Chang/ID20050048/Item4
Detailed Research Description
Item 4. Detailed Research Description
Analysis and Synthesis in 19th-Century Chemistry:
Toward a New Philosophical History of Scientific Practice
1. Objectives
The overall aim of this project is twofold: first, to write a history of 19th-century
chemistry focused on the development of laboratory practices; second,
through this concrete history, to showcase a philosophical history of scientific
practice.
By a "philosophical history" of science I simply mean an investigation of the
development of scientific knowledge. While that is a traditional aim, I reject
the traditional view that knowledge consists of propositions and that the main
aim of scientific activity is to ascertain the truth-value of propositions. Instead,
following Michael Polanyi (1958), Ian Hacking (1993) and Peter Galison (1997)
for example, I believe that knowledge consists of practices as well as
propositions. A philosophical history of scientific practice must synthesise the
study of instruments, operational techniques, manual skills and laboratory
spaces, as well as concepts, hypotheses, and metaphysical assumptions, and
also the pedagogical practices and community interactions that underlie all
other elements.
Moving away from propositions and their truth-value as the exclusive focus of
philosophical study allows some fresh answers to a familiar question: what
are the aims of scientific practice? It is useful to recall the common view of
18th-century chemists, that chemistry was a study of how substances could
be broken down and re-combined: in other words, analysis and synthesis.
What kind of knowledge was gained from such activities? The answer is a
long and untidy list: the existence of new elements and new compounds;
methods of discovering, manufacturing and purifying substances; the ability to
define and identify substances by key properties; the composition and
structure of compounds; the assessment of affinities and forces presumed to
direct chemical reactions; the relationship between the properties of the
ingredients and products of chemical reactions; and so on. Taking these
various types of knowledge as the aims of chemical practice opens up
numerous avenues of research that tend to be closed off by a preoccupation
with truth and theory-testing.
More specifically: my collaborators and I will attempt to re-tell the story of
chemistry from the late 18th century to the late 19th century through a study
of the development of the methods of analysis and synthesis. I came to a
clear realisation of the potential of this type of historiographical approach in
the course of writing my recently published book (Inventing Temperature:
Measurement and Scientific Progress, Oxford University Press, 2004), which
made a thorough study of the development of thermometry. In that study,
following through the development of one laboratory practice illuminated many
neglected aspects of the history of physics, chemistry and other sciences, and
revealed a new coherence to the history that was obscured by the more
1
Chang/ID20050048/Item4
Detailed Research Description
traditional focus on theoretical ideas or major experimental discoveries. I
expect the same kind of benefit from our projected study of chemical analysis
and synthesis. The redefinition of knowledge to give prominence to practices
will bring to the fore many significant aspects of science that are so often
entirely overlooked in historical accounts.
2. Background
In recent historiography of chemistry, there has been a misguided reaction
against a grand tradition of intellectual history, perhaps exemplified most
exuberantly in the work of James Riddick Partington (1961-70). This tradition
was particularly robust in the years around 1970 (e.g., works of David Knight,
Mary Jo Nye, Arnold Thackray, William H. Brock, John H. Brooke, Robert Fox,
and Frederic Holmes). Perhaps the criticism was justified that these excellent
histories were much too "theory-dominated" and not sufficiently contextual,
and we have certainly gained valuable new understanding from the more
recent focus on the social, cultural and institutional setting of chemists and
chemistry. However, the newer trend has also spread an unhelpful notion,
that the history of chemistry (and of science in general) should concern itself
mainly with the social and cultural meaning of science, rather than scientific
knowledge itself. This marginalisation of scientific knowledge itself has made
the history of science appear irrelevant not only to many philosophers of
science, but to many practising scientists as well.
In my view, a resolute focus on understanding scientific practice is the key in
unifying social and intellectual approaches to the history of chemistry,
returning chemical knowledge to the centre of the history of chemistry, while
taking a full and well-rounded view of that knowledge. In forging this new
direction, my collaborators and I will build on the following helpful strands in
existing literature in the history, philosophy and sociology of science.
Philosophy of experiment. Philosophers such as Polanyi (1958) and Hacking
(1983) effectively emphasised the importance of understanding scientific
practice, but did not write detailed histories. We seek to apply their insights in
our work, focusing particularly on the tacit dimensions of experimental
practice, and the development of manipulative skills. Galison's (1997) study
of experimental practices in modern high-energy physics can be taken as a
good model, and more sociological studies such as those by Harry Collins
(1985) and Simon Schaffer (1989) can also provide some guidance. More
recent studies include those collected in Radder (2003).
Research schools. As J. B. Morrell put it in a retrospective account (1993,
124), the concept of research schools "suggested a way in which social
history of science could be written which did not downgrade science as
cognition", and it is exactly this fruitful avenue that our study aims to pursue.
Morrell's introduction of the concept in 1972 marked a watershed, and
subsequent elaboration and application of his ideas by Joseph Fruton (1988,
1990), Gerald Geison (1978, 1981, 1993), Frederic Holmes (1989, 1993),
Mary Jo Nye (1993b), and Alan Rocke (1993) have demonstrated its
usefulness.
2
Chang/ID20050048/Item4
Detailed Research Description
Pedagogy. The study of research schools made explicit the link between
teaching and research, a connection expertly explored by Holmes’ (1989)
study of Justus von Liebig’s laboratory. It is generally accepted that the
introduction of a routine method of combustion analysis was at least a
contributory factor in the increased research output of laboratories such as
Liebig’s in the 1830s and 1840s. Andrew Warwick’s (2003) study of 19thcentury mathematical physics in Cambridge argues that the development of
the esoteric skills of the mathematical physicist implicated the whole student,
mind and body, in both professional and social life. Some of these themes
can be detected in the research schools of Liebig and August Wilhelm
Hofmann for example, but there has so far been no attempt to study chemical
pedagogy in the 19th century in equivalent detail.
Institutions. Morrell’s identification of institutional and financial factors as key
to the success of research schools has been utilised by Gerrylynn Roberts
(1976) in her study of the Royal College of Chemistry and, later, in Rocke's
(1993) comparison of the Marburg and Leipzig schools of Hermann Kolbe.
Institutional developments in chemistry throughout our period of study are
closely interwoven with professionalisation and the growth of a community of
chemists, as studied by Karl Hufbauer (1982) in 18th-century Germany and
Robert Bud and Roberts (1984) in 19th-century Britain. In this context, the
Royal Society of Chemistry, founded in 1841, and the Deutsche Chemische
Gesellschaft, founded in 1867 in emulation of the British society by Hofmann,
will be worth studying.
Laboratories. History of chemistry has long been concerned with laboratories,
as for example in Smeaton (1954), which traced the origins of the Giessen
laboratory to Gay-Lussac's 18th-century Parisian laboratory. Such studies are
helpful, but there are clear gaps we would like to fill. Even recent works
including Crosland (2005) have tended to focus on the period up to Giessen,
and there seems to be a general tendency to assume that the design and
operation of laboratories for chemistry was relatively static after that.
Moreover, there has been no treatment of chemistry laboratories similar to
David Cahan's comprehensive study (1985, 1989) of the laboratory revolution
in German physics in the 1870s, despite the fact that similar developments in
chemistry laboratories occurred in Germany from the 1860s onwards.
History of analytic chemistry. It seems that Ferenc Szabadváry's 1960 text is
still unsurpassed as a comprehensive introduction to this subject, and it
provides very useful details on analytic techniques. Similarly, discussions by
Ida Freund (1904) are still helpful. Brock (1992, chapter 5) gives a more
recent view and provides an extensive bibliography.
History of synthetic organic chemistry. There are currently no histories
entirely devoted to synthetic organic chemistry, and few histories of organic
chemistry in general. The most relevant to our study are those by Carl
Schorlemmer (1879) and Carl Graebe (1920), eminent organic chemists of
the late 19th century, although modern contributions such as Russell (2004)
provide a useful and accessible overview. Two articles by John Brooke (1968,
3
Chang/ID20050048/Item4
Detailed Research Description
1971) deal with the implications of synthesis for vitalism and disciplinary
definition, whilst Russell (1987) tackles the many and various meanings and
significance of synthesis to the development of 19th-century chemistry. Since
then, however, the only recent attempt to write specifically about organic
synthesis has been the popular history by John Buckingham (2004).
3. Hypotheses
In our study, we will seek to test the following specific hypotheses.
(a) Analytic continuity. A focus on analytic techniques will reveal a
surprising degree of continuity of development lasting through the phlogiston
theory, pneumatic chemistry, the Chemical Revolution, Dalton's atomic theory,
etc., up to the middle of the 19th century.
Chemistry was defined by Lavoisier in 1787 as the science of analysis,
and this understanding of chemistry as a quest to determine the elementary
composition of substances was common for many decades afterwards. The
goals and methods of analysis were varied (ranging from the field analysis of
rock samples to determine their mineral content, to attempts to settle
theoretical disputes concerned with the fundamental nature of matter), but the
same techniques were applied in very different contexts. The relation
between analytic methods and theoretical ideas is complex, and the two are
not always well-coordinated with each other. But there is also a sense in
which analytic practice set the agenda for theoretical developments in the
earlier period of our study; long-lasting theoretical elements, such as the
concepts of affinity and equivalents, seem to have been closely tied with
analytic methods.
(b) The role of organic chemistry in the evolution of analysis. During the
18th century, the subjects of analysis were predominantly inorganic, but by
the beginning of the 19th century the isolation of increasing numbers of
organic materials necessitated the development of new analytical methods.
The main techniques in quantitative inorganic analysis were based on
the precipitation of insoluble salts and the accurate measurement of gas
volumes, whilst the blowpipe was invaluable in mineralogy. Jons Jakob
Berzelius and Joseph-Louis Gay-Lussac were instrumental in the
development of these techniques, which became part of the training of
chemists around the turn of the century. As chemists turned their attention
increasingly to the organic world, the problems of analysis changed. Since
Lavoisier's time, the composition of organic matter had been obtained by
combustion, trapping the carbon dioxide gas and water vapour produced, and
measuring their volume to determine the amount of carbon and hydrogen
present in the sample. The first major innovation, due to Gay-Lussac,
involved the use of anhydrous calcium carbonate, a deliquescent substance
that trapped water vapour. The later and much more famous change was
made by Liebig, who introduced the Kaliapparat, a five-balled glass vessel
filled with alkaline potash that trapped passing acidic carbon dioxide gas.
4
Chang/ID20050048/Item4
Detailed Research Description
(c) Synthetic revolution. A shift of focus from analysis to synthesis took
place in the mid-19th century, marking a watershed in chemistry’s methods
and goals, as well as in its philosophical and theoretical allegiances.
Studies of the chemical transformations of organic materials, including
Wöhler's 1828 preparation of urea, suggested the possibility of making
compounds from simpler substances, or even from their constituent elements.
The clearest defining point in this shift was probably Hermann Kolbe's 1845
synthesis of acetic acid, an event singled out by Graebe (1920) as marking
the onset of the second age of synthesis. Although the first fully planned
synthesis did not occur until Adolf Baeyer's synthesis of indigo, by the mid19th century organic chemistry was beginning to effect a major redefinition of
chemistry in terms of synthesis, and the ability to make things became a
prevalent concern. Organic synthesis came to dominate chemical research
so much as to make Carl Fresenius feel the need to found a separate haven
for analysis, in the form of the journal Zeitschrift für Analytische Chemie, in
1862. In modern times, synthesis came to be regarded as the ultimate test of
the chemists' skill and power over nature.
(d) Synthesis and structural theory. Synthesis had implications that were
not restricted to industrial applications, but also affected structural theory.
As the number of organic substances that had been isolated and
analysed increased ever more rapidly, more subtle problems in the
relationship between composition and structure became apparent. In
particular, the relative inaccuracy in the determination of the nitrogen content
of alkaloids, despite many improvements in experimental method that utilised
a similar strategy to Liebig's Kaliapparat, led to significant uncertainty about
the elemental composition assigned following combustion analysis. The
discovery of isomerism cast further doubt on the sufficiency of composition in
defining substance, and made chemists increasingly aware of the need for
improved structural theories. Syntheses offered the possibility of confirming
structure, and it was for this purpose, as well as the more frequently
acknowledged industrial and commercial reasons, that synthesis came to
dominance in the last quarter of the 19th century. Thus the implications of
synthetic chemistry are not restricted, as current historiography so often
implies, to issues concerning industrial application (e.g. Meinel and Scholz
1992, Travis 1993), the validity of vitalism (e.g. Brooke 1968, Russell 1987),
and disciplinary definition (e.g. Brooke 1971).
(e) Impact on styles of research and teaching. The development of
analytic and synthetic techniques created deep and far-reaching changes in
the styles of research and teaching.
Liebig's introduction of the Kaliapparat is inextricably associated with
the introduction of systematic laboratory training into chemistry, and with a
substantial scaling-up of chemical research through the provision of a routine
research method. Analysis became a routine and highly replicable technique,
and the cutting edge of research in organic chemistry shifted to the domain of
synthesis. Not only was this change reflected in the organisation and
construction of laboratories, but it also led to the incorporation of new bodies
of knowledge into the basic training of chemists, and the alteration of systems
of examination to take account of these changes. Later, the new emphasis on
5
Chang/ID20050048/Item4
Detailed Research Description
synthesis was reflected in entirely new laboratory environments, including
much new apparatus as well as in novel systems of training. Interestingly,
synthesis never became routine in the same way as analysis, and it remains
an art up to the present. The "laboratory revolution" in chemistry was not a
single event achieved by Liebig, but a long, complex process of evolution
during the mid–19th century that culminated in a style of teaching/research
laboratory (building, apparatus, and use) that persisted into the 20th century.
4. Research methods
The chief method of research that we wish to employ is simple, in general
terms: we identify key methods of analysis and synthesis, and follow their
development, paying attention to all relevant factors. This allows us to cut
through the more customary divisions of history in terms of dominant theories,
national communities, or simple chronological periods.
In the realm of analysis, the most important and interesting methods to be
studied include: the use of the blowpipe, precipitation, electrolysis, and
combustion analysis. In the realm of synthesis, the chief methods involved:
some standard techniques, such as heating in a sealed glass tube; heuristic
theoretical devices, such as substitution; and the development and application
of new reagents.
Each practical method is a complex entity, and to understand it fully requires
an investigation of its justification, execution, and understanding. Each
method has contexts in which it is motivated and employed most effectively;
these contexts may be technological, or theoretical. For each
analytic/synthetic operation, appropriate starting materials must be prepared
and purified, and appropriate apparatus manufactured and standardised.
Then the operation itself must be performed, correctly with requisite skill.
Afterwards the products of the operation must be identified clearly and
correctly. And then some understanding of what happened in the operation
must be reached; in that process theories, models and metaphysical beliefs
become explicitly relevant, though they may have played subtle yet important
roles all along.
To help us understand all of the above factors, we propose the following as
key areas to be investigated, in their relation to the development of each
method.
Theoretical contexts. We will pay close attention to the interaction
between the development of laboratory practices and the development of
theories. We will examine some classic theoretical debates (involving
phlogiston/oxygen theories, the atomic theory, and Prout's hypothesis)
through the development of chemical analysis, and show how these
debates shaped analysis and at the same time were shaped by analysis.
We will also examine the close connection between analytic methods and
the concepts of affinity and equivalents. On the synthesis side, the
relation between laboratory practice and structural theory (e.g. type theory)
requires careful examination, and we will be helped by considering Ursula
6
Chang/ID20050048/Item4
Detailed Research Description
Klein's (2003) concept of "paper tools" and its methodological implications.
In this context we will also test the usefulness of the recent philosophical
works on models (e.g. Morgan and Morrison 1999).
Material culture. It will be essential for us to make a careful and extensive
study of the apparatus used for analysis and synthesis, and the laboratory
environments that developed around the apparatus. There is a good deal
of secondary literature on the blowpipe, the Kaliapparat and other analytic
apparatus, though less on synthetic apparatus. In the later period,
glassware, glassblowing and the development of controlled environments
for synthesis become vital. A close study of chemical publications will be
undertaken to glean crucial experimental details. Fortunately there are
valuable museum collections to be studied, for example at the Deutsches
Museum in Munich, at the Whipple Museum in Cambridge, and at the
Science Museum in London. We will also examine various catalogues
from instrument makers (e.g. John Griffin) to track the evolution and
availability of standard apparatus.
Many new chemical laboratories were built during the 19th century, and
studying their structure and operations will generate valuable insights. We
intend to study the creation of the new laboratories of the Royal College of
Chemistry in London, and its successor laboratories in South Kensington.
Although no plans for the Royal College of Chemistry appear to remain,
there is evidence to be gleaned from the archival sources held at Imperial
College London. Plans exist for many other chemical laboratories built
during the 19th century, including Hofmann’s 1866 report on the Bonn and
Berlin University Laboratories that he designed. In addition, Engel and
Engel (1992) contains plans available for many laboratories that relate
directly to this story, including the Gewerbe Akademie in Berlin.
Pedagogy. A most instructive window on the development of scientific
practice is the training of students. Chemical textbooks will be examined
not only for their specific content, but also with attention to their
pedagogical methods and orientation. On chemical analysis there were a
large number of textbooks in this period, by Kirwan, Berzelius, Faraday,
Griffin, Rose, Will, Hofmann, etc. Textbooks on synthesis are harder to
find; Berthelot’s books are more philosophical polemic than textbooks.
Various sets of lecture notes and examination papers are available at
various teaching institutions; Catherine Jackson has already studied
Watson's notes from Hofmann's lectures, and the exams at the Royal
College of Chemistry and the Royal School of Mines in London. In
addition, various personal accounts of chemists' practical training are
available in the literature (e.g. Armstrong 1896).
Key figures, institutions, and their interactions. Although our focus is not
on biography, it will be beneficial to identify clusters of key actors at
various stages in the story. The earlier (analytical) period was dominated
by the towering figures of Berzelius, Gay-Lussac, and Liebig, and this
triumvirate neatly spans significant national boundaries. Prior work by Nye
(1993a, 1993b) has addressed the different national styles of French and
German chemists in the 19th century, and one of our strategies will be to
7
Chang/ID20050048/Item4
Detailed Research Description
examine how the centres of expertise in chemistry moved around Europe
during this period; for example, Liebig's pupil Hofmann was a key figure in
the development of the new discipline of organic chemistry in Britain.
Equally important is Edward Frankland, whose work on sealed-tube
reactions and the use of organozinc compounds provided Hofmann with
many of the chemical transformations that enabled his research
programme into organic nitrogen bases. In order to provide the context for
the work carried out by these major chemists, we will also study the
institutions in which they worked. Most significant amongst these will be
some of the German universities (notably in Giessen, Bonn and Berlin),
the Royal College of Chemistry in London, and professional institutions
including the Chemical Society, the German Chemical Society, and the
Prussian Academy of Sciences.
Contexts of application. Both analysis and synthesis have had wide
applications in industry. While analysis was a necessary tool in many
existing industries from mining to brewing, synthesis provided the
foundation for entirely new industries. William H. Perkin's preparation of
mauve spawned the synthetic dye industry of the late 19th century; the
growth of this industry, as described in Travis (1993), was intimately
connected with developments in laboratory synthesis and the technology
of large-scale commercial preparation. Two key syntheses (alizarin in
1869 by Graebe and Liebermann, and indigo in 1880 by Baeyer) ensured
German dominance. Understanding why these syntheses were achieved
in Germany and not, for example, in England, will illuminate the
relationship between academic and industrial chemistry during this period.
In addition, our study of texts and artifacts will be supplemented by the
replications of some key experiments. Historians of science have made
various replications of classic experiments in recent decades for various
reasons; representative works include those by Peter Heering (1992), Otto
Sibum (1995) and, more recently and in an area directly relevant to our study,
Melvyn Usselman et al. (2005). Our particular purpose in making replications
is twofold: first, to ascertain the relevant phenomena for ourselves where the
reports in primary sources are puzzling; second, and perhaps more
importantly for this study, to help us understand the implicit and tacit
dimensions of the practical work, which are not (and perhaps cannot be)
specified in the published records. We expect to start with exploratory efforts
in the first two years of the project, to intensify the activity in the final year.
5. Significance of our work
If successful, our project would constitute a considerable achievement,
making the following significant contributions:

We would write a new history of chemistry from the late 18th century to the
late 19th century, illuminating practical as well as theoretical developments.
8
Chang/ID20050048/Item4




Detailed Research Description
Through our philosophical history of chemical practice, we would achieve
a productive and meaningful synthesis between intellectual and social
history.
Our work would also pose an exciting challenge for philosophy of science
and epistemology, by consolidating a broader conception of scientific
knowledge.
Consequently, we would breathe some new life into the history of
chemistry in general, and emphasise that it can contribute to topical
agendas in history and philosophy of science.
We would also provide chemists with a history that is recognisable to them
in relation to their day-to-day activities and that captures features of their
systems of training and methods of research.
6. Plans for publication
The output from our project will take four main forms.
(1) The named PhD student, Catherine Jackson, will produce a
dissertation on the part of the project focused on chemical synthesis, under
my supervision. We expect the dissertation to lead to publications, in part or
whole.
(2) The unnamed postdoctoral researcher will be expected to publish a
series of articles in refereed journals (possibly co-authored by myself in some
cases), on the part of the project focused on chemical analysis.
(3) We will also aim to produce publications that unite the two halves of
the project. If our research is as successful as we are hoping, there will be
scope for a book co-authored by all three of us.
(4) In addition, the fruits of this project will also constitute helpful
background material for a book I will be writing in the next 3-4 years,
provisionally titled Air and Water: the Making of the Modern Physical Universe.
7. Works Cited
Armstrong, Henry E. (1896). 'Hofmann Memorial Lecture', Journal of
the Chemical Society 69: 637-732.
Berzelius, Jons J. (1822). The Use of the Blowpipe in Chemical
Analysis, London.
Brock, William H. (1992). The Fontana History of Chemistry. London:
Fontana Press.
Brock, William H. (1997). Justus von Liebig: The Chemical Gatekeeper.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brooke, John H. (1968). 'Wöhler's Urea, and its Vital Force? - A
Verdict from the Chemists', Ambix 15: 84-114.
Brooke, John H. (1971). 'Organic Synthesis and the Unification of
Chemistry', British Journal for the History of Science 5: 363-392.
Brooke, John H. (1987). 'Methods and Methodology in the
Development of Organic Chemistry', Ambix 34: 147-155.
Buckingham, John (2004). Chasing the Molecule. Stroud: Sutton.
Bud, Robert and Gerrylynn K. Roberts (1984). Science versus Practice:
Chemistry in Victorian Britain. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
9
Chang/ID20050048/Item4
Detailed Research Description
Cahan, David (1985). ‘The Institutional Revolution in German physics’,
Historical Studies in the physical Sciences, 15: 1-65.
Cahan, David (1989). An Institute for and Empire: the PhysikalischeTechnische Reichsanstalt, 1871-1918. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Collins, Harry M. (1985). Changing Order: Replication and Induction in
Scientific Practice. London: Sage.
Crosland, Maurice (2005). ‘Early Laboratories c.1600-c.1800 and the
Location of Experimental Science’, Annals of Science 62: 233-253.
Engel, Michael and Brita Engel (1992). Chemie und Chemiker in Berlin:
Die Ara August Wilhelm von Hofmann, 1865-1892. Berlin: Verlag für
Wissenschafts- und Regionalgeschichte.
Freund, Ida (1904). The Study of Chemical Composition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Fruton, Joseph S. (1988). "The Liebig Research Group - A
Reappraisal", Proceedings of the American Philsophical Society 132: 1-66.
Fruton, Joseph S. (1990). Contrasts in Scientific Style: Research
Groups in the Chemical and Biological Sciences. Philadelphia: The American
Philosophicla Society.
Galison, Peter (1997). Image and Logic. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Geison, Gerald (1978). Michael Foster and the Cambridge School of
Physiology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Geison, Gerald (1981). ‘Scientific Change, Emerging Specialities, and
Research Schools’, History of Science, 10: 20-40.
Geison, Gerald (1993). ‘Research Schools and New Directions in the
Historiography of Science’, in Geison and Holmes (1993), 226-238.
Geison, Gerald and Frederick L. Holmes, eds. (1993). Research
Schools. Osiris, 8.
Graebe, Carl (1920). Geschichte der Organischen Chemie. Berlin:
Springer.
Hacking, Ian (1983). Representing and Intervening. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Heering, Peter (1992). 'On Coulomb's Inverse Square Law', American
Journal of Physics, 60: 988-994.
Holmes, Frederick L. (1989). ‘The Complementarity of Teaching and
Research in Liebig’s Laboratory’, Osiris, 5: 121-64.
Holmes, Frederick L. (1993). ‘Justus Liebig and the Construction of
Organic Chemistry’, in Seymour H. Mauskopf, ed., Chemical Sciences in the
Modern World (Philadelphia, 1993), 119-134.
Hufbauer, Karl (1982). The Formation of the German Chemical
Community (1720-1795). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Klein, Ursula (2003). Experiments, Models, Paper Tools: Cultures of
Organic Chemistry in the Nineteenth Century. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Meinel, Christoph and Hartmut Scholz (1992). Die Allianz von
Wissenschaft und Industrie: August Wilhelm Hofmann: Zeit, Werk, Wirkung
(1818-1892). Weinheim: VCH.
Morgan, Mary, and Margaret Morrison, eds. (1999). Models as
Mediators. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10
Chang/ID20050048/Item4
Detailed Research Description
Morrell, J. B. (1972). ‘The Chemist Breeders: The Research Schools
of Liebig and Thomas Thomson’, Ambix 19: 1-46.
Morrell, J. B. (1993). ‘W. H. Perkin Jr., at Manchester and Oxford:
From Irwell to Isis’, in Geison and Holmes (1993), 104-26.
Nye, Mary Jo (1993a). From Chemical Philosophy to Theoretical
Chemistry: Dynamics of Matter and Dynamics of Disciplines, 1800-1950.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Nye, Mary Jo (1993b). ‘National Styles? French and English Chemistry
in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries’, in Geison and Holmes
(1993), 30-49.
Partington, J. R. (1961-70). A History of Chemistry, 4 volumes.
London: Macmillan.
Polanyi, Michael (1958). Personal Knowledge. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Radder, Hans, ed. (2003). Philosophy of Scientific Experimentation.
Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Roberts, Gerrylynn K. (1976). 'The Establishment of the Royal College
of Chemistry: An Investigation of the Social Context of Early Victorian
Chemistry', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 7: 437-85.
Rocke, Alan J. (1993). ‘Group Research in German Chemistry: Kolbe’s
Marburg and Leipzig Institutes’, in Geison and Holmes (1993), 53-79.
Russell, Colin A. (1987). ‘The Changing Role of Synthesis in Organic
Chemistry’, Ambix 34: 169-180.
Russell, Colin A. (2004). 'Advances in Organic Chemistry over the Last
100 years', Annual Reports on the Progress of Chemistry, Section B Organic
Chemistry 100:3-31.
Schaffer, Simon (1989). 'Glass Works: Newton's Prisms and the Uses
of Experiment', in David Gooding et al., eds., Uses of Experiment (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press), 67-104.
Schorlemmer, Carl A. (1879). The Rise and Development of Organic
Chemistry. Manchester: Cornish.
Sibum, Heinz Otto (1995). 'Reworking the Mechanical Value of Heat:
Instruments of Precision and Gestures of Accuracy in Early Victorian England',
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 26: 73-106.
Smeaton, William (1954). 'The Early History of Laboratory Instruction
in Chemistry at the Ecole Polytechnique, Paris, and Elsewhere', Annals of
Science 10: 224-233.
Szabadváry, Ferenc [1960] (1992). History of Analytical Chemistry,
trans. by Gyula Svehla. Reading: Gordon and Breach.
Travis, Anthony S. (1993). The Rainbow Makers: the origins of the
synthetic dyestuffs industry in Western Europe. Bethlehem: Lehigh University
Press.
Usselman, Melvyn, Alan Rocke, Christina Reinhart, and Kelly Foulser
(2005). 'Restaging Liebig: A Study in the Replication of Experiments', Annals
of Science, 62: 1-55.
Warwick, Andrew C. (2003). Masters of Theory. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
11