Kids' Chemistry Sets: KABOOM!

Chemistry sets, now common educational toys, have a rich history that extends back to the 18th century. They've evolved from professional tools to children's kits designed to entertain and educate.

Chemistry sets originated in the 18th century as "chemical chests" for professional and amateur chemists, not as toys for children.

Josh Clark and Chuck Bryant talk about the very earliest chemistry sets, detailing their inception and initial purpose. Johann Friedrich August Guttling, a German chemist, developed the "portable chest of chemistry" in 1789, which was the first known chemistry set. These chests were not toys but were intended for professional chemists and serious amateurs.

In 1789, German chemist Johann Friedrich August Guttling created the first known "portable chest of chemistry" containing 35 chemicals, a balance, mortar and pestle, and a book of 150 experiments.

The first chemistry chest contained 35 chemicals, a balance for weighing materials, a mortar and pestle for grinding substances, platinum foil as a catalyst, and a book detailing 150 experiments. This set, referred to as a "complete collection of chemical tests," was designed for a wide array of users, from chemists and physicians to artisans and farmers.

In the early 19th century, chemistry sets began incorporating an element of "magic" and entertainment, marketed as "chemical amusement" for chemists and non-chemists alike.

Clark describes a shift wherein chemistry sets became sources of amusement and spectacle as well as educational tools.

Chemists like Frederick Ackum would perform public demonstrations that combined serious science with showmanship and spectacle.

Bryant notes that Frederick Ackum was among chemists who performed public demonstrations, which fused science and entertainment. These spectac ...

Chemistry sets for children have historically been marketed predominantly to boys, reinforcing the gender bias that chemistry and science were male domains.

In the early 20th century, chemistry sets were predominantly marketed and sold to young boys, as chemistry was seen as a male-dominated field.

During the early 20th century, companies like Kim Craft and Gilbert designed and advertised their chemistry sets specifically for young boys. The packaging of these sets often featured images of a little boy wearing a tie and conducting experiments, reinforcing the idea that these were toys meant for boys. The instruction manuals included with the sets contained warnings suggesting they were intended for those "who can read and understand the accompanying instruction books," which implied that the sets were meant for older children, with an unspoken assumption they would be boys.

Chemistry sets were associated with magic and enjoyment, appealing to the adventurous spirit of young people and often hinting that they were appropriate for those who enjoyed the fantastical appeal of wearing capes because they liked magic. Companies like Porter Chemical Company produced the "Kim Craft Chemistry Set" in 1916, with clear targeting toward boys. Gilbert released the "Gilbert chemistry outfit for boys," leaving no ambiguity about the intended gender of the users.

Attempts to market chemistry sets to girls were limited and dismissive, often focusing on "feminine" activities like mixing perfumes rather than serious scientific experimentation.

While the main focus of marketing chemistry sets was on boys, attempts to introduce sets for girls were dismissive of their potential as scientists. Such sets, like the "Sashay Craft" set, were essentially perfume-making kits rather than genuine chemistry sets, focusing more on "feminine" activities instead of serious scientific experimentation.

By the 1960s, although sets for girls began to emerge, the messag ...

Chemistry sets once enjoyed a place of honor among children's games and hobbies, but multiple factors contributed to their decline. The story of chemistry sets encapsulates a shift from a culture of discovery and aspiration to one of caution and regulation.

The mid-20th century was the "golden age" of chemistry sets, as America's pride in scientific advancement fueled a desire to inspire the next generation of chemists.

In the early 20th century, chemistry sets were primarily marketed towards boys with an interest in science, holding the promise of a professional career in chemistry. Slogans like Kimberly-Clark's "Porter Science Prepares Young America for World Leadership" and Gilbert's "Today's Adventures in Science Will Create Tomorrow's America" emphasized the role chemistry sets were expected to play in cultivating future scientists. An added note from A.C. Gilbert even mentioned, "The need for chemists is greater now than at any point in our country's history. This Gilbert chemistry set may well be the means of launching you on a useful and well-paying career."

However, concerns over the safety and dangers of chemistry sets, as well as changing attitudes toward household chemicals, led to a decline in their popularity starting in the 1960s and 1970s.

Reports of accidents, such as children burning down houses or injuring themselves while using chemistry sets, increased public concern. As a consequence, alongside growing awareness about environmental pollutants and toxins, there emerged a decline in the love of chemistry sets. With the increased regulation like the Child Protection Act of 1966, companies found it increasingly diffi ...

Early chemistry sets often contained hazardous substances that posed serious health risks, even though these same sets inspired many future scientists and chemists.

Early chemistry sets often contained highly dangerous and even toxic substances, including radioactive materials, explosives, and chemicals that could be used to produce [restricted term].

In past chemistry sets, experiments ranged from creating rudimentary fireworks to handling actual radioactive materials. For instance, a 1919 chemistry set manual described an experiment combining zinc and sulfur to create zinc sulfide with potentially dangerous reactions. Another experiment involved "fire ink," where potassium nitrate mixed with water would ignite paper when set on fire. Notably, the "Atomic Energy Lab" set from the 1950s contained actual uranium ore, a cloud chamber for observing radioactive isotopes, and a Geiger counter, teaching users about radioactivity and how to mine radioactive materials. Moreover, these chemistry sets came without necessary safety equipment, such as eye protection, and included potentially lethal chemicals like iodine solution, ammonium nitrate, sodium cyanide, and calcium hypochlorite—the latter being a main ingredient in chlorine gas.

The "Atomic Energy Lab" set from the 1950s contained actual uranium ore and radioactive particle sources, posing serious health risks.

Indeed, the "Atomic Energy Lab" is considered one of the most dangerous toys ever made, allowing children to experiment with genuine radioactive materials. Modern calculations suggest that the radiation exposure from the set was comparable to a day's UV exposure, but concerns were raised about the safety if uranium was ingested or made contact with the skin.

Other sets included instructions for making smoke bombs, fuses, and "fire ink" using hazardous chemicals.

Beyond radiation, these early chemistry sets included instructions for creating explosives and substances that could lead to house fires. For example, the experiments taught how to make a fuse and use different metals to create colored flames in "Homemade Fireworks." Chemicals with potential for abuse, such as those useful for operating [restricted term] labs, were also found in chemistry sets, ultimately leading to the dilution of these products over time for safety.

Despite the risks, many chemists and scientists credited their childhood chemistry sets with sparking their initial interest in science.

Chemistry sets have been credited for kindling the interest of the future Nobel laureates in scien ...