Geeks everywhere weep for the modern chemistry set. There was a day when kids of all ages could perform all sorts of fantastic experiments. We were not unfettered by safety rules — guidelines were strict and clear. You do not mix certain things. This is flammable and that is acidic. And yes, some of us made gunpowder and other explosives. It was a magical time of daring and high adventure.
Then came the dark times, when set manufacturers bowed to the fear of litigation. Gone were the no-holds-barred outfits where nitroglycerine was seemingly a page-flip and beaker-shake away. No longer were we presented with rules and rationales, and expected to follow. Instead, manufacturers decided we were too dumb to be trusted with our own experiments, and tried to sell us "spa science" and "candy chemistry" and other pseudoscientific pap. Kit manufacturers no longer had the stomach for the real deal. And when they made that decision, they doomed themselves to irrelevance.
Today is the DIY era, and we don't need a set to learn about chemistry. All we need is the internet and the Illustrated Guide to Home Chemistry Experiments by Robert Bruce Thompson.
In the book's introduction, Thompson makes two basic points: that commercial chemistry sets are dying, and that science education is getting worse. He tells the story of Jasmine, his young neighbor who told him that her middle school only teaches 15 minutes of science per day. He thought he'd let her use the pro-quality chemistry lab he has in his basement, but without a guidebook she'd be lost in all the possibilities. It was this situation that induced him to write the book.
In an email, Thompson told me why he believes public schools' science curricula are suffering so much. Mainly, he said, safety concerns, limited facilities, and lack of qualified teachers are to blame. However, he was especially down on the Bush education initiative, No Child Left Behind. "NCLB is the real killer, because it focuses the attention of school teachers and administrators on meeting NCLB requirements, which focus almost entirely on reading and math. NCLB doesn't specify science requirements, so schools don't 'waste time' teaching science. You can't really blame the teachers and administrators; their jobs depend on students scoring well in reading and math, so guess what they focus all their attention on teaching?"
As for as chemistry sets go, the only one Thompson felt had any value was the Thames & Kosmos C3000 kit, though he said it "would have been considered an entry-level chemistry set back in the mid-60s." He said the Smithsonian line of chemistry sets have been discontinued, "and the Thames & Kosmos web site has been unresponsive for a month now, which really worries me." Even the Internet has few sites that provide robust science education for kids. "There are a lot of 'making slime' type experiments," Thompson said, "but they're mostly presented as, in effect, magic shows, rather than going into the science behind the phenomenon being looked at. They're useful only in the sense that they may interest some kids in pursuing chemistry, but not in the sense of actually teaching them anything much about chemistry."
