The Chemical Tree: A History of Chemistry (Norton History of Science)

This book ought to be required reading for all chemistry teachers, I wish I had it when I was in college. It is also great reading, and I think ought to be required for all first year chemistry majors at colleges. It is amazing to me how much detail the author had included. He progresses chapter to chapter with logical steps to modern times focusing at times on Organic, Inorganic, Physical and Analytical disciplines. My only regret, and not big enough to lower a star rating, is that he did not inculde detail on Italian Avogandro (mole) or mention American Dr Percy Julian (organic synthesis).

People think it's ok to steal my chemistry books. I have a running list and when I take over the world, they'll be working in a prison for the rest of their lives. People will ask what did you do? They'll respond "I didn't return a $3 book to our fearless leader, and now I'm here." It is an interesting book, if you're a fan of chemistry, and history.

Poorly written, poorly edited (was it edited?) and painful reading, although the topic of the history of chemistry deserves exploration and could have been made much more interesting and accessible than it was here. The writer is an overly wordy name-dropper, writing over the heads of the average science person, failing to adequately explain identities, information, and uncommon terminology before moving on. Our college class finally gave up on this book and resorted to the use of another text.

The subject matter that Brock takes on is historically complex and rich. Unfortunately, he responds to this challenge by adopting an aloof and arrogant style in describing and detailing some of the problems. His prose and word choice is often needlessly prolix and his descriptions of many of the chemical problems were incomplete. As a Ph.D. chemist, I became suspicious of his treatment of the early history of chemistry and became more and more suspicious as the book progressed into the modern era (with which I am quite familiar). There are many mistakes in his descriptions of chemistry--though some of these seemed to be the result of bad type setting or proofreading. This book would be an impossible read for someone without a background in chemistry-there are simply too many intellectual gaps that the reader must be prepared to fill in. It is as though the author assumed that by expressing a few ideas and facts about each problem the epistemological relationships would become self-evident. This approach rarely succeeds here. A close read by a historian might also reveal an occasional Whiggish streak in his analysis of some of the events. With this said, I did find the book interesting and informative enough to read it in its entirety. I was particularly ignorant of the history of chemical education before reading it. The disappointment that I've expressed here lies in its promise-I consider it a good first draft. But I wonder, where was the editor?

Buen libro sobre la historia de la Química.