Search

Motivated by her interest in fabric arts, late-eighteenth-century British chemist Elizabeth Fulhame experimentally investigated whether cloths of gold, silver, and other metals could be made by chemical rather than mechanical processes. In contrast to other women studying science at this time, she not only published an original monograph under her own name that challenged both the phlogistic and antiphlogistic views of combustion but also proposed an alternative explanation for oxidation and reduction. Although her contemporaries widely cited her innovative research, her history is not well known, yet a careful analysis of her work provides further insights into the reception of the antiphlogistic theory and the challenges and limitations experienced by women in chemistry during this period.

This essay focuses on an unknown Latin translation of Georg Ernst Stahl's treatise on the nature of sulfur ( Zufällige Gedancken und Nützliche Bedencken über den Streit von dem so genannten Sulfure ). The original edition, published in 1718, laid the foundation for the phlogiston theory, which dominated European chemistry until the early 1770s. However, the dissemination of the treatise on sulfur outside the German states remained limited. Its Latin translation proposes a different scenario as it was owned by three prominent French chemists: Étienne-François Geoffroy, Jean Hellot and Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier. Geoffroy's early interest in Stahl's chemistry has been evidenced and it is suggested that the acquisition of the manuscript might be linked to his connection with Stahl through Caspar Neumann, a chemist from Berlin. When he entered in the possession of the manuscript Jean Hellot wrote a long excerpt of Stahl's work. Lavoisier acquired the manuscript in 1766, and his critical reading of Stahl's work significantly influenced his own effort to outline a new theory of combustion. This manuscript represents a significant historical connection between Stahl's phlogiston theory and Lavoisier's revolutionary ideas.

In early October, the Nobel Prizes will honor groundbreaking discoveries. After the anticipated recognition of Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman in 2023 for the development of RNA modifications that enabled the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine, we eagerly consider the next topics to be awarded. In the September 30 th anniversary special issue of Cell Chemical Biology, we ask researchers from a range of backgrounds, what topic do you think deserves the next Nobel Prize in chemistry or in physiology or medicine, and why?, Competing Interests: Declaration of interests C.K. is the scientific founder, scientific advisor to the Board of Directors, scientific advisory board member, shareholder, and consultant for Foghorn Therapeutics, Inc. (Cambridge, MA); serves on the scientific advisory boards of Nereid Therapeutics; and is a consultant for Cell Signaling Technologies and Google Ventures. C.K. is also a member of the Molecular Cell and Cell Chemical Biology advisory boards., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Since the first award in 1901, the Nobel Prize has come to signify the pinnacle of scientific achievement. In this Voices piece in the August special issue of Cell Chemical Biology entitled "Bridging chemistry and biology," we ask Nobel laureates to reflect on the impact the prize had on them. We learn how it affected their life or work, their outlook on science, the lessons learned, and their advice for the next generation of scientists., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests T.R.C. receives royalties from W.W. Norton & Co. for his book The Catalyst. R.J.L is a founder of Septerna and is a consultant and stockholder. R.J.L is a member of the Board of Directors of Lexicon and a stockholder., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Despite the increasing interest in Italian medicine, comparatively little attention has been paid to the establishment of iatrochemistry. Though this process spread throughout the Peninsula, Naples witnessed an impressive growth of chemical research and the outbreak of a conflict between the medical establishment and the chemical physicians. The purpose of this article is to explore the emergence of chemical medicine in Naples in the period that precedes the founding (1663) of the Accademia degli Investiganti . In the first part of the seventeenth century, chemistry achieved recognition in settings like academies, pharmacies, hospitals, and monasteries. Chemical studies and the making of new remedies were spurred by the scientific exchange that Neapolitan savants established with scholars from different areas. The so-called medical pluralism and the recurrent outbreaks of epidemics stimulated the introduction of new chemical therapies, which coexisted with old ones . The establishment of chemical medicine was triggered by Marco Aurelio Severino (1580-1656), who, besides promoting chemical remedies, resorted to chemical theories, including Paracelsian ones, to account for physiological processes. Severino was the mentor of the chemical physicians who gave rise to the Accademia degli Investiganti . One of Severino's disciples was Giuseppe Donzelli (1596-1670), who fostered chemical remedies in Naples.

In what follows I examine Diderot's chemically influenced vital materialism. Once condemned as "mechanistic," materialism has had something of a renaissance in recent decades as scholars have rediscovered a tradition of "vital materialism" which they have opposed to older, cruder forms of the idea, e.g. materialisms full of life, affect, chimiatry, and transformation. Sometimes these rediscoveries have attached themselves to a figure of the past, like Margaret Cavendish's metaphysics of active matter, or to a construct of the still-emerging future, like Karen Barad's quantum physics-nourished "agential realism" present in all of matter. Another question concerns the extent to which these revivals of "vital" or "active-matter" materialism should be traced back to older Renaissance naturalisms. In what follows, I return to Diderot and the question of his "vital materialism." Diderot draws both on older traditions, approvingly citing Van Helmont and gesturing towards a new chemistry of living matter and also speaks the language of scientific revolution, writing that "We are on the verge of a great revolution in the sciences." In earlier work I sought to connect this language of revolution in the sciences to the emergence of biology as a science. Here I focus on his chemically charged materialism.

During the eighteenth century, authors of chemical treatises and courses on chemistry often introduced their work with a chapter devoted to the history of chemistry. While there may have been different reasons for the use of history, its importance was never seriously questioned. However, when Antoine Laurent Lavoisier (1743-1794) took a professional interest in chemistry in the early 1770s, he progressively became uneasy with this literary tradition. In this essay, I intend to explore the ways in which Lavoisier looked at the history of chemistry and to show how, from the 1780s onwards, he began to adopt a hostile attitude towards historical erudition. This vision, which culminated in the publication of the Traité élémentaire de chimie (Paris, 1789), was not only the result of a stylistic preference but constituted a direct attack on a way of doing chemistry from which Lavoisier intended to distance himself.

Copyright of Pensares em Revista is the property of Editora da Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (EdUERJ) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

During the second half of the eighteenth century, Western countries witnessed an explosion of societies and publishing initiatives aimed at creating and disseminating what contemporaries called useful knowledge. These "economic societies," "societies of friends of the country," or "societies of improvers" sought to improve their local communities through the scientific management of natural and social resources. This article analyses the opportunities that this movement of patriots opened up for women in chemistry, who went from being "exceptional women" to representing themselves as female "friends of the country." This article shows the different ways in which these women "friends of the country" negotiated their authorship, agency, and public visibility in order to maintain gender conventions and the importance of their kinship networks. It also illustrates the other side of the coin: how women's contributions also benefited male scientific societies, which gained visibility and secured the social position of their members in enlightened circles.

This paper explores the chemistry of mercury as described in ancient alchemical literature. Alchemy's focus on the knowledge and manipulation of natural substances is not so different from modern chemistry's purposes. The great divide between the two is marked by the way of conceptualizing and recording their practices. Our interdisciplinary research group, composed of chemists and historians of science, has set off to explore the cold and hot extraction of mercury from cinnabar. The ancient written records have been perused in order to devise laboratory experiments that could shed light on the material reality behind the alchemical narratives and interpret textual details in a unique perspective. In this way, it became possible to translate the technical lore of ancient alchemy into the modern language of chemistry. Thanks to the replication of alchemical practices, chemistry can regain its centuries-long history that has fallen into oblivion.

Between 1920 and 1922, the University of Bristol biochemist, Maximilian Nierenstein, published four papers in a series exploring the structure of catechin in the Journal of the Chemical Society. The Society then abruptly refused to accept any more of his papers on catechin, or any other subject. It provided him with no reasons for the embargo until 1925. It then transpired that Nierenstein was boycotted because it was deemed that he had not responded adequately to criticisms of his work made by his rival in catechin research, the German natural products chemist, Karl Freudenberg. It was not until 1929 that, as a result of a petition by a group of his former Bristol pupils and friends, that Nierenstein was again permitted to publish in the Society's journal. The paper explores the Chemical Society's treatment of Nierenstein in detail, sheds new light on his career and his reaction to the Society's unprecedented boycott, examines some of the structural chemistry involved in the disputes, and discusses whether Nierenstein's research deserves the label of 'bad science'.

Since the early stages of its academic professionalization, pharmacology has been an interdisciplinary field strongly influenced by the natural sciences. Using the Nobel Prize as a lens to study the history of pharmacology, this article analyzes nominations of pharmacologists for two Nobel Prize categories, namely "chemistry" and "physiology or medicine" from 1901 to 1950. Who were they? Why were they proposed, and what do the Nobel dossiers say about excellence in pharmacology and research trends? This paper highlights the evaluation of "shortlisted" candidates, i.e., those candidates who were of particular interest for the members of the Nobel Committee in physiology or medicine. We focus on the US scholar John Jacob Abel (1857-1938), repeatedly referred to as the "Founder of American Pharmacology." Nominated 17 times in both categories, Abel was praised by his nominators for both basic research as well as for his influential positions as editor and his work as chair at Johns Hopkins University. The Abel nominations were evaluated for the Nobel Committee in chemistry by the Swedish professor of chemistry and pharmaceutics Einar Hammarsten (1889-1968), particularly interested in Abel's work on hormones in the adrenal glands and in the pituitary gland. Eventually, Hammarsten did not view Abel's work prizeworthy, partly because other scholars had done-according to Hammarsten-more important discoveries in the same fields. In conclusion, analyses of Nobel Prize nominations help us to better understand various meanings of excellence in pharmacology during the twentieth century and beyond.

Most scientists consider that sonochemistry became recognised as a discrete subject in the 1980's - some 40 years ago which coincidentally is when my own interests in the subject began. This review briefly outlines how I first became involved in sonochemistry and then in its development. However its main theme is the way in which my links with China through sonochemistry have developed from their beginnings in 1990. This was the subject of my presentation at AOSS4 and involves a range of topics which started with the extraction of natural products and surface treatment but later expanded to include therapeutic ultrasound and environmental protection., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Scientific and/or technical breakthroughs require the exploration of novel ideas and technologies. Yet, it has not been studied quantitatively how national institutional contexts either facilitate or stifle organizational support for exploration. Available qualitative evidence suggests that institutional contexts that exert weak control over universities and research organizations strengthen their capabilities to achieve scientific breakthroughs, while contexts with strong control constrain them. The paper is based on an analysis of the population of Nobel laureates in Physics, Chemistry and Physiology or Medicine. We examine to what extent existing qualitative findings for the biomedical sciences, which are partly based on Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine, can be substantiated both quantitatively and across the three Nobel Prize fields of science. We find that for most of the 20th century and the early 21st century, countries with weak institutional control (United Kingdom, United States) have outperformed those exerting strong control (France, Germany). These results are further corroborated when controlled by population sizes and by GDP per capita. In addition, these results hold not only for the biomedical sciences, but also for Physics and Chemistry. Furthermore, countries with weak institutional control have attracted many future Nobel laureates from countries with strong environments. In this regard, the United States appears to be a particularly attractive setting for conducting innovative research, and thus has been a magnet for young and promising scientists. However, future laureates working in institutional environments exerting weak control are not faster in accomplishing their prize-winning work compared to those laureates working in more restrictive institutional settings., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

In 1869, Johann Friedrich Miescher discovered a new substance in the nucleus of living cells. The substance, which he called nuclein, is now known as DNA, yet both Miescher's name and his theoretical ideas about nuclein are all but forgotten. This paper traces the trajectory of Miescher's reception in the historiography of genetics. To his critics, Miescher was a "contaminator," whose preparations were impure. Modern historians portrayed him as a "confuser," whose misunderstandings delayed the development of molecular biology. Each of these portrayals reflects the disciplinary context in which Miescher's work was evaluated. Using archival sources to unearth Miescher's unpublished speculations-including an analogy between the hereditary material and language, and a speculation that a series of asymmetric carbon atoms could account for hereditary variation-this paper clarifies the ways in which the past was judged through the lens of contemporary concerns. It also shows how organization, structure, function, and information were already being considered when nuclein was first discovered nearly 150 years ago.

We aimed to assess whether Nobel prizes (widely considered the most prestigious award in science) are clustering in work done in a few specific disciplines. We mapped the key Nobel prize-related publication of each laureate awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine, Physics, and Chemistry (1995-2017). These key papers mapped in only narrow sub-regions of a 91,726-cluster map of science created from 63 million Scopus-indexed published items. For each key Nobel paper, a median of 435 (range 0 to 88383) other Scopus-indexed items were published within one year and were more heavily cited than the Nobel paper. Of the 114 high-level domains that science can be divided into, only 36 have had a Nobel prize. Five of the 114 domains (particle physics [14%], cell biology [12.1%], atomic physics [10.9%], neuroscience [10.1%], molecular chemistry [5.3%]) have the lion's share, accounting in total for 52.4% of the Nobel prizes. Using a more granular classification with 849 sub-domains shows that only 71 of these sub-domains (8.3%) have at least one Nobel-related paper. Similar clustering was seen when we mapped all the 40,819 Scopus-indexed publications representing the career-long output of all the Nobel laureates. In conclusion, work resulting in Nobel prizes is concentrated in a small minority of scientific disciplines., Competing Interests: KWB is an employee of SciTech, Inc. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Glyphosate is the most used herbicide on the planet because of its excellent efficacy on almost all weed species and due to the large-scale adoption of transgenic, glyphosate-resistant (GR) crops. Agnes Rimando became an expert in glyphosate analysis almost 20 years ago to support research on GR crop safety and on mechanisms of evolved glyphosate resistance by weeds. Her work was the first to show that the amount of glyphosate and its primary metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) that accumulates in GR soybean seed from plants treated with approved glyphosate doses can approach their legal limits. However, she later found that only trace amounts of these compounds accumulate in the seed of GR maize treated with recommended glyphosate doses. She showed that GR canola, the only transgenic crop with a transgene encoding an enzyme for degradation of glyphosate, metabolizes glyphosate to AMPA very rapidly. Her work was instrumental in providing support for the view that "yellow flash" symptoms sometimes observed in field-grown GR soybeans are due to accumulation of enough AMPA to cause mild phytotoxicity. She did the chemical analyses in the only paper to survey the capacity of an array of plant species to metabolize glyphosate to AMPA. She found a wide range in this capacity, with grasses with little or no metabolism of glyphosate to AMPA and with legumes readily metabolizing glyphosate. Lastly, she found no evidence of enhanced degradation of glyphosate to be a mechanism of evolved resistance to glyphosate by two weed species but that it might be involved in natural tolerance to glyphosate of some weeds.

From 1797 to 1801 a controversy played out on the pages of the Medical Repository , the first scientific journal published in the United States. At its centre was the well-known feud between the followers of Antoine Lavoisier and Joseph Priestley, the lone supporter of the phlogiston model. The American debate, however, had more than two sides. The Americans chemists, Samuel Latham Mitchill and Benjamin Woodhouse, who rushed to support Priestley did not defend his scientific views. Rather, as citizens of a republic, they defended his right to have them. They also castigated the assertions of the "French chemists," whose claims that the new chemistry obviated debate seemed unsettlingly similar to the dictatorial ambitions of the French state. Using the Medical Repository, Mitchill and Woodhouse sought a compromise that validated the new chemistry, but united it with a more egalitarian form of discourse. The desired balance eluded them. Priestley proved too stubborn, and as the French Revolution descended into dictatorship and war, Mitchill and Woodhouse came more to realize that truly prising French chemistry from the culture of the revolutionary era. The episode left Mitchill and Woodhouse disillusioned with chemistry and hoping to redirect scientific enthusiasm to more pious ends.

Eighteenth-century events, replete with Dickensian dualities, brought two Enlightenment families to America. Pierre-Samuel du Pont and Joseph Priestley contemplated relocating their families decades before immigrating. After arriving, they discovered deficiencies in education and chemistry. Their experiences were indicative of the challenges in transmitting transatlantic chemistry. The Priestleys were primed to found an American chemical legacy. Science connected Priestley to British manufacturers, Continental chemists, and American statesmen. Priestley's marriage into the Wilkinson ironmaster dynasty, and Lunar Society membership, helped his sons apprentice, and befriend manufacturer-chemist Thomas Cooper. However, ideological persecution forced them from England. Priestley's plans for his sons to inherit Wilkinson's ironworks evaporated; in America, efforts to establish manufactories, colonies, farms, and a college miscarried. Cooper taught college chemistry, but his materialism provoked dismissals. The Du Ponts were unlikely founders of an industrial-chemistry empire. Du Pont's philosophy promulgated that agriculture, not industry, produced wealth. Eleuthère-Irénée apprenticed in France's gunpowder administration, however, plans for his succession died and director Antoine Lavoisier, a family friend, was executed. E.-I. and Du Pont's arrest precipitated relocation to America. Du Pont's utopian colony and schemes proved unrealistic. Nevertheless, E.-I.'s gunpowder manufactory-utilizing transatlantic contacts and privileged knowledge of advanced French chemistry-succeeded through practical application.

The Scottish Enlightenment has long been identified with abolitionism because of the writings of the moral and economic philosophers and the absence of slaves in Scotland itself. However, Scots were disproportionately represented in the ownership, management, and especially medical treatment of slaves in the British Caribbean. Sugar and cotton flowed into Glasgow and young, educated Scots looking for work as traders, bookkeepers, doctors made the return trip back to the Caribbean to manage the plantations. Chemically trained doctors and agriculturalists tested their theories in the plantations and developed new theories based on their experimentation on the land and slaves. In foregrounding the participation of Scottish trained chemists in the practice of slavery, I argue that the development of eighteenth-century chemistry and the broader intellectual Enlightenment were inextricably entangled with the economic Improvement Movement and the colonial economy of the British slave trade.

When teenaged Henry Jacob Bigelow was an undergraduate at Harvard College in 1833-1837, he prepared nitrous oxide gas for demonstrations to other students. Bigelow's son, William Sturgis Bigelow, related the claim, and there is an eyewitness account from Augustus Goddard Peabody, a fellow Harvard undergraduate with Bigelow. Peabody wrote to Henry David Thoreau about a nitrous frolic. College chemistry primed Bigelow to support the concept of inhaled surgical anesthesia when the idea came to Boston in 1845-1846. Bigelow's chemistry professor was John White Webster. According to Harvard alumnus Edward Everett Hale, in addition to demonstrating effects of nitrous oxide, Webster presciently treated two cases of carbon monoxide poisoning with copious volumes of synthetic oxygen gas. The career of Webster was inhibited by financial difficulties that were suspected to be contributory when he was convicted of the 1849 murder of physician George Parkman at the Harvard Medical School, then adjacent to Massachusetts General Hospital and its Ether Dome. Webster suffered the death penalty in 1850., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Chemistry as experimental science began in the seventeenth century, when it began moving away from being one of the alchemical doctrines and toward analyzing matter and its transformations using scientific methods. Previously, the ancient Pre-Socratic philosophy through observation of nature was concerned with the laws that govern the natural world and the property of matter. Later, the Hellenistic Alexandrian culture took possession of the Hermetic doctrines of the Egyptians, mixing them with pre-Socratic thought and Gnosticism. At this historical moment, therefore, there was a fusion of the Greek philosophical patrimony and the Hellenistic and Alexandrian influences on medicine. The Hermetic gnosis evolved over time to become alchemy and then to usher in the birth of chemical science. Many doctors were wandering philosophers who dealt with cosmogony to understand the body and diseases and to discover new healing drugs for treatment, and thus they were the first chemist therapists., Methods: The influence of ancient physicians through the pre-Socratic philosophy for these prochemical theories and practice has been researched through ancient texts, so these texts have been referenced to determine the legacy of paleo-chemicals doctrines., Results: The study of various texts in particular from the Pre-Socratic age and the eminent physicians underline that, despite a different approach to the cosmogonic concepts of nature and the matter, the medicine of that age had an important influence on chemistry as an experimental science, especially concerning therapy with drugs., Conclusion: The Pre-Socratic philosophers have influenced the medical practice and guided it toward the concept of the properties of matter for medical treatment and an understanding of the causes of diseases., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.net.)

Henry Drysdale Dakin is a notable person in the history of surgery, wound care, military medicine and infectious disease control. Dakin is an exemplar scientist who in the midst of war forged an international collaboration with scientists in multiple fields to create and universalize an antiseptic utopia, which saved thousands lives during World War I, remarkably diminished functional disabilities from wounds and continues to be a "far-reaching armamentarium" of the surgeons and wound care specialists around the globe. Dakin investigated over 200 different antiseptic substances to finally conclude that a 0.5% buffered sodium hypochlorite solution satisfies his criteria for an ideal antiseptic. The only potential limitation was that the germicidal property of the solution was short lived, which meant the solution had to be used continuously or repeatedly delivered into wounds. Dakin's solution, still in use by modern wound care specialists around the globe, has laid the foundation for wound care management as we know it today. Nevertheless, Dakin contributed more to science than just his solution. In this article, Dakin's life story, his unique scientific career and his contributions to surgical literature are explored. The article also illustrates how a wartime necessity resulted in a medical discovery that is still in use to date., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.)

Combinatorial procedures have become established in recent years as alternatives to rational design in drug research, particularly when no structural information is available. This article presents the principle that was originally developed by three scientists and was honored with the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 2018. Furthermore, the application in the field of monclonal antibodies is discussed.

In this review, we describe some of the central philosophical issues facing origins-of-life research and provide a targeted history of the developments that have led to the multidisciplinary field of origins-of-life studies. We outline these issues and developments to guide researchers and students from all fields. With respect to philosophy, we provide brief summaries of debates with respect to (1) definitions (or theories) of life, what life is and how research should be conducted in the absence of an accepted theory of life, (2) the distinctions between synthetic, historical, and universal projects in origins-of-life studies, issues with strategies for inferring the origins of life, such as (3) the nature of the first living entities (the "bottom up" approach) and (4) how to infer the nature of the last universal common ancestor (the "top down" approach), and (5) the status of origins of life as a science. Each of these debates influences the others. Although there are clusters of researchers that agree on some answers to these issues, each of these debates is still open. With respect to history, we outline several independent paths that have led to some of the approaches now prevalent in origins-of-life studies. These include one path from early views of life through the scientific revolutions brought about by Linnaeus (von Linn.), Wöhler, Miller, and others. In this approach, new theories, tools, and evidence guide new thoughts about the nature of life and its origin. We also describe another family of paths motivated by a" circularity" approach to life, which is guided by such thinkers as Maturana & Varela, Gánti, Rosen, and others. These views echo ideas developed by Kant and Aristotle, though they do so using modern science in ways that produce exciting avenues of investigation. By exploring the history of these ideas, we can see how many of the issues that currently interest us have been guided by the contexts in which the ideas were developed. The disciplinary backgrounds of each of these scholars has influenced the questions they sought to answer, the experiments they envisioned, and the kinds of data they collected. We conclude by encouraging scientists and scholars in the humanities and social sciences to explore ways in which they can interact to provide a deeper understanding of the conceptual assumptions, structure, and history of origins-of-life research. This may be useful to help frame future research agendas and bring awareness to the multifaceted issues facing this challenging scientific question.

Donald A. Tomalia is one of the pioneers in the field of dendrimers, who is still active at the age of 80 years-old. The present contribution is a journey through his scientific contributions from the early beginning until his discovery of the poly(amidoamine), (PAMAM)-dendrimers.

Competing Interests: The author declares no conflict of interest.

This article reveals how nineteenth-century chemists and health reformers tried to eradicate the use of yeast in bread, claiming they had devised healthier and more sanitary ways to raise bread. It describes the alternative technological solutions to baking bread, investigating factors that influenced their development and adaptation in the marketplace. A lack of scientific and cultural consensus surrounding yeast, what it was and what it did, fermented during this period. The conflict over yeast helped create a heterogeneous industrialization of the baking industry, changing processes and ingredients and creating new forms of bakery products. By examining the claims of promoters of rival scientific beliefs and technologies, as well as those of users and social commentators, we can see that technology's eventual adaptation and impact on society is not predictable at its outset. Exploring the relationship between differing scientific beliefs, cultural understandings and alternative technologies also shows how science and industry cannot be isolated from their social and cultural context. The examination of the nineteenth-century technological development of commonplace commodities such as bread, baking powder and yeast, also reveals and explores a story that has not been told before in the history of science and technology. Why it has not been told is as enlightening as the story itself, revealing as it does our own privileging of what is important in science and history.