From the late eighteenth century onwards, urban life underwent increasingly rapid change as towns outgrew their limits, industries polluted their skies and rivers, and a host of new types of building appeared to cater for new needs and activities. Not only did towns look different, but, as Thomas Markus has said, ‘they also ‘felt’ different in the organization of the spaces they contained.’ Buildings which housed scientific activities—the learned societies, literary and philosophical societies, professional institutes, mechanics institutes, and by the end of the century the new civic universities—were one manifestation of this different ‘feeling’. These were quite new types of building, and we should therefore expect them to give us valuable information about the development of science, about ‘images’ of science and the meaning of those images, as well as the actual practice of science.

Gilbert and Mulkay, in their paper ‘Experiments Are the Key’, present responses of scientists to questions about the development of the chemiosmotic hypothesis of energy coupling in oxidative and photophosphorylation, and infer from these responses both the meaninglessness of the concept ‘key experiment’ and the hopelessness of searching for any data as a bedrock for historical analysis. Gilbert and Mulkay's nihilism is, however, rooted in a lack of understanding of the specific scientific issues involved. A closer look at a proposed ‘key experiment’ shows certain obvious characteristics that could be criteria for a ‘key experiment’ moreover, the actual scientific response to that experiment demonstrates its pivotal role in the development of the field. Instead of demonstrating the lack of empirical bases for scientific judgment, Gilbert and Mulkay demonstrate the necessity for identifying the crucial issues and pursuing them, in questioning the scientists as well as in examining other sources.

In recent years, historians have come to question earlier Whig interpretations that there was little science or science teaching done at Cambridge University prior to the appointment of Cambridge University Parliamentary Commissions in the 1850's. However, there has been no comprehensive survey of scientific activity at Cambridge in the first half of the nineteenth century. This essay, based upon research which penetrates beneath pedagogical tracts and Whig criticisms (both nineteenth and twentieth century varieties) reveals that Cambridge science professors researched, lectured, gave experimental demonstrations and provided other educational opportunities. Furthermore, it shows that serious attempts to provide research and teaching facilities met with some success and might have met with more if not for the intervention of specific historical incidents compounded by financial problems and the consequences of the upgrading of the core of the Cambridge curriculum. Before the sciences became alternative routes to a Bachelor of Arts Degree and before the appointment of the first University Parliamentary Commissions, Cambridge dons laid the foundations for science at Cambridge in the second half of the century.

The important role played by the Ecole Polytechnique in the resurgence of science in France after the French Revolution, and its progress ever since, has led to much historical work on its foundation and development. Some of these studies have brought historians to the school's archives; and there chaos has awaited them, for they found the main collections of documents sorted into containers which were nominally classified by calendar year but in fact could contain materials pertaining to various other times. In addition, very many other documents were stored without classification. Thus exhaustive study of the school's history has been difficult, not to say impossible.

In June 1930 the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) of the British Government awarded a modest research grant to J. E. (later Sir John) Lennard-Jones, Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of Bristol, in response to a proposal submitted under the title of ‘A theoretical investigation of the physical properties of the solid state of matter’. This initiative marked the first notable recognition by public funding bodies in Great Britain of the potential contribution to be made by the new theoretical ideas in physics to a deeper understanding of the properties of industrially important materials, particularly metals and their alloys. The possible technological relevance of such a study was, indeed, a central factor in the decision to support it. The research arising out of this initial award provided the impetus for the first stage of Bristol theoretical research on the solid state of matter, an enterprise initially associated with the name of Lennard-Jones, and later with Nevili Mott who succeeded him as Professor of Theoretical Physics in 1933.

Between 1869 and 1871, D. I. Mendeleev, a teacher at the University at St Petersburg published a textbook of general chemistry intended for his students. The title, Principles of Chemistry was typical for the time: it meant that chemistry was no longer an inquiry on the ultimate principles of matter but had become a science firmly established on a few principles derived from experiment.