The discovery of aspirin: a reappraisal
BMJ 2000; 321 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7276.1591 (Published 23 December 2000) Cite this as: BMJ 2000;321:1591
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Dear Sir,
In BMJ 321 (2000), 1591 -- 1594, the history of Aspirin discovery is
discussed by Walter Sneader ("The discovery of Aspirin: a reappraisal").
Unfortunately I noticed this article just recently, this is the reason
why I am writing so late. I read the contribution with considerable
interest and acknowledge the attempt of the author to include primary
sources of people involved in Aspirin history such as the autobiographic
remarks of Arthur Eichengrün published in the German language. Actually, it
is - unfortunately - quite unusual that authors comment on historical
facts based on a truely international basis as Sneader obviously did.
However, to my knowledge, there is no actual need for a reappraisal of
Aspririn history. There are at least two sources earlier that Sneaders
article reporting the development precisely. The first one is the
textbook by Wolf-Dieter Mueller-Jahncke and Christoph Friedrich:
Geschichte der Arzneimitteltherapie. Stuttgart, Deutscher Apotheker
Verlag 1996. It is written there (p. 144) that Felix Hoffmann
synthesized acetylsalicylic acid on Eichengruens order and reported the
results in 1897. ("Sein [Eichengruens] Mitarbeiter, der Apotheker und
Chemiker Felix Hoffmann (1868 -- 1946), stellte nach seiner Anordnung
die Acetylsalicylsaeure her und berichtete darueber 1897.")
In an comprehensive article (Ein "Jahrhundertpharmakon" wird Hundert.
Schmerz 13:341 -- 346 (1999)) F. Kohl discusses the matter under debate
in detail and comes to the conclusion that Eichengruens claims in 1949
could not change the opinion that Aspirin synthesis was Hoffmanns
priority. This mainly relies on a laboratory journal written and signed
by Hoffmann in 1897. This is said to have already been decided by
historians in the 1960s being aware of the claims of Eichengruen
[Gordonoff, T.: Geschichte der Antipyrese. Wiener Med. Wschr. 115: 45 --
46 (1965) with comments by F. Brücke, Wiener Med. Wschr. 115: 629 -- 630
(1965) and answer by Gordonoff, Wiener Med. Wschr. 115: 630 (1965)].
Thus, I see no actual need for a "reappraisal", although it is to be
acknowledged to the author focussed the discussion in a journal of
international circulation and reputation like the BMJ.
Axel Helmstaedter, PhD
Secretary General
International Society for the History of Pharmacy
Lecturer (History of Pharmacy), Frankurt University
Theodor-Heuss-Str. 30b,
D-63303 Dreieich
helmstaedter@em.uni-frankfurt.de
Competing interests: No competing interests
Much of what Hartmut Alsfasser writes echoes my observation that
there are no laboratory reports covering the critical period in April
1897. He does not refute my interpretation of the final part of the
laboratory report written by Hoffmann on 10th August 1897. This reveals
that acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) was already being tested and thereby shows
that this was not a report of the first synthesis of the drug in the Bayer
laboratories. Nor does he question my claim that Dreser originally
received several salicylates for testing along with ASA, a key part of the
argument that Dreser initially tested the drug in April 1897 and then set
it aside until September 1898. Supporting evidence for this delay comes
from an analysis of the laboratory reports and papers written by Dreser.
It should be noted that the delay was reported in a Bayer publication long
before there was controversy over who discovered aspirin and Hoffmann,
too, repeatedly complained about Dreser having set the drug aside.
Herr Alsfasser’s concluding paragraph overlooks the involvement of
Carl Duisberg in the events that took place in 1898. As Research Director
of F. Bayer & Company, Duisberg would not have required permission
from his employee Dreser to proceed with the production of the
acetylsalicylic acid required for clinical trials.
Soon after the marketing of aspirin in 1899, Eichengrün was appointed
Head of Pharmaceutical and Photographic Research whilst Hoffman, in
contrast, was transferred from research to Head of Pharmaceutical Sales.
Surely the Bayer management would not have rejected the research skills of
the inventor of aspirin?
Competing interests: No competing interests
The publication by Walter Sneader relies on a number of assumptions,
the basis of which is not substantiated by original documents from the
period during which Aspirin® was developed; the author refers instead to
comments made subsequently by Felix Hoffmann and Arthur Eichengrün, in
some cases several decades later. These sources should be treated with the
necessary caution since they were written from the subjective standpoint
of those involved at the time.
The first alleged testing of acetylsalicylic acid derivatives by the
pharmacologist Heinrich Dreser shortly after he joined the company in
April 1897 is not documented. Laboratory journals written by Dreser
starting in May 1898 exist which document his work (p. 1592).
There is also no evidence that acetylsalicylic acid was first synthesized
before August 8 by Felix Hoffmann, as Sneader suggests, since Hoffmann, as
Sneader himself writes, did not produce a laboratory journal between March
1896 and May 1897 (p. 1593). The first mention in a laboratory journal by
Hoffmann was dated August 10, 1897. Prior to this date, there is no
documentation by either Hoffmann or any other chemist at Bayer of the
production of acetylsalicylic acid resembling the notes made by Hoffmann
in August 1897.
Sneader's arguments are based on the assumption that Dreser put
acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) aside for 18 months. This also cannot be proved
since there are no laboratory journals available; it was simply claimed by
Eichengrün at a later date.
It is a fact that Bayer chemist Otto Bonhoeffer was working intensively to
develop an economical method of producing ASA from at least the spring of
1898. This would certainly not have been possible without the agreement of
and a positive assessment of his work by Dreser, the responsible
pharmacologist.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Aspirin history: Is there a need for a reappraisal ?
The historian requires proper evidence in order to decide whether or
not a 79-word footnote in a history of chemical engineering relating a
story about Hoffmann’s sick father should be rejected in favour of a
contradictory version of events appearing 15 years later as a 2500 word
paper in a scientific journal. All accounts published before my own paper
failed to provide any objective evidence that either supported or refuted
the claim of Eichengrün to have both initiated and driven the development
of aspirin. For most historians, the laboratory report written by Hoffmann
on 10th August 1897 seemed to settle the matter in his favour since they
unjustifiably assumed it to mark the first synthesis of the drug in the
laboratories of F. Bayer & Co. A few preferred to believe all or part
of the detailed version provided by Eichengrün, yet did not feel compelled
to explain their preference. Others, with no justification, contrived to
amalgamate the two conflicting accounts.
In his response to my paper, Dr Helmstaedter twice states that he
sees no actual need for a reappraisal of aspirin history, stating that
there are at least two earlier sources reporting precisely the development
I described. In the second of these, Kohl (1999) stated that the claim of
Eichengrün has found hardly any acknowledgement in the pharmaceutical
historical literature. The very same point is made by me where I state
that Eichengrün died in 1949 and was spared from knowing that his account
of events would remain largely ignored for another half century. That is
precisely why I decided that a reappraisal of the history of aspirin was
necessary.
As the response to my paper penned by Hartmut Alsfasser clearly
shows, Bayer AG still do not accept the claim of Arthur Eichengrün.
Indeed, in 1999, the American division of the company spent 20 million US
dollars on an award winning publicity campaign to mark the centenary of
the introduction of aspirin. The central focus of that campaign was on the
response of Felix Hoffmann to the needs of his sick father for a new
medicine. No actual need for a reappraisal of aspirin history?
Competing interests: No competing interests