Between Research and Responsibility: The Invention of Dynamite
Death Before Death
The myth surrounding the creation of the Nobel Prize is fascinating. It goes as follows. In 1888, a local French newspaper mistakenly assumed dead the famed inventor of dynamite, Alfred Nobel. Instead, his brother Ludvig had died recently of a heart attack, but the newspaper, assuming the death of the elder Nobel, published an article with the attached scathing headline: “The Merchant of Death is Dead.”1 The cruel obituary included in this article stated that Nobel had gotten rich by developing new ways to “mutilate and kill.” The article also included multiple references to Nobel as a “merchant of death” due to his creation, production, and fortune gained from the explosive material dynamite.2 The myth is that Nobel was distraught by what his legacy may become upon seeing this headline and article. Purportedly, this induced him to change his final will and testament, establishing what we still know today as the Nobel Prize, which went into effect after his death in 1896. Upon further examination, this oversimplification of Nobel’s character does not appear to be true.
This is the story that was circulated by famed Nobel biographer Nicholas Halasz in his 1959 book, “Nobel: a Biography.”3 Prior to this text, the use of the moniker “Merchant of Death” does not appear to be widespread. After its use for Ludwig in 1888, there are few spikes in usage involving the term, and I find it extremely unlikely that its use was the core determinant of Nobel’s decision.
This is not the only biography that purports this tale. In 1991, Swedish actor and director Kenne Fant wrote “Alfred Nobel: A Biography,” his book also pointed to the article as the reason for Nobel’s peace prizes.4 Since these two biographies, the myth has become widespread, as even the Nobel Foundation and the Smithsonian have supported the fib. Alfred Nobel’s physique and thoughts surrounding his creations appear very different from these fabrications. He was a complicated man, and notes to friends suggest his inward notions as much different from those suggested.
In fact, there is evidence that the article was titled something different and less scathing:
“A man who can not very easily pass for a benefactor of humanity died yesterday in Cannes. It is Mr. Nobel, inventor of dynamite. Nobel was Swedish.”5
There has been no record found of the original newspaper claimed by The Nobel Foundation: Ideotie Quotidienne (or Daily Nonsense). Instead, the quote provided was published by a different French newspaper: Le Figaro. There is a record of a premature obituary in this newspaper, although its contents do not appear scathing enough to have drastically affected Nobel. Nobel also had an extremely tumultuous relationship with the French press, and something of this nature wouldn’t have come close to surprising him.6
In short, this story is most likely fabricated. Even if it were true, Nobel would not have acted as dramatically as changing his entire will in response to a newspaper blurb. He believed his weapons were saving the world and is quoted as saying the following to a close friend: “Perhaps my factories will put an end to war even sooner than your Congresses; on the day when two army corps may mutually annihilate each other in a second, probably all civilized nations will recoil with horror and disband their troops.” This quote from Nobel not only foretold nuclear weapons of the next 50-60 years but also demonstrates Nobel’s emphasis on weapons technology for the goal of peace. Nobel believed his weapons could help the world, and following this narrative of “The Merchant of Death” feels counterintuitive to those goals. In fact, it is far more likely that the peace conferences Nobel attended later in life were the main contributions to his change of heart. His interactions with Bertha von Suttner, a peace advocate and writer, suggest Nobel’s change of heart was long determined and could also be a result of some ingrained socialist ideals.7 These included his disdain for familial inheritances and his value for peace in an ideal world, with deterrence as a best-case replacement. This decision does not appear to be instantaneous but long deliberated over.
The Nobel Prize is the most famous scientific prize given out annually. Monetary awards are given out yearly to those with exceptional achievements in physics, chemistry, physiology, medicine, literature, and peace.8 There was controversy surrounding the creation of the Nobel Prize. Many members of the Nobel family were upset upon receiving smaller portions of the Nobel fortune and fought legally to overturn the changes to Alfred Nobel’s will. In addition, there was a public uproar in Scandinavia over a lack of a Scandinavian nationality requirement for the Nobel Prize. It took five years, but eventually, an independent Nobel Prize foundation was created, and the first awards were given out in 1901.9 They have been given out annually after that. The Nobel Prize has since become one of the most coveted scientific prizes.
The Scientific Predecessors of Nobel
As is the case with most scientific advances, the discovery of dynamite included many contributions from different scientific actors prior to its eventual perfection by Nobel. Figure 1 shows the initial discovery dates for the important milestones involving dynamite. First mentioned is Henri Braconnot, a professor of Botany at the University of Nancy in France. Braconnot practiced pharmacy, chemistry, and botany throughout his professional career. He served as his town’s botanical garden director and was also a member of the town’s scientific academy.10 Bracconot discovered a material that he called xyloïdine, now more commonly known as nitrocellulose. He made his discovery in 1833 by combining concentrated nitric acid with starch or various wooden materials. At the time of the discovery, Braconnot did not realize the substance’s explosive potential and only noted that it caught fire quickly. Braconnot attempted to make coatings and films with the substance but found little success overall.11 His discovery received little public recognition due to its limited use cases. Little did Braconnot know, this substance had extremely explosive potential, which would slowly be realized by those scientists who succeeded him.
In 1838, chemist Théophile Pelouze picked up where Braconnot had left off and attempted to create practical uses of these new explosive materials derived from nitrocellulose. Pelouze is most famous for his laboratory, which performed various explosive-based experiments, and eventually included students such as Alfred Nobel. He also held positions at institutions, including Collége de France and Commission des Monnaies, although he resigned from these positions in 1851 after the coup d’état. He continued working in his laboratory long after his professional career had ended and housed many students, including the likes of Alfred Nobel and another explosives scientist, Ascanio Sobrero.12 Pelouze attempted to submerge materials such as paper, cotton, or tissues in a cold solution of concentrated nitric acid. This process produced a resultant parchment-like material that Pelouze found to be highly flammable. Pelouze’s research process was more complicated than Braconnot’s. Pelouze first reacted starch with nitric acid for about two minutes. The resultant solution was treated with water, and the xyloïdine was removed completely. Pelouze used a combination of filtration and evaporation to separate a solid substance, described as “a white non-crystalline deliquescent solid, weighing much more than the original starch.” After his experiments, Pelouze believed that this material could be used in artillery, but he personally found no significant use cases for the substance.[10] If it weren’t for a congruent discovery made in 1846, xyloïdine, Pelouze, and Braconnot’s research could have been lost in the depths of history.
Swiss chemist Christian Fredrich Schönbein revolutionized the explosives world in 1846. More famed for his discovery of ozone, Schönbein wrote to scientists worldwide that he had successfully converted cotton into a material more destructive than gunpowder. He did not immediately reveal the process publicly.13 This material was later named guncotton, or among chemists, nitrocellulose. Schönbein eventually announced the process publicly, but even before it was revealed, many scientists immediately connected this discovery to the chemical properties of xyloïdine and Pelouze’s material. Schönbein accomplished this feat by immersing cotton in a mixture of nitric and sulfuric acid, later washing the product to remove any excess acid that had not fully reacted. There was a good deal of communication between Schönbein and others inquiring about his discovery, and he pointed them toward the works of both Braconnot and Pelouze. This led to the release of a short historical note by Pelouze, which clarified both his and Braconnot's findings to preserve historical accuracy. In this report, Pelouze states that he believes the explosive capabilities of this new material are four times greater than that of gunpowder. He also concludes with the statement that a similar experiment conducted by Flores, Domonte, and Ménard had reacted gaseous nitric acid with mannitol in addition to different kinds of sugars and gums, producing a substance similar to that created with starch in Braconnot’s earlier experiment.[10] A professor of chemistry at the University of Turin, Ascanio Sobrero, takes specific note of this concluding remark and writes to Pelouze. Eventually, this earned him a position in Pelouze’s lab. Short of Alfred Nobel, no researcher is as essential to the discovery of dynamite as Ascanio Sobrero.
Ascanio Sobrero was born in 1812 in Italy to a wealthy academic family. Figure 3 portrays Sobrero. His father was the secretary of the Royal University of Turin, and Sobrero grew up with a strong focus on academics and the sciences. In 1833, Sobrero graduated from the Royal College of Casale Monferrato with degrees in medicine and surgery.14 For his graduate studies, Sobrero struggled to choose between medicine and the hard sciences. He obtained his medical license the following year, but he was slowly convinced toward chemistry by his uncle Carlo Raffaello, a general of artillery and the director of the chemical lab of the Arsenal of Turin. Eventually, by 1845, Sobrero had decided to dedicate his talents entirely to chemistry. He accepted a job as a professor of chemistry at the University of Turin, and shortly after, he wrote the above-mentioned letter to Theóphile Pelouze.15
Upon receiving this letter from Sobrero, Theóphile Pelouze invited the young chemist to his explosives-centered laboratory. In this lab, Pelouze experimented primarily with guncotton and other nitrosulphates. We previously described his submersion of parchment or cardboard in nitric acid, but, in addition, Pelouze executed a variety of experiments to explore the newly expanding explosives field. He also conducted many experiments involving research into salicin, beetroot sugar, and their effects on various organic acids, nitrosulphates, and glass composition.[12] Despite this, Pelouze never made any personal discovery of note. Instead, his historical relevance comes from his influence on his two most famous students, Ascanio Sobrero and Alfred Nobel.
Sobrero did not make his most famous discoveries while working in Pelouze’s laboratory, but it is clear that some influence occurred based on the research material. While studying with Pelouze, Sobrero did various experiments involving guncotton, combining it with different materials in an attempt to produce useful resultant products. His tenure in the laboratory lasted less than a year, and when he returned to Italy, he soon made his most famous discovery of his career: nitroglycerin.[16] Sobrero emphasizes that the discovery occurred after his tenure in the laboratory, purely on Italian soil. The process he used to create this material is reminiscent of the experiments conducted by Pelouze and Braconnot before him.[15]
Sobrero created nitroglycerin by stirring drops of glycerin into a cooled mixture of nitric and sulfuric acids. He initially named the substance ‘pyroglycerine’, and, unlike the procedures discussed for nitrocellulose, this resultant material was oily instead of solid.[10] Upon its discovery, Sobrero conducted many tests on the substance. The most famous involved heating a drop of the substance in a test tube which exploded, permanently scarring his face. Eventually, Sobrero deemed the substance too destructive and volatile for practical use. He feared the implications of the commercialization of nitroglycerine. He was quoted to have said later in a communication to the University of Turin, “When I think of all the victims killed during nitroglycerine explosions, and the terrible havoc that has been wreaked, which in all probability will continue to occur in the future, I am almost ashamed to admit to be its discoverer.”16 Initially, after discovering nitroglycerine, Sobrero kept his findings secret for over a year. Yet, with the popularity of Schönbein’s research on guncotton, he knew that it would be impossible to hide forever. He released his studies on nitroglycerin in 1847.17 Shortly after that, engineers worldwide envisioned its practical and deadly applications.
The Empire and Creations of Alfred Nobel
Due to his work with explosive substances, Alfred Nobel was able to prosper from the nightmare of Ascanio Sobrero. His ability to neutralize nitroglycerin was critical in the discovery of dynamite, an extremely explosive substance. Nobel succeeded because of his unique traits - a combination of research prowess, organizational talent, and entrepreneurship. Nobel’s upbringing was modest and the situations surrounding him as a child never suggested the explosive empire he would one day create. In fact, the majority of his discoveries resulted from desperate attempts at saving his family from bankruptcy. Additionally, long into his career, Nobel constantly contemplated the effects of his research with close friends and relatives. He was obsessed with the societal effects resulting from scientific research and was insistent that the creation of a large enough weapon would permanently end all wars. He is quoted as saying: “I wish I could produce a substance or a machine… of such frightful efficacy for the wholesale devastation that wars should thereby become altogether impossible.”18 This is a notion shared by many inventors, specifically pertaining to the creation of inventions with possible ill intent.
Alfred Nobel was born in Sweden in 1833, but he soon moved to Russia at the age of nine in 1842. Alfred Nobel was the son of a man who supplied war material to the Russian military. His father’s business primarily sold the explosive material needed for explosive barrels that protected waterways. During the Crimean War, the business was highly profitable. In 1859, when Nobel was 17, his father could afford to send him to Pelouze’s lab, where he studied guncotton and Sobrero’s nitroglycerine. After this, he briefly apprenticed with an inventor in New York. Upon returning home to Russia, the war had ended, and so had his father’s period of profitability.19 The family desperately searched for new solutions for more efficient construction, eventually moving the entire family back to Sweden. Here, Nobel turned his attention on nitroglycerine, which he had previously studied in Pelouze’s lab.
Nitroglycerine was known to be highly explosive, and engineers envisioned uses for many different industries, including construction, terraforming, and weapons. Its problem was its stabilization, as the material was extremely volatile, and mass-scale production would be impossible to carry out safely. Nobel began experimenting with the material around 1860, a year after his father’s company had declared bankruptcy.20 He had been trained as a chemical engineer and had experience from his time in Pelouze’s lab and his additional apprenticeship. After securing financial support, Nobel opened up his own laboratory for testing explosive materials. The goal was to develop a series of more reliable explosives for consumer and military use. Unfortunately, in 1864, his factory exploded due to a nitroglycerin reaction, killing his brother Emil in the process. The local authorities barred Alfred from experimenting with nitroglycerin inside city limits, and he had to take his factory to a barge on a lake outside of town.21 The surroundings of this factory would eventually expand into Nobel’s explosives empire. With a new factory in hand, Nobel’s goal became simple: develop a safe method for dealing with and producing nitroglycerin-based explosives. His dedication has to be envied, specifically after such a tragic death due to his own research.
Nobel spent the following years perfecting the nitroglycerin-based explosive. His research began with some of the first detonators and blaster caps as safer mechanisms for explosions. His use of kieselguhr (clay) is most notable, stabilizing the explosive when mixed with liquid nitroglycerin. Nobel molded rods and cylinders using kieselguhr, which he refined into the explosive material dynamite.[19] At its core, modern dynamite still uses a similar explosive model, just with a more efficient detonation system.22 This discovery ultimately led to the chief product of Nobel’s legacy, his company, and his fortune. He continued to produce blaster caps and also invented gelignite, a more stable nitroglycerine-based explosive. Over the following years, Alfred Nobel patented these discoveries in Sweden, the UK, and the US. Eventually, he amassed 355 patents worldwide and, adjusted to today’s dollars, over 160 million dollars to his name when he passed in 1896.23 His company had over 100 active factories producing nitroglycerine-based explosives at his death.
Nobel was an extremely successful scientist and entrepreneur, harnessing a chemical discovery that preceded him by almost twenty years. His inventions proved capable of supporting multiple wars while also revolutionizing the construction industry. Production of dynamite was imminent. In less than ten years after its discovery, Nobel’s factories produced over 5000 tons of dynamite annually.24 This empire only expanded. By the early 1940s, long after his death, Nobel’s explosives campus had grown to over 700 buildings, mostly in Germany. Much of this was destroyed during World War II by the British.
In the 1970s, a nuclear plant was built on the location, but it was shut down in 2011. Today, Nobel’s empire and the land it sat on stand empty.[24] All that remains are small remnants for tourism purposes (see Figure 5).
A large remaining part of Nobel’s legacy also lies in the prize, which was created in his will. Annual prizes are given out to outstanding discoveries in the fields of physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, peace, and economics. Prizes include a generous cash payment. In addition, the Nobel Prize Foundation has gained significant prestige since Alfred Nobel’s passing. It is the most significant scientific honor. It is probably the most famous remaining occurrence of the namesake of Alfred Nobel. Its origin is disputed, but I believe his decision to create the prize was the result of a long-standing deliberation, and not an instantaneous knee-jerk reaction to an incorrectly written newspaper article. Without the Nobel Prize, the discoveries of Nobel may have been left in the annals of history.
Who are you, Alfred Nobel?
Dynamite has had both positive and negative effects on today’s world. Although Alfred Nobel can be referred to as a “Merchant of Death,” he could also be described as a merchant of transportation, modern infrastructure, and many other aspects of modern living. Dynamite, although most famous for its use in wartime in weapons such as cannons, bombs, missiles, and simple handheld explosives, transformed the railroad industry in the late 19th-century.[22] Previously workers had to mine through mountains or tediously build long bypasses. Now they could safely and efficiently blow a hole straight through the middle of an obstacle. In addition, natural resources, including rare earth metals and other natural resources, became easier to collect. Mass explosions provided easier and quicker mining techniques. Although they did not quite exist in Nobel’s time, dynamite has also helped provide the components for the mass production of modern-day electronics and other products required for our technological progress. In addition, dynamite is often used for the mass mining of coal, which powers much of our society’s energy consumption. The discovery of dynamite facilitated many aspects of our world that we enjoy but inevitably also led to destruction.25
War uses of dynamite and other explosive materials have been catastrophic. Easier to manage explosives led to widespread use, especially during both World Wars and resulting conflicts. We still see its use today in many military settings, including in missiles or autonomous drones. It has also been utilized by many terrorist organizations.26 Inevitably, Alfred Nobel created a tool that armies have used for destruction and death for over a century. Ascanio Sobrero foretold this future and attempted to hide his discovery, but is withholding the flow of science as ethical as Sobrero made it seem?
Ethics surrounding inventions of a dangerous nature is a topic bigger than Alfred Nobel. Many inventors have made hazardous and catastrophic discoveries and regretted their decisions much later in life. After creating the atomic bomb, the leader of the Manhattan Project, J Robert Oppenheimer, was quoted to have said: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”27 His invention, which harnessed the power of the atom and nuclear fission into an explosive with capabilities the world had never seen, famously gnawed at his consciousness long past his discovery. It should be noted that this discovery has also led to advancements in atomic energy, which can provide a possible solution to climate issues. During the bomb’s development, Oppenheimer had assumed the weapon would not be used on civilians or that its use was necessary due to the imminent threat of a ground siege. After its use in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Oppenheimer regretted his creations and contributions. Similar to Nobel, he also believed his inventions would end all wars. Various active and inactive conflicts since the invention of nuclear weapons suggest this is not the case. Both Oppenheimer and Nobel were recollective later in life, but neither considered thwarting their own personal paths of research. Remorse surrounding the creations of inventors and entrepreneurs can come in many forms.
Scientific discoveries, especially those with dangerous applications, raise moral questions. Should scientists be expected to suppress discoveries for the safety of the general public and to prevent devasting applications? Would this diminish the positive societal effects caused by the flow of science? If concessions need to be made, whom should we entrust to make the proper regulatory decisions?
Knowledge production relies on the publication process. Recently, the question of scientific censorship in the name of a greater good has come to light. A recent paper in PNAS has pointed out the need to better understand the consequences of scientific censorship.28 Others over the last few years have also suggested that scientific censorship can prove detrimental to the field censored.29 A recent paper out of Stony Brook University suggests that over the 31 institutions polled, scientific censorship is on the rise.30
Scientific oversight also exists in legislation. Via public oversight, inventions can be withheld from public grasp even after their inception. Regulations can be used to recall dangerous inventions from the general public, without incurring major losses. Nobel and Oppenheimer are two examples of inventors whose inventions have been withheld from public use successfully by the government. A more childish example surrounds the children's toy Lawn Darts, banned in the US for safety.31
Science fiction writers have long imagined what would happen when technological research went awry. They describe dystopian realities created by unfettered scientific breakthroughs. Among the most popular examples are The Terminator, The Matrix, and the Jurassic Park franchises. These and other examples show that the public has become fascinated by the idea of dangerous runaway technology and research. It is clear that many of these ideas stem from a fear of the unknown, but it is also apparent that the public does not have confidence in scientists to protect them from their own research.
Yuval Noah Harari, writing about pressing issues in the modern age, provides insight into the conflicts between progress and human nature. Specifically, Harari writes, “Humans were always far better at inventing tools than using them wisely.” Harari believes that humans can become blinded by their visions of good and evil and that, in the realm of scientific advancement, this can lead to disastrous implications. He also states the following: “Technology is never deterministic, and the fact that something can be done does not mean it must be done.” Progress is not linear, and many assume that because something can be created, it will be created. Harari fights back against this notion, reaffirming that given the right moral reasonings, an actor like Ascanio Sobrero or a governmental entity should be allowed to disrupt the flow of research given moral qualms.32
In conclusion, I note that the lines drawn surrounding moral issues are often subjective. There is rarely one right answer to morality, and recently, publications have taken scientific censorship to the extreme on both sides of the political aisle. The release of scientific information must be treated like a balancing act. We cannot let our fear of technological destruction or societal shifts due to technology to bring about a dystopian future. The general public may have created fearful portrayals of technological cataclysms in science fiction, but they have also envisioned oppressive regimes like in Orwell’s 1984. Both extremes must be avoided.
Supporting Information
GitHub: https://github.com/Jsachs14/Nobel_Resources.git
Author Information
Jonah Sachs
Junior at Washington University in St Louis
Majoring in Computer Science and Physics
E-mail: j.sachs@wustl.edu
Phone: 301-830-3597
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Dr. Grigoriy Yablonsky. This paper started as an assignment from his and Dr. Richard Axelbaum’s course: Historical and Philosophical Aspects of Science, Engineering, and Technology at Washington University in St Louis. Dr. Yablonsky encouraged me to improve the text and pursue publication. He helped me step by step and was a main source of the majority of the alterations that occurred. I would also like to thank Dr. Anna Krylov from the University of Southern California, who provided useful feedback and motivated me to take a deeper look into ethics issues. Both have been extremely helpful in crafting this text.
Shaw, Jodie. “How the ‘Merchant of Death’ Turned Patron of Peace.” Medium, 15 Feb. 2017, medium.com/thrive-global/how-the-merchant-of-death-turned-patron-of-peace-and-what-that-means-to-you-c780d84c04b5.
Tzvi. “Second Chances: The Powerful Month before the High Holidays.” Aish.Com, 2 June 2022, aish.com/second-chances-the-powerful-month-before-the-high-holidays/.
Joseph, Kathy. “Alfred Nobel’s Obituary Calling Him a ‘Merchant of Death’ Never Happened & Never Inspired The Nobel Prize.” Kathy Loves Physics, 18 Nov. 2022, kathylovesphysics.com/the-merchant-of-death/
Fant, Kenne. “Alfred Nobel : A Biography : Fant, Kenne, 1923- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming.” Internet Archive, 1 Jan. 1993, archive.org/details/alfrednobelbiogr00fant.
Daniel R. Livingston. “Is There Any Record of the Premature Obituary of Alfred Nobel?” History Stack Exchange, history.stackexchange.com/questions/43461/is-there-any-record-of-the-premature-obituary-of-alfred-nobel.
“Alfred Nobel’s House in Paris.” NobelPrize.Org, 29 Nov. 2021, www.nobelprize.org/alfred-nobel/alfred-nobels-house-in-paris/.
Suttner, Bertha Von. “Chapter XXXVIII: Visit to Alfred Nobel.” Memoirs of Bertha von Suttner: The Records of an Eventful Life, BiblioBazaar, Charleston, SC, 2011. (page 437)
“NOBEL PRIZES AND LAUREATES.” NobelPrize.Org, www.nobelprize.org/prizes/. Accessed 24 July 2023.
“Alfred Nobel’s Will.” NobelPrize.Org, 24 May 2021, www.nobelprize.org/alfred-nobel/alfred-nobels-will/#:~:text=On%20November%2027%2C%201895%2C%20Alfred,the%20establishment%20of%20a%20prize.
Wisniak, Jaime. “(PDF) The Development of Dynamite - from Braconnot to Nobel - Researchgate.” Educación Química, www.researchgate.net/publication/236232946_The_Development_of_Dynamite_-_From_Braconnot_to_Nobel. Accessed 24 June 2023.
“Nitrocellulose.” Encyclopædia Britannica, www.britannica.com/science/nitrocellulose. Accessed 13 July 2023.
“Théophile-Jules Pelouze.” ChemEurope, www.chemeurope.com/en/encyclopedia/Th%C3%A9ophile-Jules_Pelouze.html. Accessed 13 July 2023.
“Christian Friedrich Schönbein.” Pubs.Aip.Org, 18 Oct. 2018, pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/Online/4469/Christian-Friedrich-Schonbein.
“Ascanio Sobrero.” Oxford Reference, www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100514852. Accessed 13 July 2023.
The Editor: Italy On This Day. “Ascanio Sobrero - Chemist.” ItalyonThisDay, 1 Jan. 1970, www.italyonthisday.com/2019/10/ascanio-sobrero-Italian-19th-century-chemist-nitroglycerinehemist.html.
“Ascanio Sobrero.” NobelPrize.Org, 22 June 2018, www.nobelprize.org/alfred-nobel/ascanio-sobrero/.
Helmenstine, Todd. “Today in Science History - October 12 - Ascanio Sobrero and Nitroglycerin.” Science Notes and Projects, 22 Jan. 2023, sciencenotes.org/today-science-history-october-12-ascanio-sobrero/.
Suttner, Bertha Von. “Chapter XVI: The Zenith of Happiness.” Memoirs of Bertha von Suttner: The Records of an Eventful Life, BiblioBazaar, Charleston, SC, 2011. (page 210)
“Alfred Nobel.” Science History Institute, 26 May 2023, sciencehistory.org/education/scientific-biographies/alfred-nobel/.
Eschner, Kat. “The Man Who Invented Nitroglycerin Was Horrified by Dynamite.” Smithsonian.Com, 12 Oct. 2017, www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/man-who-invented-nitroglycerin-was-horrified-dynamite-180965192/.
Markel, Dr. Howard. “The Story behind Alfred Nobel’s Spirit of Discovery.” PBS, 10 Dec. 2015, www.pbs.org/newshour/health/the-story-behind-alfred-nobela-spirit-of-discovery.
Kravitz, Fran, and the ACS Committee on Ethics. “Dynamite and the Ethics of Its Many Uses.” American Chemical Society, www.acs.org/education/outreach/celebrating-chemistry-editions/2021-ncw/dynamite-ethics.html. Accessed 13 July 2023.
“This Is How Much Money Alfred Nobel Left to Fund the Eponymous Prize.” TBSNews, 8 Oct. 2022, www.tbsnews.net/features/panorama/how-much-money-alfred-nobel-left-fund-eponymous-prize-510274.
“Als Nobel Das Dynamit Produzieren Ließ.” N, 20 Sept. 2017, www.n-tv.de/wissen/Als-Nobel-das-Dynamit-produzieren-liess-article20038461.html.
Morgan, Kate. “Dynamite Shaped the World - in Both Positive and Negative Ways.” Popular Mechanics, 26 May 2020, www.popularmechanics.com/science/a32447280/history-dynamite/.
Hammes, T X. “Terror and Technology from Dynamite to Drones.” War on the Rocks, 4 Sept. 2020, warontherocks.com/2020/09/terror-and-technology-from-dynamite-to-drones/.
Temperton, James. “‘Now I Am Become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds’. the Story of Oppenheimer’s Infamous Quote.” WIRED UK, 9 Aug. 2017, www.wired.co.uk/article/manhattan-project-robert-oppenheimer.
Krylov, Anna, and Jay Tanzman. Spotlight on Scientific Censorship: A Virtual Collection, Heterodox STEM, 24 Dec. 2023, hxstem.substack.com/p/spotlight-on-scientific-censorship.
“Report by Top Scientists Raises Concerns about Scientific Censorship ...” UBC Sauder School of Business, UBC, 12 Dec. 2023, www.sauder.ubc.ca/news/insights/report-top-scientists-raises-concerns-about-scientific-censorship.
“Study Finds Scientific Censorship More Often Self-Inflicted and on the Rise - SBU News.” SBU News - News & Features at Stony Brook University, Stony Brook University , 21 Nov. 2023, news.stonybrook.edu/pending/school-of-communication-and-journalism-pending/study-finds-scientific-censorship-more-often-self-inflicted-and-on-the-rise/#:~:text=Study%20finds%20scientific%20censorship%20more%20often%20self%2Dinflicted%20and%20on%20the%20rise,-November%2020%2C%202023&text=A%20new%20report%20finds%20that,may%20be%20on%20the%20rise.
“Following Recent Injury CPSC Reissues Warning: Lawn Darts Are Banned and Should Be Destroyed.” U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 15 May 1997, www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/1997/Following-Recent-Injury-CPSC-Reissues-Warning-Lawn-Darts-Are-Banned-and-Should-Be-Destroyed.
Harari, Yuval N. 21 Lessons for the 21st Century. Signal, an Imprint of McClelland & Stewart, 2019.
Great job, Jonah!
This is a fine article that brings up many important questions. Thanks for sharing it with us.