-tion mechanism can neither be directlyobserved, nor be strictly deduced fromexperimental data, chemists are requiredto apply Ockham’s razor, but they needto do that with great care and at the righttime. Like many other rules it has posi-tive and negative aspects. According tothe authors, Ockham’s razor favors sim-pler models regarded as valuable,

Book Reviews 65

HYLE – International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, Vol. 7 (2001), No. 1.Copyright 2001 by HYLE and the authors.

whereas is also a conservative tool andmay prevent scientific innovations. A fi-nal citation from Einstein that every-thing should be done as simply as possi-ble reminds the present reviewer of Ein-stein and Smoluchowski’s brilliant solu-tion of such a complicated process asBrownian motion.

“Chemistry is the scientific study ofthe properties, composition, and struc-ture of matter, the changes in structureand composition of matter, and accom-panying energy changes”, according tothe definition given by a classic encyclo-pedia (McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Sci-entific and Technical Terms, New York1989). If we add to this definition thatchemistry widely uses physical values todescribe its objects, it is no wonder thatchemistry is often reduced to a certainless-exact branch of physics. P. ZEIDLERdiscusses the issues of reductionism andto what extent chemistry is a theoreticalscience. Reductionism has its roots inthe mechanistic approach to natural sci-ences. In chemistry, however, experi-ment is of extraordinary importance. Itwas exactly this aspect of chemistry fromwhich further arguments for its less-exact level were derived, if one accepts asexact only such science that has its theo-retical apparatus expressed in mathe-matical terms. Zeidler discusses in detailwhat chemists consider as chemical the-ory. Such theories appeared early, thefirst of them being the phlogiston the-ory; later, other theories were formu-lated such as the theory of chemicalstructure, the Brönstedt theory, etc. Inspite of this and because of an insuffi-cient mathematical formulation, chem-istry was not considered to be a theoreti-cal science. According to Zeidler, itseems that basic laws in chemistry areunusually rare. At a closer look, Brön-stedt’s theory and others are actuallydefinitions, in this case of an acid and abase. With the appearance of quantummechanics, the reduction of chemistry tophysics revived anew, but it should beremembered that quantum mechanicalcalculations use only approximate ap-proaches in chemistry. They cannot give,

for example, an unambiguous conceptionof a chemical compound. In Zeidler’sopinion the reduction of chemistry tophysics is in a crisis now. He supportsthis claim by views of I. Hacking, ac-cording to whom the classical division oftheoretical and experimental researchshould be replaced by a trio: considera-tions, calculations, and experiment.Zeidler illustrates this approach with theexample of organic synthesis, not with-out warning that a reaction mechanismcannot be deduced from available ex-perimental data. Models are important inchemistry, but experiment must follow.It is exactly the development of new ex-perimental methods, particularly spec-troscopic ones, that makes it possible toexamine chemical compounds in moredetail. There is, however, an importantpoint stressed by Zeidler: in all these ap-proaches, microscopic structures are de-scribed by macroscopic values, for ex-ample by the distances between spectrallines. Simultaneously, a new questionappears: can all chemical effects relatedto the structure of a compound be de-duced from the theoretical model of thisstructure? Zeidler suggests anothermodel that is also theoretical but in adifferent way than the classical quantummechanical one. This new theoretical ap-proach employs a dynamic model of acompound that depends on the experi-mental technique used. In this model,the concept of the structure of a com-pound becomes a metaphor that doesnot strictly represent any stable propertyof the given compound. According toZeidler, generalizing in chemistry differsfrom generalizing in physics, because ofits approximate character. Since chemis-try basically differs from physics, espe-cially because of the different method-ologies, he suggests that we should notcall chemistry a physical science.

Interesting conclusions can be drawnfrom seemingly unrelated processes. Inher contribution, E. ZIELONACKA-LISgives as example the relation between thetime necessary for drying clothes on aline and the distance a plane needs for itstake-off. The explanation of this phe-

66 Book Reviews

nomenon is causal and statistical: thehigher the humidity of air, the more timedo clothes need to dry, and the longer isthe distance the plane needs to take off.There are also causal and probabilisticexplanations. If, for instance, a 30 000year-old bone is found in Alaska, in a re-gion inhabited 12 000 years ago, all ex-planations of this finding will be causaland probabilistic. These model examplesare based on theories of explanation inscience by W. Salmon, and C. G. Hem-pel and P. Oppenheim. Once these ap-proaches are applied to chemistry, prob-lems appear however. Especially in Sal-mon’s approach, Zielonacka-Lis missesthe capacity to consider problems ofchemical kinetics and of the question ofthe reaction medium. Especially with theadvent of modern methods allowing thestudy of kinetics on the femtosecondlevel, complicated reaction mechanismscan be resolved into simpler individualsteps (do we not arrive close at Ock-ham’s razor?). She concludes that Sal-mon’s views can be applied to empiricalcategories of chemistry, such as thechemical compound, but not as easily tothe microcosm of this science, such asthe mechanisms of chemical reaction andthe structure of a chemical compound.

The role of instruments in chemistryis the topic of the contribution of D.SOBCZYNSKA. In her introduction shediscusses a limit that cannot be reached –the reconciliation of empiricism andtheory in sciences. The focus of her pa-per is on chemical analysis and synthesisand the lasting values of instruments,considered as materialized form of sci-entific thinking. In a brief historical sur-vey, she considers the influence of al-chemy and the chemical crafts on thedevelopment of instrumentation, as wellas the fact that the first methods usedwere on physical basis (filtration, distil-lation, etc.). As for the uniqueness ofchemistry among the natural sciences,she explains that, in the form of al-chemy, it was the only one that wasperformed in a laboratory. Alchemyproposed theories, but its real contribu-tion was in practice. According to

Sobczynska, analysis and synthesis aretwo crucial processes in chemistry thatform one whole (here, the ancient con-cept of yin and yang may occur to thereader) expressed in Guldberg-Waage’slaw, as the majority of chemical reactionsreach equilibrium. Analysis has a longertradition that originated in the analysisof precious metals in ancient cultures.We can recall the ancient process of cu-pellation (see, for example, J. O. Nriagu,Journal of Chemical Education, 62(1985), 669-674). Modern analysis ap-peared with Lavoisier. It should be re-called here that the discoveries of thechemical elements were one of the driv-ing forces of chemical analysis that re-ceived firm foundations later in theworks of Ostwald, Arrhenius, and oth-ers. Instrumental analysis markedly de-veloped in the twenties and thirties ofthe 20th century. The present reviewerwould like to add that the polarographconstructed by Heyrovský (and Shikata,whose name almost disappeared fromthe literature) was the first instrumentwith an automatic registration of data. In-strumental analysis was a germ of chemi-cal thinking. From this point of view,Sobczynska discusses its development asa scientific revolution according to con-cepts provided by T.S. Kuhn, I.B.Cohen, and I. Hacking. On the otherhand, she regards synthesis as consistingof two main directions. The first, olderone was based on the synthesis of com-pounds occurring in nature, whichstarted with Wöhler’s synthesis of urea.(The role of this synthesis in the his-torico-philosophical context was re-cently analyzed by P.J. Ramberg: Ambix,47 [2000], 170-95.) The second one isthe preparation of new compounds notoccurring in nature, for example syn-thetic polymers. That branch makeschemistry unique. According toSobczynska, chemistry was always ex-perimental and continues to be the ex-ample of experimental science.

A second contribution devoted to theinstrumental side of chemistry is thePolish translation of the paper by D.ROTHBART and S.W. SLAYTON “The

Book Reviews 67

HYLE – International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, Vol. 7 (2001), No. 1.Copyright 2001 by HYLE and the authors.

Epistemology of a Spectrometer” (Phi-losophy of Science, 61 (1994), 25-38).

The formulation of law of conserva-tion of matter was one of the turningpoints in the history of chemistry. Ac-cording to E. PIETRUSKA-MADEJ, thislaw has traditionally been ascribed to La-voisier, and its first formulation ap-peared in his Traité élémentaire in 1784.However, Lavoisier mentioned the lawalmost in passing; he neither derived ittheoretically nor supported it by empiri-cal arguments. Instead, he wrote aboutthis law as if he were already accustomedto taking it into account. Pietruska-Madej supposes that it was precisely thislaw that was the driving force of Lavoi-sier’s former experiments, for examplethe burning of tin in a closed vessel(1774). At least in this experiment, La-voisier tacitly accepted the law as valid.However in the same way, the law wasaccepted much earlier, as in van Hel-mont’s famous experiment with a willowtree. This scholar anticipated constancyof masses of the original substances andproducts, of earth and wood. The authorbrings further examples to support herview: Boyle, who also burned tin; andthe phlogiston theory. Likewise, Proust’slaw of definite proportion from 1797 hadits predecessors. According to Pietruska-Madej, older works can be found thatalso tacitly anticipated this law. It shouldbe added perhaps that Roger Bacon(?1214-92) arrived at the verge of thisdiscovery (see N. A. Morozov: Vpoiskach filosofskogo kamnya [In searchfor the Philosopher’s Stone], Moscow,1909, p. 50) when he concluded thatbodies can be formed in certain propor-tion. He apparently drew this conclusionby supposing the existence of two differ-ent compounds of sulphur with mercury.It is not clear whether this was purespeculation (although a correct one) or aresult of some experiments, as the com-pound Hg2S does actually exist, but isunstable at room temperature. To sumup, the author judges that there are morelaws in chemistry that were tacitly an-ticipated in the past, before they were‘officially’ formulated. The question is

whether this was the case in other sci-ences as well. At present, there is notenough material to provide an answer,but it is a research direction worthstudying.

In his two papers, J. KONARSKI dis-cusses today’s knowledge about theshape of chemical compounds andproblems connected with understandingstructure on the level of atoms. Shape isfirst what we use when we want to dis-tinguish things and to identify them.This approach was then transferred to aworld on the atomic level; the length ofchemical bonds or their angles some-times achieve almost absolute impor-tance. However, this leads to a falsepicture of the atomic world, ruled byHeisenberg’s principle of uncertaintyand energy changes in quanta. In Konar-ski’s view, the only reliable informationabout the world on this level can be ob-tained by means of energy, whereas allsubsequent conclusions depend on themodel chosen. For a reliable descriptionof a chemical compound, the distancesbetween atoms cannot be used becausethey depend on the energetic state of thecompound. In other words, the inter-pretation of data about matter on a mi-croscopic level must be done with cau-tion. Konarski’s second paper, about thecrisis of reductionism, continues this lineof thought: a macroscopic phenomenoncan result from many microscopic ones.This leads to the crucial problem as hestates it: “we can have many models, butthere is only one reality”. His final discus-sion of problems of reductionism in thebiological sciences is only brief, butopens a very important field of furtherresearch, especially when the theory ofchaos gains firmer ground.

In her paper, A. KRUPSKA draws at-tention to dissipative structures in lightof Prigogine’s and Popper’s views. Sheprovides an overview of problems andthe present state of knowledge of suchstructures, with special emphasis onbiological systems. The key problem wasthe treatment of systems far from ther-modynamic equilibrium where classicalthermodynamics fails. These are exactly

68 Book Reviews

the systems with dissipative structuresand the ability of self-organization. Asstressed by the author, dissipativestructures can evolve on different levelsof the organization of matter, from clas-sical Belousov-Zhabotinsky’s reaction tocomplex biological systems. She refers tomathematical models of dissipativestructures according to Prigogine andTuring. The final discussion in whichKrupska asks to which extentPrigogine’s theory is generally valid isvery interesting. Which was formed first,nucleic acid or a protein? According toher, the two processes could have hap-pened simultaneously provided that suit-able chemical gradients existed in condi-tions of thermodynamic instability. Asshe finally points out, Prigogine’s theoryhas limits of application. It works wellfor most chemical, biochemical, andbiological systems, and even for biologi-cal communities, but not for human so-cieties.

A Polish translation of J. SCHUMMER’s“Towards a Philosophy of Chemistry”(Journal for General Philosophy of Sci-ence, 28 (1997), 307-336) ends the seriesof papers.

On the subsequent fourteen pagesthere is brief information about researchin the field of philosophy and methodol-ogy of chemistry, a bibliography ofworks by Polish authors on the philoso-phy and history of chemistry, a list ofPolish translations of foreign books onthis topic, and brief notes about theauthors who contributed to this book.

The reviewed book belongs amongvaluable attempts to look at chemistryfrom a point of view different from the‘exact-scientific’ one. Several questionsare posed and the reader will probablynot always fully agree. However, un-questioning agreement, to the effect ofstopping any discussion, is not the aimof such a work. Instead, it is just discus-sion that should be stimulated. In thatpoint lies the importance of this book.The work would be especially interestingto readers in other former Communistcountries, where philosophy was onlyone-sided and in some places almost

ceased to exist. While philosophy of anyscience is important, in the case ofchemistry, philosophy also touches aparticular sensitive point concerning itsrepeated subordination to physics. Thesetwo sciences are in no way totally inde-pendent. Chemistry has a very complexorigin, with roots in alchemy, crafts, andearly chemical experiments, but also inphysics. It is important to anchor chem-istry among the spectrum of natural sci-ences as an individual with characteristicfeatures. The reviewed book brings a lotof arguments that help solve this prob-lem.

Vladimír Karpenko:Dep. of Physical and Macromolecular

Chemistry, Charles University, Albertov2030, 128 40 Prague 2, Czech Republic;

karpenko@prfdec.natur.cuni.cz

Book Reviews 69

HYLE – International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, Vol. 7 (2001), No. 1.Copyright 2001 by HYLE and the authors.

JUERGEN HEINRICH MAAR, PequenaHistória da Química. Uma Históriada Ciência da Matéria. PrimeiraParte: Dos Primórdios a Lavoisier [AShort History of Chemistry. A Historyof the Science of Matter. First Part:From its Beginnings to Lavoisier],Editora Papa-Livro, Florianópolis,1999, 848 pp. (ISBN: 85-7291-049-2)

Juergen Heinrich Maar offers a “short”overview of the history of chemistryfrom its inception to Lavoisier. It is abook written in Portuguese by a Brazil-ian chemist. The author begins by look-ing at the non-Greek origins of chemis-try, focusing on Hindu and Chinesecontributions (Chapter 2). He pays par-ticular attention to its practical compo-nents developed around the art of met-allurgy, ceramics, pharmaceutics, dyes,and food processing (Chapter 3). Al-chemy is the next topic to be taken intoconsideration by contrasting the ap-proaches to the subject of different cul-tures such as that of Alexandria, Islam,India, China, and Babylon, and thenconcentrating on the contributions ofMedieval Europe (Chapters 4 and 5).Chapter 6 is dedicated to the 16th cen-tury, and specifically to the ways inwhich the practice of chemistry was re-formulated by Paracelsus and theParacelsians, at the same time it wascriticized by their opponents. Chapter 7deals with the 17th century, taken as theperiod of independence of chemistry as ascience. Special emphasis is placed onvan Helmont, Boyle, and Glauber. The18th century, taken as the period inwhich chemistry as a rational subject in-tertwining theory and practice reachesmaturity, is addressed in the last threechapters by looking at the problem ofaffinities, phlogiston theory, pneumaticchemistry, and finally the contributionsof Lavoisier.

Two recent books on the history ofchemistry come immediately to mindwhen reading Maar’s history of chemis-try. They are William Brock’s TheFontana History of Chemistry (1992) and

Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent and Isa-belle Stengers’ Histoire de la Chimie(1995). While they all present overviewsof the history of chemistry (or part ofit), and therefore share similar scopes,they are driven by very different aims.Brock takes advantage of the many indepth and sophisticated studies whichappeared in the last two decades, tocounteract the pressure of specializationand offer a new account of the history ofchemistry, focusing on its theories andpractices as viewed by the best modernscholarship. Bensaude-Vincent and Sten-gers take a more philosophically orientedapproach to the subject to unveil theways in which the identity of chemistryhas been constructed, and the fight for adisciplinary space has taken placethroughout the times. Maar presents ahistory of chemical theories, and facts,extensive but not in-depth, leaving to thereader the task of interpretation. Thestructure of the book is not innovative,and is definitely inspired by Partington’shistories of chemistry, having an almostencyclopedic character. It provides biog-raphies of alchemists and chemists, dis-cusses main theories and technical as-pects of alchemy and chemistry, and re-ports on the ‘discovery’ and applicationof chemical substances that are repre-sented in terms of modern notation.

In the preface, Maar outlines themethodology used. Attempting to cir-cumvent a debate which seems to usquite outdated, the author claims to haveavoided an entirely internalist perspec-tive without, on the other hand, havingsuccumbed to a strict externalist ap-proach. This middle-ground approach isconsidered the most adequate becausechemists, most of the audience aimed atby the book, are pleased by a narrativebased on facts and chemical theories, buton the other hand, as chemistry is a hu-manist and cultural endeavor, a wideraudience, not circumscribed to chemists,should profit from an acquaintance tothe history of chemistry. Despite theseassumptions, the book is inspired by apositivistic reading of the history ofchemistry, and does not avoid a clearly

70 Book Reviews

whiggish language and orientation (e.g.the author often builds his narrativearound lasting contributions, the notionof ‘precursors’, or a schematization ofwhat he considers to be the methodol-ogy of chemistry).

Maar’s work is supported by bibliog-raphy other than French, British, andAmerican and encompasses literaturefrom Latin America, Portugal, Spain,Russia, Italy, and other ‘peripheral’countries. By living in a peripheralcountry, one can offer a more neutral,uncompromising and open-minded ac-count, so the author claims. The concernto include narrative details outside main-stream literature is certainly Maar’s mostoriginal contribution, but this enterpriseis particularly hard, dependent as it is onbibliographical accounts often opened tocriticisms. Even taking into considera-tion language barriers preventing ‘pe-ripheral’ literature to be widely dissemi-nated, the production on history of sci-ence in peripheral countries is not yet upto international standards, and this is es-pecially striking in the context of Braziland Portugal. The reasons are manifold.Professionalization has not yet givenway to a critical mass of scholars nor to aconsistent and regular scholarly produc-tion. Often publications use the historyof science to serve commemorative pur-poses as in centenaries, anniversaries,and other celebratory events. And oftenthey do not take into account recent orrelevant international bibliography,many times unavailable or available withdramatic delays. This state of affairs hasto be acknowledged despite the prideone may feel of belonging to a minorityin the international landscape of thehistory of science. (The author, in fact,acknowledges to his many friends andrelatives who throughout the twentyyears in which he prepared the book,brought back to Brazil many relevantbooks and papers).

Regarding this problem, and in view ofthe aims of this book, it is surprising thatMaar refers only to Partington’sabridged version, A Short History ofChemistry (1989), and ignores his com-

prehensive 4 volume A History of Chem-istry (1962-1970). Still in the realm ofthe general histories of chemistry, theauthor bypasses the recent contributionsby Brock, and Bensaude-Vincent andStengers. Concerning specific topics, andjust to give a few examples: Marie BoasHall, Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer,William Newman, or Michael Hunter’scontributions on Boyle are not referredto, nor Henry Guerlac, F. Holmes, andBernadette Bensaude-Vincent’s bookson Lavoisier. Not even, despite being awork heavily dependent on short biogra-phies, is there a reference to Gillispie’sDictionary of Scientific Biographies. Inshort, bibliographic references are notupdated, occasionally going further thanthe late 1970s, and fundamental booksand articles published in English and inFrench in the last decade, in subjectsranging from alchemy to Lavoisier, areomitted. The same criticisms can be ex-tended to the bibliography from the ‘pe-ripheries’. For example there are no ref-erences to the extensive Spanish scholar-ship on the 18th century by scholars suchas, to name only a few, António La-fuente, Victor Navarro-Brotons, An-tónio Ten, Agusti Nieto-Galan, JoséRamon Bertomeu, and António Garcia-Belmar (of which the last three scholarshave worked specifically on the historyof chemistry).

Considering that there are not manytextbooks on the history of science ad-dressed to a Portuguese audience, itseems to us that two alternative ways canbe taken out of this situation, which cancomplement each other rather than be-ing opposed. One is to promote thetranslation into Portuguese of ‘classics’of the discipline as well as recent schol-arly contributions, the other the writingof new books and textbooks in Portu-guese. In the latter case, one should al-ways take into consideration recentcontributions to the academic scholar-ship in the history of chemistry as wellas debates and reflections on histo-riographical questions.

In view that Maar will address in thesequel to his book the period after La-

Book Reviews 71

HYLE – International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, Vol. 7 (2001), No. 1.Copyright 2001 by HYLE and the authors.

voisier, we suggest that he takes againinto consideration the contributions tochemistry from people and scientistsfrom peripheral countries. Avoiding themere enumeration of names and facts, heshould profit from new historiographicalconsiderations such as: How have newscientific ideas ‘migrated’ from centersto peripheral countries? What was therole of different external and internalfactors in this ‘migratory’ process bothin global and local scale? What were thespecific characteristics of the process oftheir assimilation? What have been theparticular forms of resistance in eachcountry to the new developments? Howwas the particularity of their expressionin each country related to its economic,social, and political life? What were thedifferent profiles and social functionsplayed by ‘scientists’ in the countries atthe periphery? How were the differentfunctions of the ‘scientists’ related to thedifferent roles played by scientific andtechnological knowledge in the centerand in the periphery? Answers to theformer questions will help to character-ize the mechanisms of birth and devel-opment of the new chemical ideas in theperipheries, and then to assess the simi-larities and differences of the perceptionsof chemistry and chemical technology indifferent countries.

Ana Simões:Departamento de Física, Faculdade de

Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, CampoGrande, C8, Piso 6, 1749-016 Lisbon,

Portugal; asimoes@fc.ul.pt

Ana Carneiro:CICSA, History of Science Unit, New

University of Lisbon, Quinta da Torre,2825-114 Monte de Caparica, Portugal;

amoc@mail.telepac.pt

Determinants in the Evolution of theEuropean Chemical Industry, 1900-1939. New Technologies, PoliticalFrameworks, Markets and Compa-nies, ed. by A.S. TRAVIS, H.G.SCHRÖTER, E. HOMBURG & P.J.T.MORRIS, Kluwer Academic Publish-ers, Dordrecht-Boston-London 1998,xii + 393 pp. (ISBN: 0-7923-4890-7)

This book is the outcome of an interna-tional conference on the Europeanchemical industry in the first four dec-ades of the 20th century; it includes 16articles, arranged in five different sec-tions.

The first part deals with a new tech-nology of the 20th century, high pressureindustrial chemistry, which was, ac-cording to the editors, “nothing less thanthe ‘paradigm shift’ that thrust thechemical industry into the 20th century”(p. xii). The article by ANTHONY TRAVISsuccinctly presents the development ofthe high-pressure ammonia synthesisand how high pressure chemistry becamethe “undisputed leitmotiv of the interwarchemical industry” (p. 21).

Part 2 is devoted to the impact ofWorld War I. ROY MACLEOD describesin detail the “war of chemistry” on boththe British and the German side. Scien-tists of both nations dedicated theirknowledge to this deadly business, al-though their efforts, as MacLeod insists,were not decisive for the outcome of thewar. However, their efforts transformedthe image of science. LOTHARMEINZER’s article examines the effects ofthe French occupation of BASF. Refer-ring to the Haber-Bosch process, heconvincingly shows that the confiscationof patents was of little use as long as therelated contextual, tacit knowledge waslacking. The French had to find agree-ments with BASF, and the resultingcontract between the two parties was,according to Meinzer, “the successfulmodel” of a transnational technologytransfer, setting “the pattern for similaractivities during the remainder of theinterwar period” (p. 63).

72 Book Reviews

Part 3, entitled “Science and Indus-try”, includes two very informative arti-cles on R&D at IG Farben: one is on ba-sic research at IG Farben (CARSTENREINHARD), the other one on the emer-gence of heavy organic chemicals in theperiod 1925-45 (PETER MORRIS). In theirintroduction the editors write: “TheGerman chemical industry, which wasactive in R&D even before World War I,turned, for a time at least, to basic ques-tions and fundamental science” (p. xii).Given that the two articles the editorsrefer to deal only with IG Farben, andmore specific with Ludwigshafen, onemight question the generalization about“the German chemical industry”. An-other paper in this part (GEERT SOMSEN)highlights the controversially debatedattempts of Dutch academic chemists togain prestige and money from state andindustry. Finally, in the interwar period,they successfully established a nationalresearch organization, founding the“Applied Scientific Research”.

The fourth part is dedicated to the“different routes to competitive advan-tage”. Three of five articles focus onGreat Britain: the modernization of in-dustrial organic chemistry (ANTHONYTRAVIS); the emergence of the profes-sion of chemical engineering (COLINDIVALL and SEAN JOHNSTON); and rea-sons for the little use of measuring andcontrolling instruments in the Britishchemical industry as compared to theUSA (STUART BENNETT). Bennett ar-gues that the craft based British ap-proach “left ownership of knowledge inthe hands of the skilled productionworkers” (p. 235) and that the manage-ment was unable to control the tacitknowledge that was passed on in the ap-prenticeship system. The fourth article ison the Norwegian Hafslung group andits neglect of the Odda process (KNUTSOGNER); the fifth deals with the Swisspharmaceutical industry and the impactof patent laws on its competitiveness(JAKOB TANNER). Until the late 19th

century, Switzerland had no patent lawand was considered, with its imitation ofproducts, as a “nation of industrial rob-

ber barons” (p. 263). The establishmentof a patent law, as demanded particularlyby the German industry, benefited theSwiss pharmaceutical companies that fo-cused on highly profitable specialties.Tanner argues, however, that patentswere only one side of the protection ofknowledge; the other side was tacitknowledge: “Modern industrial enter-prises try to protect this codifiableknowledge, which is susceptible to imi-tation, by means of patenting and se-crecy. But the decisive immaterial or in-tellectual resource for the growth offirms are not patents, brand names, andindustrial secrets, which provide tempo-rary advantages, but the tacit knowledgewhich is strictly specific to every firmand cannot be fully copied by others”(pp. 267-8). This argument leads us backto the high-pressure ammonia processthat could not be copied in spite of thecapture of patents, because tacit knowl-edge was indispensable for its working.

The final part is dedicated to state in-tervention and industrial autarky. ROLFPETRI argues that chemical production inItaly was based on the needs of agricul-ture and traditional manufacturing untilthe 1930s. The lack of energy and rawmaterials apparently prevented the de-velopment of a modern organic chemicalindustry. That changed in the 1930s dueto protectionism and the intervention ofthe Fascist state, accelerating R&D andsupporting technology transfer fromother countries. NURIA PUIG introducesthe reader to the “frustrated rise” of theSpanish chemical industry. HELGHEKRAGH provides an overview of theDanish chemical industry, defining itrather broadly. And TIMO MYLLYNTAUSexamines the relatively small Finnishchemical industry in the interwar years.

In conclusion, the book does not su-persede the by now thirty years oldstudy of L. F. Haber: The Chemical In-dustry 1900-1930. International Growthand Technological Change (Oxford1971), which remains the general stan-dard work on the chemical industry forthis period. However, the articles in thisvolume, mostly of good or very good

Book Reviews 73

HYLE – International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, Vol. 7 (2001), No. 1.Copyright 2001 by HYLE and the authors.

quality, show that there has been madeprogress since concerning some Euro-pean countries and particular aspects ofthe chemical industry. Yet, the field stilloffers ample opportunities. It may beadded that the reviewer was sometimeswondering about the choice of countriesrepresented in this volume – for exam-ple, the absence of France. Overall, thisis a very stimulating book that presentsus important results of research by his-torians of science and technology andeconomic historians on the Europeanchemical industry in the first half of the20th century.

Stephan H. Lindner:Munich Center for the History of Science

and Technology, Deutsches Museum, D-80306 München, Germany;

Stephan.Lindner@mzwtg.mwn.de

PAUL RABINOW, French DNA:Trouble in Purgatory, University ofChicago Press, Chicago, 1999, viii +201 pp. (ISBN: 0-226-70150-6)

Paul Rabinow’s French DNA: Trouble inPurgatory picks up where he left off atthe end of his Making PCR: A Story ofBiotechnology (reviewed in this journalVol. 4, No. 2). After his study of theCetus Corporation (which becameRoche Molecular Systems), Rabinow wasinvited by Daniel Cohen to be a “philo-sophical observer” at CEPH (Centred’Etude du Polymorphisme Humaine) apartially independent French researchgroup which had ties with the AFM (As-sociation Française contre les Myopath-ies), a patients organization similar tothe American MDA (Muscular Dystro-phy Association). Cohen led the CEPHto the first physical map of the humangenome in 1993. Financial backing forthis project was partially funded by theAFM, which saw that the genetic levelwas the next battleground in the studyof the dystrophies. As there were alreadysociologists at AFM, Rabinow studiedthese relationships from the CEPH pri-marily. Cohen was also a co-founder ofan American biotechnology start-up,Millennium Pharmaceuticals. Millen-nium and CEPH were to start a collabo-rative effort to work on the genetic basisof diabetes. It is this failed collaborationthat prompted Rabinow’s book to be anethnography of failure rather than suc-cess.

It is from this failure that the bookgets its title. The collaboration waseventually stymied because of geneticmaterial that had been collected from alarge number of French families. Whenone of the scientists, Phillipe Frougel,who was running CEPH’s diabetes proj-ect, realized that his role in the Millen-nium collaboration would be very small,he balked, and leaked information to thegovernment and the press. The govern-ment, which had already approved thecollaboration in principle, reversed itself.The rhetoric was couched in terms of

74 Book Reviews

not letting Americans steal and profitfrom French DNA.

Rabinow’s book is a tour-de-forcecombination of history, sociology, phi-losophy, and anthropology of science. Inhis “Introduction”, Rabinow sets thestage for his own involvement in theproject, particularly the fact that he hap-pened to be there during this “multidi-mensional crisis in 1994” (p. 4). Chapter1, “Life as We Know It”, introduces theFrench stance on not paying for blooddonations, but instead relying on thevirtue of benevolence. It is also in thischapter that Rabinow explains the subti-tle of his book, “Trouble in Purgatory”.The concept of purgatory in Catholicismarose to take into account new situa-tions. In particular, it was the phenome-non of rich people wanting to get intoheaven and a “chronic sense that futureis at stake” (p. 17). Rabinow, drawing onthe work of historians Jacques Le Goff,Michel Vovelle, Benjamin Nelson, andMichel de Certeau, sees the relationshipdeveloping between French research,venture capital, and the virtue of be-nevolence as another purgatorial com-promise – an attempt to find “solidarityand hope” in a difficult time (p. 23).

The history of CEPH and its compli-cated relationship with the AFM issketched in Chapter 2, “Genomic As-semblages”. Rabinow arrived at CEPHin January 1994, less than a month afterthe announcement of the completion ofthe physical map of the human genome.In Chapter 3, “Field Notes: The CEPHafter its Victory”, he reports on themood at CEPH, its plans with Millen-nium Pharmaceuticals, and the otherprojects underway at the center, fulfill-ing his role as “philosophical observer”.A more difficult discussion takes place inChapter 4, “Life: Dignity and Value”.Here, Rabinow explains the detailedhistory of the French attitudes and lawsabout human biological research andhow the French decry the role of moneyin the American way of things (espe-cially paying people for their blood). Inthe scope of this discussion, he also dealswith the history of the monetary, moral,

and legal issues raised in the case of thetransfusion blood tainted with AIDS inthe mid-eighties, as compared to theAmerican handling of the same crisis.The relationship between concepts of‘body’ and ‘personhood’ are difficult toseparate.

Chapter 5, “Millennium Comes toParis”, provides an account of the break-down of the collaboration attempt fromFebruary to April 1994, and Chapter 6,“Normalization”, explains what happensto the key players in the aftermath of theFrench DNA crisis. This is followed byan epilogue, “The Anthropological Con-temporary”, in which Rabinow reflectson his own role in this matter. One issuehe addresses in the epilogue is deter-mining what the book is about. Onething he sees is that the book is aboutcompeting forms. That is, the differentapproaches taken by American andFrench companies, and their govern-mental and academic counterparts. Hehad already addressed the changes in theAmerican relationships in Making PCR.The competition between these valuesystems will shape the future of biotech-nological research:

One is for or against abortion, for oragainst immigration, for or against thecommerce in blood, for or against sur-rogacy, for or against patenting of lifeforms […]. Not many people, after all,would respond in an opinion surveythat they are against scientific prog-ress, health, dignity, or human rights.However, alongside such a consensus[…] and the divers clusters of prac-tices that seek to embody beliefs lies amore obscured terrain (p. 178).

Further, as with Making PCR, he is waryof using ‘totalizing’ concepts and insteadfavors more limited concepts. Thus,there can be an epilogue, but no conclu-sion.

French DNA serves as a reminder thatthe rhetoric of science can mask as itinforms, that scientific communicationstill has a culture barrier even if the lan-guage barrier is not as great, and thatmoney is still not the only motivation.We still need to pay close attention to

Book Reviews 75

HYLE – International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, Vol. 7 (2001), No. 1.Copyright 2001 by HYLE and the authors.

the similarities and differences betweenwhat scientists say and what they do.Structures can affect the development ofscience in ways that are not predictable.French DNA is a relatively short bookthat is very readable and informs as wellas provokes. I recommend it to all whowould find an anthropology of the con-temporary by a ‘philosophic observer’ tobe meaningful. As with Making PCR,though, there is no index.

Richard L. Bilsker:Department of Fine Arts and Humanities,

Charles County Community College,La Plata, MD 20646-0910, USA;

richardb@csm.cc.md.us

Pioneering Ideas for the Physical andChemical Sciences. Josef Loschmidt’sContributions and Modern Develop-ments in Structural Organic Chemis-try, Atomistics, and Statistical Me-chanics, ed. by W. FLEISCHHACKER& T. SCHÖNFELD, Plenum Press,New York, 1997, pp. 320 (ISBN 0-306-45684-2)

The long subtitle clarifies the scope andaims of the 33 contributions to the vol-ume in honor of Josef Loschmidt (1821-1895), edited by Wilhelm Fleischhackerand Thomas Schönfeld from the Insti-tutes for Pharmaceutical Chemistry andInorganic Chemistry, respectively, at theUniversity of Vienna. The papers aregrouped according to three topics: “Or-ganic Structural Chemistry” (12 papers);“Physics and Physical Chemistry” (14papers); and finally “Loschmidt’s Biog-raphy, Loschmidt’s World” (7 papers).The declared heterogeneity of researchinterests ranges over philosophical andhistorical issues as well as today’s ex-perimental and theoretical approaches tomolecular reality.

On a commemorative occasion, suchdiversity is not without danger, but forour purpose it is welcome because thereader may find also a few papers andseveral passages of interest concerningphilosophy of chemistry. Papers and pas-sages may be discussed with reference totwo principal topics. Not surprisingly,the first topic regards Loschmidt’s ownphilosophy and the philosophy of sci-ence of his times; surprising is rather theshaky quality of many assessments ofLoschmidt’s place in the history ofchemical thought. The second topic re-gards aspects of the philosophy ofchemistry as today’s scientists proposeit. Many papers could be interesting foran attentive reader because one can see,just under the surface level of the texts,the militant philosophy and appliedepistemology of the authors. However,this textual level is implicit, and as suchit will remain outside the scope of thepresent review.

76 Book Reviews

The most promising article on Los-chmidt’s philosophy is that by PETER M.SCHUSTER, entitled ‘From Curiosity toPassion: Loschmidt’s Route from Phi-losophy to Natural Science’. Schusterreports many interesting facts aboutLoschmidt’s early academic interest inHerbart’s philosophy, when he was atwenty-year-old student of Franz Exner,professor of Philosophy in Prague.However, since Loschmidt moved to Vi-enna at the age of 21 to study physicsand chemistry, Schuster’s claim of a de-cisive, long lasting influence of Herbart’philosophy on Loschmidt’s molecularconceptions seems to me not enoughgrounded. In the middle of the nine-teenth century, the physical and chemi-cal literature was rich of suggestionsabout the (ontological) relationship be-tween atoms and ether. The concept ofatoms as ‘spheres of activity’ was well-known among physicists and chemists,since it was extensively worked out byBoscovich and (among many others)used by Berthollet (cf. H. Kragh: ‘TheAether in Late Nineteenth CenturyChemistry’, Ambix, 36 (1989), 49-65).Schuster states that “Loschmidt nevergave up Herbart’s conceptions of atomsas penetrable orbitals, and interpretedwhat we call today orbitals as ‘etherspheres’” (p. 274).

In a similar anachronistic view, C.R.NOE (‘Loschmidt and Venn. SymbolicLogic in Chemistry and Mathematics’)claims that Loschmidt’s “sphere concept,which was ‘off-limits’ for organic chem-ists for a long time […] can be seen as aforerunner of modern orbital theory” (p.96). M. JENNER boldly amplifies thesame idea (‘The Periodic System of theElements and Prout’s Hypothesis. Useand Interpretation by Josef Loschmidt’):“This paper [of 1887] proves Loschmidtto be an early forerunner of the quantumtheory, specifically of Niels Bohr’s fa-mous paper of 1913, in which a theoreti-cal interpretation of the Balmer-lines ofhydrogen was obtained (Loschmidt’s pa-per also mentions specifically theselines)” (p. 212, italics added). The vol-ume is not lacking in priority claims and

extravagant praises, sometime prepos-terous (e.g., I.D. RAE, p. 121; A. BADER,p. 79). However, at least a couple ofcontributions provide a more balancedappraisal of Loschmidt’s chemical theory(G.P. SCHIEMENZ, ‘Spheres from Daltonto Loschmidt. Insights into the Ways ofThinking of a Genius’ p. 86), and a morerealistic analysis of his perception of theViennese scientific context (R. ROSNER,‘Organic chemistry in Austria and Los-chmidt’s ›Chemische Studien‹’’p. 117).

As mentioned above, a second the-matic area present in the volume is con-temporary philosophy of chemistry, as itis proposed in a more or less ‘pervasive’form in several papers. Just in the firstcontribution to the volume, MAXPERUTZ discusses the role of the hydro-gen bond and related molecular geome-try in physiology, and then explicitlyasks the question: “What is the signifi-cance of these structures for our con-ception of living matter?” Perutz’s an-swer is that “Living molecules […] com-bine complexity with a high degree oforder which is maintained by a multi-plicity of hydrogen bonds and otherweak interactions” (pp. 9, 11; italicsadded).

ALBERT ESCHENMOSER debates thenucleic acid structure problem in termsof chemical etiology in his ample andinteresting contribution. Not only doeshe coherently treat the difficult topic(etiology, as the science of causes), buthe also proposes a scheme for elucidatingthe chemical etiology of nucleic acidsthat is (almost) explicitly hermeneutic,as is his appraisal of the research: “It isdifficult to predict the outcome of suchetiological studies, but eventually, and ifwe are lucky, we might eventually com-prehend on a chemical level why the nu-cleic acids of today are those actuallyfound” (p. 47).

Other points of interest can be foundin W.M. HECKL’s paper on visualizationand nanomanipulation of molecules inthe scanning tunnelling microscopetechnique. One of his issues is: “Howwould an artist view or paint a molecule?This would be an aesthetic view of a

Book Reviews 77

HYLE – International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, Vol. 7 (2001), No. 1.Copyright 2001 by HYLE and the authors.

molecule […]. This is probably not thebest method for a chemist, but certainlyfor somebody interested in art. Such anapproach should not be neglected, andwe will see later an example of the mo-lecular art, that is a painting done withthousands of molecules” (p. 184). Theactual image (fig. 12, p. 189) is reminis-cent of the prehistoric cave pictures.Philosophically more promising seems tome his concept of ‘quasiepitaxy’ that ex-plains the ‘visibility’ of an absent mole-cule: “The ultimate limit is the removalof a single molecule of adenine from thesurface […]. The resulting hole can beused to deduce the shape, size and posi-tion of a molecule […]. Single moleculedynamics has been imaged in this case,because the molecular hole was found tochange its site, showing diffusion atroom temperature”. Heckl presents hisplay with the ghost of a molecule as anexample of “molecular nanomanipulationfrom an artist’s point of view” (pp. 188,190). In VIKTOR GUTMANN’s brief andinteresting paper ‘Considerations aboutthe ›Constitution of the Ether‹’, there isa certain (unintentional) connectionwith Heckl’s paper, because here thereader can find many relevant ideasabout the separation of an atom or amolecule from the continuum.

The essay of CARL DJERASSI is on adifferent, more general level of philo-sophical interest. Its title ‘Natural Prod-uct Structure Elucidation: 1950 → 2000’suggests a historical narrative, but theauthor explains the real intentions of theinquiry with a question that deserves tobe reported at length: “as the numberand power of new physical methods in-creased, structure elucidation has turnedfrom chemistry into applied spectros-copy and computer-driven X-ray crys-tallography. What are the costs and re-wards associated with these methodo-logical changes and what intellectual andpractical motivation now inspires mod-ern natural product chemists?” (p. 15). Ileave the task of pondering on the manypoints touched by Djerassi up to thereader, in particular the epistemologicaland professional effects of the “irrevoca-

ble loss of degradative chemistry in thenatural product field” (p. 23). Instead, Iconclude this review pointing out a plainand straight consequence of Djerassi’sreflections on the disappearance of arelevant number of classical laboratoryprocedures: the epistemological analysisof these procedures belongs to the his-tory of chemical philosophy rather thanto the analysis of the actual way ofthinking of contemporary chemists.

Luigi Cerruti:Dipartimento di Chimica Generale ed

Organica Applicata, Università di Torino,c. M.D’Azeglio 48 10125 Turin, Italy;

lcerruti@ch.unito.it

HYLE – International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, Vol. 7 (2001), No. 1.Copyright 2001 by HYLE and the authors.

Conference Reports

From the Test-tube to the Autoana-lyzer: The Development of ChemicalInstrumentation in the TwentiethCentury, Workshop of the Commis-sion on the History of ModernChemistry, Science Museum Lon-don, 11-13 August 2000.

Today we are almost surprised thatmainstream philosophers of science ig-nored nearly every aspect of both scien-tific instruments and experiments untilthe early 1980s. So, what was that thingcalled ‘science’ that they were takingabout? First of all, it was an intellectualconstruction, designed to provide reli-able knowledge. Knowledge about what?Those who called themselves ‘positivists’or ‘empiricists’ were concerned aboutknowledge of sense data providedthrough the ‘naked eye’. They consid-ered basic sensation the most uncondi-tional and decontextualized form ofcognition, and as such the most suitablekind for a logical basis or the touchstoneof truth. The prize for truth was high,however. It was complete disconnectionfrom all experimental sciences. The‘spectator view’ of knowledge, as thepragmatist John Dewey ridiculed it, wasa bizarre fiction of science by philoso-phers.

In the 1920s, the physicist (or physicalchemist) Percy W. Bridgman suggestedthe most radical counter-approach, op-erationism, that considered experimentaloperations including instruments, in-stead of sense data, as the basis of scien-tific concept formation. Philosophers,who realized that this contextualizationundermined the purity of their ‘empiri-cal’ truth basis, sharply reacted. AsGustav Bergmann put it in the early 50s(‘Sense and nonsense in operationism’,1954) in the most absurd manner, ex-perimentation and instrumentation do

not add anything fundamentally new – inprinciple, we could remain spectatorsand wait until each of the experimentalset-ups of science incidentally emerge innature on their own. By then, main-stream philosophers of ‘science’ had lostany connection even to experimentalphysics, as they never had any to chem-istry – and what is worse, they did noteven realize that.

Strangely enough, it was particlephysics, its accelerators and cloud cham-bers, that became the first object of in-terest in instrumentation by philoso-phers of science such as Ian Hacking,Allan Franklin, and Peter Galison in the1980s. Previous sociological approaches,the so-called laboratory studies of BrunoLatour, Steve Woolgar, and Karin Knorr-Cetina, might have provoked this inter-est, since they raised severe epistemo-logical questions concerning all philoso-phies of science that ignore the socialcontext of scientific practice. Philoso-phers, who were already before forced togive up the strict theory-experience dis-tinction and thereby the ‘naked eye’ ba-sis of truth, now sought new fundamentsin experimental practice, to the effectthat there was a boom of the so-called‘new experimentalism’ in the late 80s andearly 90s. At the same time, also manyhistorians of science gave up their for-mer focus on theories and ideas andstarted to produce a wealth of in-depthstudies on instrumentation, frequentlyinspired or even co-authored by sociolo-gists and philosophers of science of thenew approaches.

From that period is the only corre-sponding book on chemistry worthmentioning (The History and Preserva-tion of Chemical Instrumentation, ed. byJ.T. Stock & M.V. Orna, Dordrecht1986) which is basically a rough stock-taking of recent developments in in-strument making and includes some as-

Conference Reports 79

HYLE – International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, Vol. 7 (2001), No. 1.Copyright 2001 by HYLE and the authors.

pects of instrument preservation in sci-ence museums. (There is one earlierbook that is mainly on US history andless reliable: A History of AnalyticalChemistry, ed. by H.A. Laitinen, G.W.Ewing, ACS 1977). Despite the twofacts that chemical instrumentation goesback to at least as far as Arabic alchemyand influenced 20th century chemistrymore than anything else, historians ofchemistry have showed extremely littleinterest in that topic; nor did they feelany ambition to enter the parallel discus-sions in philosophy and sociology of sci-ence. Thus, it is not surprising that theGerman Chemical Society (GDCh), whoannually awards the most prestigiousinternational prize for the history of sci-entific instruments since 1993, the PaulBunge Prize of the Hans Jenemann-Foundation, have never found a suitablecandidate from the history of chemistrybut, for instance, several from the his-tory of astronomy.

Thanks to the recently foundedCommission on the History of ModernChemistry (cf. HYLE 5 (1999), 171-4)the odd situation might change in thefuture because their recent workshopwas on “From the Test-tube to the Au-toanalyzer: The Development of Chemi-cal Instrumentation in the TwentiethCentury”, hold at the Science MuseumLondon, 11-13 August 2000. The or-ganizers – PETER MORRIS (Science Mu-seum, London) assisted by CARSTENREINHARDT (Germany), TONY TRAVIS(Israel), and LUIGI CERRUTI (Italy) – didan excellent job of broadening the focusbeyond isolated stories about the inven-tion and making of instruments. Empha-sis was rather on the mutual impact be-tween chemical instrumentation, on theone hand, and various aspects and fieldsof chemistry, neighboring disciplines,chemical industry, technology, politics,economy, and environmental issues, onthe other. They also expected stimula-tion from philosophy, as they invited atleast one commentator and two speakersfrom philosophy of chemistry.

The well-prepared workshop was di-vided up into four sections with each

three pre-circulated papers and two dis-tinguished commentators: “Different Ap-proaches to the History of Chemical In-strumentation” (DAVIS BAIRD, USA;JOACHIM SCHUMMER, Germany; TERRYSHINN, France; and commentatorsARNOLD THACKRAY, USA; JAMESBENNETT, UK); “Structures, Spectra, andthe Quest for Precision: The ChemicalSciences” (CHARLOTTE BIGG, UK;CARSTEN REINHARDT, Germany; LEOSLATER, USA; and commentators CARLDJERASSI, USA; DAVID KNIGHT, UK);“Detection and Control: The Environ-mental Sciences and the Chemical Indus-try” (TONY TRAVIS, Israel; PETERMORRIS, UK; STUART BENNETT, UK;and commentators ERNST HOMBURG,Netherlands; WILLIAM H. BROCK, UK);“Organisms, Automation, and Innova-tion: The Biomedical Sciences” (NICH-OLAS RASMUSSEN, Australia; DAVIDBROCK, USA; LUIGI CERRUTI, Italy; andcommentators CHRISTOPH MEINEL,Germany; PIERRE LASZLO, Belgium/USA).

As it happened, the section ‘DifferentApproaches’ was not as different as theorganizers might have expected, so that Iwill regroup the papers and start withTERRY SHINN’s. His concept of ‘re-search-technology instrumentation’,originally developed in a historical casestudy on the ultra-centrifuge, combinedboth methodological and sociologicalcategories to analyze the generation ofnew devices applicable in diverse fields.Its key features are ‘genericity’ (generalpurpose, open-ended design), ‘intersti-tiality’ (interdisciplinarity, involvementof various social institutions), and ‘me-trology’ (standardization of units andprocedures of measurement). BothCHARLOTTE BIGG and DAVIS BAIRD(more or less intentionally) provided ex-cellent examples of how this concept canhelp understand the successful develop-ment of spectrometers in their casestudies on the British company AdamHilger, Ltd. and the US company BairdAssociates, respectively. Furthermore,Stuart Bennett’s study on the develop-ment of control instruments, with em-

80 Conference Reports

phasis on their use in the chemical proc-ess industry, may be regarded a third ex-ample of applying Shinn’s concept of re-search-technology devices.

As another coincidence, both LEOSLATER and JOACHIM SCHUMMER,though from completely different per-spectives, suggested that the rapid devel-opment and ubiquitous use of spectro-scopic methods changed, in view ofchemists, the ontological status of mo-lecular structures: from properties toentities. Slater (“Woodward and theReification of Chemical Structures”) re-ferred to natural product chemistry andused biographical material particularly ofWoodward. Schummer, in an effort toanalyze the impact of spectroscopy onidentity concepts in chemistry, referredto synthetic chemistry and applied con-tent analysis of randomly selected paperof the past 100 years. Both came to dif-ferent results, however, as concernsdating and evaluating the ontologicalchange. The third paper on instrumenta-tion in organic chemistry, was CARSTENREINHARDT’s astute analysis of the de-velopment of mass spectroscopy. Origi-nally developed for gross analyses in thepetroleum and synthetic rubber indus-try, mass spectroscopy became one ofthe most powerful methods of structureelucidation of organic products in the1960s, and as such superseded the classi-cal chemical methods. However, unlikeother spectroscopic methods, this wasachieved by applying a chemically ori-ented approach, i.e. by adopting the con-cepts of reaction mechanism of physicalorganic chemistry, as Reinhardt pointedout.

Two papers dealt with the impact ofchemical instrumentation on environ-mental analysis. TONY TRAVIS reviewedthe rapid instrumental improvements ofquantitative spectroscopic analysis ofsynthetic organic compounds and tracemetals since the 1930s, illustrated by thetremendous shift of detection limitsfrom the ppm to the ppt range. As hismain thesis, he argued that the drivingforce of improving instrumental tech-niques for environmental analysis and

monitoring was the control of laboratoryconditions and manufacturing processeswithin the chemical industry. In a sensecomplementary was PETER MORRIS’study of the development of the electroncapture detector and its application inenvironmental analysis. On the onehand, he gave a biographic account of itsinventor, James Lovelock, one of themost unconventional physical chemistswho was incidentally also the inventor ofthe Gaya thesis. On the other hand, heplaced the improvement of detectionmethods in the context of both thecompetition with bioassay methods andthe medical as well as political questionof threshold values. As chemical detec-tion levels are now frequently below po-litically fixed threshold values, Morrisconcluded that chemists have done theirjob. Nonetheless, I think the issue seemsto be worth further sociological investi-gation as to how chemical instrumenta-tion has impact on the public awarenessand assessment of environmental issues.

The final section, on chemical instru-mentation in the biomedical sciences,consisted of three papers, each exploringdisciplinary boundaries with differentphilosophical implications. DAVID C.BROCK analyzed the origin, develop-ment, and marketing of chemical auto-analyzers in the clinic, as a continuationof Foucault’s social history of medicine.He argued that the clinic was the birth-place of the autoanalyzer and remainedthe center of its technological evolutionuntil at least the 1970s. This in turnchanged the clinical practice fundamen-tally, from classical pathology to bio-chemical ‘chart analysis’ in which bloodvalues rather than human bodies aresubject to therapy. In his study onchromatographic and electrophoretictechniques, LUIGI CERRUTI first showedhow these methods were crucial to thedevelopment of biochemistry, particu-larly to protein biochemistry, since theyallowed for the first time the isolation ofmany compounds to be followed by bio-chemical reasoning on the structure-function relationship. In his second part,he provided many examples of how this

Conference Reports 81

HYLE – International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, Vol. 7 (2001), No. 1.Copyright 2001 by HYLE and the authors.

biochemical approach was mixed andcombined with classical biological ap-proaches, originating new hybrid disci-plines such as molecular evolution.NICLAS RASMUSSEN’s study on the bio-assay as an biochemical instrument,while being full of historical details, es-sentially presented an interesting anti-reductionist argument that I would re-formulate in the following manner. In-sofar as biochemical properties are op-erationally defined by means of bioas-says, and thus necessarily depend onconcepts of biological functionality, theycannot be reduced to chemical propertiesalone as long as the concepts of biologi-cal functionality are not redefined interms of chemical properties.

Overall, the workshop took place in avery stimulating atmosphere, supple-mented by Peter Morris’s circumspectcare of all the participants’ needs. Giventhe previous lack of interest in the topic,a great deal of work of gathering histori-cal material was necessary and much isstill to be done. The way in which thematerial was placed in topics of generalinterest, i.e. the mutual relation betweeninstrumentation and various scientificand non-scientific fields, should be con-tinued and further enlarged. Havingbeen both a philosophical participant and‘observer’, I may suggest that philosophyof technology and philosophy of chem-istry should even be more considered ascomplementing and inspiring futurehistorical research. As to the former,clarification and diversification of con-cepts such as ‘instruments’ or ‘tools’ interms of purposes inside and outside ofscience might be helpful to systematizethe material and to draw more preciseconclusions. As to the latter, I ampleased to say that there is now a grow-ing number of philosophers of chemistrywho are interested in instrumentationand could further enrich the discussion.

Joachim Schummer:Institute of Philosophy, University of

Karlsruhe, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany;Joachim.Schummer@geist-soz.uni-karlsruhe.de

Wilhelm Ostwald at the Crossroads ofChemistry, Philosophy, and MediaCulture, University of Leipzig, 2-4November 2000.

When Ostwald received the Nobel Prizeof chemistry for his work on catalysis in1909, he had already retired 3 years ago,at the age of 53, from his chair of physi-cal chemistry at the University of Leip-zig. How did this most influential co-founder of the new physical chemistryspend his remaining 26 years at his pri-vate estate near Leipzig, after havingeducated some 100 later professors ofphysical chemistry worldwide; and whydid he finished his successful universitycareer at all?

Nicely located at the University ofLeipzig, an international workshop or-ganized by philosopher of chemistryNikos Psarros and historian of chemistryBritta Görs, shed new light on widelyunknown facets of a great chemist. Tostart with the final discussion, the num-ber of papers (16) did not suffice tocover all his manifold activities. BesidesOstwald the physical, analytical, andtechnical chemists, the founder and edi-tor of chemistry journals and book se-ries, the tireless chemistry textbookwriter and historian of chemistry, therewas also Ostwald the quick-witted phi-losopher, the ardent reformer and leaderof various international movements, theenthusiastic popularizer of science, aswell as the painter and poet who tried toapply the aesthetic theories on which hehad been working so hard during his fi-nal 20 years.

Did all these activities spring up fromhis chemistry? Not directly. It ratheremerged from philosophical reflectionson chemistry. Ostwald himself wasquick in elaborating his views towards anabundant and complex philosophy ofnature that incorporated even sociology,psychology, ethics, and aesthetics.Though he received harsh criticism frommany of his scientific colleagues, hisphilosophy was throughout scientistic,an all-embracing scientific world view,

82 Conference Reports

largely based on three principles: an ex-perimentalist epistemology; the meta-physical priority of energy over matter;and the strongest belief in societal prog-ress by means of science, technology,and social organization. Since for Ost-wald progress meant working against theconsequences of the 2nd law of thermo-dynamics, his general demand became:“Do not waste energy – ennoble it!” As adirect consequence, he retired in orderto engage in pressing organizationalmatters, i.e. in more efficient ‘energyflows and transformations’ for societalprogress, such as educational reformsand international information anddocumentation management, or stan-dardization of ‘media’, such as of paperformat, an international artificial lan-guage, and even money. Moreover, Ost-wald considered both war and traditionalreligion as ‘unscientific’ waste of energy,to the effect that he became a leadingfigure in both the World Peace Move-ment and the Monist League, the latterbeing an atheistic, science-based quasi-religion.

Fortunately, there was ample time fordiscussion during the workshop, forwith each paper presenting a new puz-zling facet of Ostwald his personalitybecame more and more difficult to com-prehend. As a working hypothesis, An-ders Lundgreen (Uppsala University)suggested Ostwald’s deeply rooted pur-suit of unity and harmony, ranging fromhis earlier attempts at unifying chemistryand physics to his final theoretical andexperimental work on color theory andaesthetics. On the other hand, many pa-pers revealed strong ambiguities, evencontradictions within Ostwald’s views,such as between modernism and anti-modernism, internationalism and nation-alism, anti-metaphysics and metaphysicsetc. There was agreement that Ostwald,the restless writer who first used a pho-nograph as dictaphone in order to savetime and energy, took up many ideasfrom others and changed his topic andmind too frequently to allow a consis-tent reading of his entire work. Whilethis has given rise to many misunder-

standings since, he nonetheless becameprobably the intellectually most influen-tial chemist of the 20th century.

Besides his autobiography and thememoir of his daughter Grete, there isonly an early Russian biography of Ost-wald worth mentioning (by Rodnyi &Solowjew, 1969; trans. into German1977). Recent attempts of the Ostwaldarchive to edit his 10,000 letters as wellas the proceedings of this workshop willmake the long overdue new biographyboth more easy and more difficult towrite.

Joachim Schummer:Institute of Philosophy, University of

Karlsruhe, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany;Joachim.Schummer@geist-soz.uni-karlsruhe.de