Letters: May 2026

Historical clean-up

I enjoyed the historical articles in the March issue, but would like to make two comments.

The water in the Roman baths was even worse than you think. They strictly segregated ill people (who might very well have had diarrhoea) and the general public, but having no germ theory, the ill people used the water first!

In giving credit to female chemists, the Cleopatra mentioned was not the last Pharaoh (70–30BCE), but Cleopatra the Alchemist (3rd century CE) supposed to be able to make the philosopher’s stone and the possible inventor of the alembic. There was also Cleopatra the Healer (1st century CE) who wrote on medicine and cosmetics.

Martin Pitt FRSC
Leeds, UK

Celebrating glassblowers

I take my hat off to Abigail Mortimer, on account of her being the sole glassblower in the chemistry department at the University of York. Half a century ago, when I was a graduate student, the school of chemistry at the University of Leeds had four full-time glassblowers, and they were kept very busy! The youngest of them had won an ‘Apprenticeship of the year’ award or something of the sort, for which he had had to submit an example of his work that afterwards was on display. It was a superlative piece of craftsmanship. One of the others was a recipient of a prestigious award from the British Society of Scientific Glassblowers.

I note that Mortimer is a graduate of Sunderland University. It would be a nice touch for her to be invited to don her academic dress and take part in the degree ceremony for chemistry graduands at York.

Clifford Jones FRSC
University of Chester, UK

I would like to draw the attention of readers to the plight of the British Society of Scientific Glassblowers (BSSG).

When the society formed in 1960 most universities, if not all, had glassblowing workshops and many laboratory suppliers offered the same services. Over the years there have been cutbacks so that scientific glassblowers are becoming an endangered species, a fact recognised by Heritage Crafts.

Membership of the BSSG has likewise dwindled to the point that its existence is in doubt. If anyone reading this is a practising glassblower or has an interest in the craft, then please consider joining as a member or associate member. The BSSG contact is Matthew Myles at bssghonsec@gmail.com.

Alan Gall MRSC
Via email

Are we alchemists?

I discovered recently, through Paul Board’s article, S J Parris’ historical crime thriller Alchemy, set in 16th-century Prague. The book led me to an unexpected comparison of the way alchemists worked then and how scientists operate today. I am not referring to the scientific method per se, but to employment and the search for research opportunities.

Modern chemists can work in diverse settings – teaching, industry, analytical labs. In that sense, little has changed; alchemists too could apply their skills in pharmacies or glassblowing workshops. The striking similarity, however, lies in research. For alchemists, research meant the secretive and costly pursuit of the philosopher’s stone, often dependent on royal patronage. A supportive monarch could gather scholars at court and enable scientific and technological discovery.

In some sense, this system persists. Today’s ‘alchemy-friendly king’ is the government or a well-funded private entity. In uncertain times, shifts in political power can quickly reshape funding, limiting both research and diversity of ideas and people. Modern scientists spend much of their time seeking funding to sustain their work. In this sense, they remain dependent on patrons, much like alchemists were. This dependency becomes even more pronounced within academia, where securing stable positions resembles earning a place at court.

Despite the growth of universities and research institutions, the fundamental issue remains unchanged: access to research depends on securing support from those in power. I truly feel an alchemist, uncertain of which ‘king’ will support me after my PhD. But should science be dependent on patronage? In a world that relies so heavily on research, no. We should expect something better.

Costas Zois
Via email

Chemistry World welcomes letters, which should be concise (normally fewer than 300 words) and timely. Those selected for publication are subject to editing for clarity and length. Letters should be marked ‘for publication’ and sent to chemistryworld@rsc.org

We do not routinely acknowledge letters.