Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, 2001. viii + 120 pp. ISBN 3-527-30413-4. $14.95.

Oxygen, a new play in two acts, which had its premier April 2, 2001, in San Diego in conjunction with the National ACS meeting, has been published in a handsome little volume by Wiley-VCH giving those of us who were unable to see the stage version the opportunity to read the script. The playwrights, Carl Djerassi and Roald Hoffmann, are distinguished chemists who have also pursued literary careers. As a writer Djerassi is probably best known for his autobiographies and novels, especially Cantor's Dilemma, which is part of his "science in fiction" project. Hoffmann is an essayist and poet whose work touches on the creative and human aspects of chemistry as well as its relationship to society and culture.

The overall theme of the play is scientific discovery as illustrated by the discovery of oxygen told through two interlocking plots. To commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Nobel prizes, a committee has been asked to select a chemist to receive a "retro-Nobel" for a discovery that predates the origin of the prizes in 1901. The discussions of this committee comprise one of the stories. The second is an imaginary meeting of Carl Wilhelm Scheele, Joseph Priestley, and Antoine Laurent Lavoisier and their wives--or in the case of Scheele, his housekeeper and future wife--in Stockholm in 1777 at an event where the King of Sweden will honor one of them for the discovery of oxygen. Such meetings are a well-known theatrical device. Steve Martin recently imagined a meeting of Einstein and Picasso in Paris in Picasso at the Lapine Agile. Bernard Shaw brought Isaac Newton, George Fox, Charles II (and several of his mistresses), and the painter Godfrey Kneller together in his delightful In Good King Charles's Golden Days. Djerassi and Hoffmann use the same device to bring the three "discoverers" of oxygen together to present their individual claims to priority, an issue being simultaneously debated by the Nobel committee in 2000. In both stories we see the human side of science, the good and the bad: the passion for discovering the secrets of nature and the sometimes ugly competition for priority and recognition.

Djerassi and Hoffmann have each discussed many of the themes that run through this play in their other writings. Oxygen is an attempt to explore them through drama. In assessing the play, there are two interrelated questions to be answered: (i) Does it succeed in raising the issues that the authors want to raise? and (ii) Does it succeed as theater? My answer to the first question is yes. The story of oxygen is an excellent vehicle to explore the question of what constitutes a discovery. Scheele was certainly the first to isolate the pure substance, but he did not announce his discovery except privately. Priestley isolated oxygen independently, published his results, but interpreted them in terms of the phlogiston theory. Lavoisier learned how to do the experiments from Priestley, but had what we now understand to be the best interpretation. Who is the real discoverer?

I am less convinced that Oxygen will succeed as theater for the audiences of nonscientists that I am sure the playwrights hope to attract, though I would be pleased if a creative director and acting company were to prove me wrong. A play succeeds when the characters are interesting and well developed and when the dialogue is lively. It is certainly possible to develop complicated ideas on stage; Shaw was a master at it. I found the dialogue in those places where Djerassi and Hoffmann try to explain the details of the chemistry to be rather ponderous, a bit too much like a general chemistry lecture. While I was fascinated by the history of the discovery of oxygen and the discussions with the modern committee, I know a lot about the case, the context, and the historical figures involved. I wonder how interesting or understandable the non-chemist playgoer will find the debates about the phlogiston theory. Some of the personal and scientific intrigue within the Nobel committee seems a bit too contrived to be convincing. Other productions are planned, so we will see how well it fares.

Even with these reservations, I am delighted that Djerassi and Hoffmann have written this play. It is important for chemists to communicate with a broader audience, creating a deeper appreciation of both the practice and the accomplishments of our science. How many successful popularizers of chemistry are there? How many attempts have there been to communicate science through theater? Such efforts should be encouraged. Just as in science, future playwrights will be able to build on what Djerassi and Hoffmann have done. They have shown us that one can write an interesting play about chemistry. There are more waiting to be written.