Printer friendly version of Newsletter - History of Science Society

History of Science Society Newsletter
The International Year of
Chemistry
Continued from Page 9
Jurisprudence at Guy’s for 25 years, his Manual
of Medical Jurisprudence was in its fifth edition,
and he was a seasoned and effective witness for the
prosecution. He became the star witness in the case,
ensuring Palmer’s conviction.
Ironically, it was not chemical analysis that sealed
Palmer’s fate. Taylor testified that strychnine—which
Palmer had purchased in the days before the murder
but could not account for—was difficult to test for
even in controlled laboratory conditions. Instead
Taylor told the court that the spasms Cook displayed
in his paroxysms of death could occur only in cases of
tetanus and strychnine poisoning. With tetanus ruled
out, Taylor deduced poison.
Even after his conviction Palmer never confessed
to the crime. He went to the gallows saying, “I am
innocent of poisoning Cook by strychnine,” an
enigmatic denial that, paired with ambiguous forensic
evidence, has created an enduring mystery.
Through the Looking Glass
By James Voelkel
Among the defining characteristics of the
scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries
were the invention and development of new scientific
instruments. The thermometer and barometer
enabled experimenters to quantify heat and air
pressure. The vacuum pump made it possible to
manipulate the physical environment. And then there
was the creation of the telescope and the microscope,
which expanded the range of human senses.
After the publication of Galileo’s spectacular
telescopic observations in 1610, the race was on to
apply the magnification technology to the mundane
world. But microscopes were more difficult to make
and observations depended a great deal on the skill of
the observer wielding what was essentially a glass bead
functioning as a really powerful magnifying glass.
Easily the most skillful user of the single-lens
microscope was Antoni van Leeuwenhoek (1632–
10 History of Science Society Newsletter • April 2011
1723). Although
he did not have
a university
education, nor
mastery of Latin—
the language of
science—van
Leeuwenhoek
was nonetheless
a devoted
student of nature
and a talented
microscope maker.
He was responsible for the discovery of blood cells,
spermatozoa, protozoa, and bacteria, among other
things. Despite his modest background, the scientific
world beat a path to his door in Delft, Holland,
and he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society of
London in 1680.
At the time, the Royal Society was home to
another of the world’s foremost microscopists,
Robert Hooke (1635–1703). Although also from
a modest background, Hooke landed in the center
of English science, making important contributions
in the theory and practice of a number of different
disciplines. His most notable book is Micrographia,
Or Some Physiological Descriptions of Minute Bodies
Made by Magnifying Glasses with Observations and
Inquiries Thereupon (London, 1665).
Hooke had constructed a serviceable compound
microscope, complete with focused light source,
which did not give him as much magnification as
van Leeuwenhoek’s, but was far easier to use. He
published a series of observations he conducted
as curator of experiments for the Royal Society,
mostly of natural objects. (Hooke coined the word
cell in its biological sense.) Hooke’s research was a
showpiece for the young Royal Society, and his work
was published in Micrographia, in a large folio with
magnificent foldout engravings that remains a much
sought-after landmark of scientific printing.