Download - Rev Weininger(1)

7/28/2019 Rev Weininger(1)

1/3

62 Book Reviews

HYLE International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, Vol. 14 (2008), No. 1.Copyright 2008 by HYLE and Stephen J. Weininger.

Andrew Ede: The Rise and Declineof Colloid Science in North America,1900-1935: The Neglected Dimen-sion, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007, 208pp. [ISBN: 978-0-7546-5786-6]

In the authors words, the main narra-

tive arc of this book is centered on Therise and degeneration of colloid re-search in the US and Canada duringthe first third of the 20th century (p. 3).This is a tightly focused case study, butEde seeks to demonstrate that it hasimplications beyond its limited com-pass. He has been partly successful, butI believe more could have been done towiden its appeal.

In 1900 North America was on theperiphery of international science, in-cluding chemistry. US and Canadianchemists were heading to Europe fordoctoral training and then, imbued witha zeal for research, returning home with

advanced degrees and problems to in-vestigate. Colloid chemistry seemed apromising field because it was stillyoung, with plenty of research spacethat could be colonized at relatively lowcost. In addition, many of these newlyminted PhDs had studied with WilhelmOstwald, whose son Wolfgang was aninternational figure in colloid chemistry.The colloid chemistryNorth Americanconnection took.

It took so well that by 1920, accord-ing to Ede, colloids were the hottesttopic in American science, whether itwas chemistry, physics or physiology(p. 2). In 1923 the First National Col-loid Symposium took place, and a pro-posal was submitted to the National Re-search Council for a National Institutefor Colloid Chemistry. The field ap-peared to have broken through to thefront ranks of scientific research and tohave justified its claim to being a dis-tinct subdiscipline. Yet by 1935, only adozen years later, it was being writtenoff as a scientific backwater whoseclaims to disciplinary autonomy weredisparaged and/or ignored. What hadcaused such a catastrophic collapse?

There were a variety of factors: meth-odological timidity; the contingency ofexperiment; overweening ambition; andpoor public relations. A majority ofAmerican colloid chemists adhered to amethodological ideal of simplicity thatbordered on the simplistic. They re-

sisted calls for quantification and es-chewed overt theorizing, insisting that atheory of the colloid state would arisenaturally from a network of qualitativeobservations on simple experiments. Inorder to sharpen their observationalacuity, they adopted some new instru-ments most significantly the ultrami-croscope and the ultracentrifuge.

Despite their disclaimers, these re-searchers did have theoretical commit-ments. In the period under discussionsome thought that colloidal behaviorcould be explained solely on the basis ofexisting physical and chemical theoriesand laws. They were in a minority, how-

ever; the majority held that colloidsrepresented a unique state of matter,one whose particles are so small thatthey can no longer be recognizedmicroscopically, while they are still toolarge to be called molecules [] The

World of Neglected Dimensions (p. 7;the quote is from Wolfgang Ostwald).Moreover, a sizeable number of colloidchemists believed colloid chemistry tobe the indispensable basis for an under-standing of life and for the creation of ascientifically based medicine.

Few biologists or medical doctors ac-cepted or even recognized these asser-tions, and when the claims were shownto be hollow, the reputation of colloidchemistry suffered a severe blow. Thefield was also being undermined fromwithin, as its powerful new instrumentsyielded results incompatible with thepredominant assumption, especially thealleged uniqueness of colloids. Ede hassymbolized this situation whereby thechemists research findings were de-stroying the basis of their own field bythe ancient symbol of the Ouroborous,the worm that devours its own tail.These considerable difficulties were ex-


2/3

Book Reviews 63

acerbated by a generational split as theolder adherents, led by Wilder Bancroft,found their qualitative approach dis-dained by their younger, quantitativelyoriented colleagues. Furthermore, Ban-crofts emphasis on the utility of colloidchemistry did not endear the subject to

those chemists eager to burnish theircredentials in pure research.Ede tells the story competently and

pays attention to important contextualfactors: intra- and interdisciplinary poli-tics; funding decisions; institutionalpriorities; and the boost that World WarI gave to American economic, political,and scientific standing. In addition, heconnects elements of his narrative withseveral larger issues in the history andphilosophy of science. For instance, hemakes the important point that in theabsence of any agreed upon theory ofthe colloid state, there were for col-loids no anomalous results that might

then have become the focus of investi-gation (p. 185). Unfortunately, thisimportant consequence, which bearsupon an issue of interest to non-specialist readers, is pointed out onlytwo pages before the conclusion. Ingeneral, more thought could have beengiven to attracting such an audience. Ifinished the book with the unhappyfeeling that it would find few readersoutside the small circle of those inter-ested in the history of physical chemis-try in the 20th century.

The text is replete with equations anddiagrams of instruments. This is all tothe good history of science should ex-amine in detail the tools of scientificpractice. However, that examinationshould describe their significance as wellas their function, which has not alwaysbeen done. For example, the authornotes that those chemists who did notaccept the uniqueness of colloids, suchas Jacques Loeb, maintained that mostcolloid phenomena could be explainedwith the aid of the Donnan equilibrium.This topic is mentioned early in the textand gets seven entries in the ratherskimpy index. Yet its mathematical

formulation does not show up until p.142, 80% of the way through the text.Had it come earlier, accompanied by awritten description of its significance, itwould have helped the reader grasp onecentral strand in the debate over thestatus of colloids. On pp. 113-114 an

equation for calculating the molecularweight of a colloid from ultracentrifugedata is developed. All its seven parame-ters are defined but nothing is saidabout the efficacy, reliability, ease, andexpense of obtaining molecular weightsin this way compared with other meth-ods. Analogously, an equation on p. 110contains a parameter describing thedistance the boundary moved, butthere is no explanation of what bound-ary is being referred to.

I think that potential non-specialistreaders (and perhaps specialists as well)would want to know if the events de-scribed in this book constitute a one-off

or whether they resemble other mo-ments in the history of science. After Ihad read about a half dozen pages I be-gan thinking about analogies betweenEdes account and the rise and declineof physical organic chemistry in the US.The study of organic reaction mecha-nisms became established in the UK inthe 1920s. While there had already beenrelated work in the US by then, theBritish thrust stimulated a strong re-sponse on the western side of the Atlan-tic. While American chemistry as awhole was far stronger in 1930 than in1900, in traditional organic it lagged be-hind its European, and especially Ger-man counterparts. Mechanistic studiesprovided an open field where ambitiousAmerican organic chemists could takeadvantage of their countrymensstrengths in physical chemistry andmake their mark on the internationalstage. Their success was much longerlived than that of their colloid col-leagues by the end of World War IIAmericans dominated the subject and itwas attracting a large proportion of thetop organic students. Yet by the 1980sthe best and the brightest were looking


3/3

64 Book Reviews

elsewhere. Physical organic chemistrywas no longer the hot topic, and its de-cline, like that of colloid chemistry,could be traced in part to its obsessions,in this case the nonclassical ion prob-lem. Yet the denouement of these twodevelopments could hardly have been

more different, one the victim of itsfailures and the other the victim of itssuccesses. I do not doubt that Edecould think of other (and perhaps bet-ter) comparisons; had at least one beenincluded, it would have enriched thediscussion and widened its relevance.

The publisher has not helped the au-thors cause. The considerable numberof grammatical errors, missing words,and typos suggest that no one otherthan the author has read the final manu-script. In Chapter 6 there is reference toa Figure 7.3; it is not to be found in ei-ther Chapters 6 or 7. A text such as thiswhich contains a lot of tables and fig-

ures presents numerous problems ofpage layout; in this case, many of thesolutions are remarkably infelicitous.For example, Table 5.1 is labeledGraduate Students in selected catego-ries, 1924-35. However, the entriesstart at 1935 and end at 1924. Further-more, the table (which is not very long)is split over two pages and requires thatone turn the page to get the remainderof the data. This is not the only exampleof poor design. It is a shame that the au-thors exacting research has not beenmatched by a comparable effort on thepart of his publisher.

Stephen J. Weininger:

70 Park St #44, Brookline,MA 02446-6335, U.S.A.;

[email protected]