# Talk:History of aspirin

I noticed that this page does not cover, how or when aspirin was discovered to be harmful to children. This is outside the area of my expertise, so could someone more knowledgeable about the subject include this? 65.7.130.54 (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It alluded to that in the competition section, when it mentioned Reye's syndrome.  I expanded on this a little.  The sources I used for this article don't go into detail about how the link was discovered, but there is a bit of info in the History section of the Reye's syndrome article, with a footnote to a 1987 study (which probably has citations to the earlier studies from the early 1980s).--ragesoss (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please clarify the second to last word in this sentence in the second paragraph of the final section Revival as Heart Drug.

The study began in February 1971, though the researchers soon had to break the double-blinding when a study by American epidemiologist Herschel Jick suggested that aspirin either prevented heart attacks or made them more deadly.
Should it be more deadly or less deadly?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 

It should be more, as written.  Basically, if you see fewer heart attacks among aspirin takers who are admitted to a hospital (for whatever reason), it could be that aspirin is causing them to die of heart attacks before they even make it to the hospital.--ragesoss (talk) 20:43, 18 March
I am trying to establish whether aspirin is synthesised entirely from coal tar or a combination of both  coal tar and botanical compounds . In other words , are there any botanical compounds contained in the aspirin tablets that one can purchase from a pharmacy today ?  Many thanks in advance .

This article does not meet the GA criteria at the present time. It is, however, a good start, but it is lacking on several key areas:

The lead is only a single sentence (see WP:LEAD for tips on improving this).
I am concerned that the article is not broad enough, because only two sources are cited as references, so the viewpoint is limited. This could also be an indication of lack of completeness, another GA criterion, though I need to do a more thorough review to judge that aspect.
Section headers are fairly wordy, and long. I wonder if these exact titles of section headers were stolen from chapters of the book in question? For an encyclopedia article, it helps to shorten these subsection headers, so that they are more concise, more descriptive of the content of the section, and make reading the table of contents easier.
Dr. Cash (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment from bypasser: This pretty much proves that "Good Articles" doesn't live up to its original purpose. I guess you have to be a video game article referenced to 40 random web sites to pass. The lead here could easily be improved, and the rest is fine. –Outriggr § 02:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


### Review suggestions addressed
I've expanded the lead, made the section headers more concise (although this necessarily makes them less descriptive of the content of each section, and no, they were not stolen from book chapter titles), and added a couple of supporting sources for the more potentially contentious points.  As for completeness, both of the main sources I used are broad histories of aspirin (although Aspirin Wars focuses more on the business aspects, and digresses frequently to tell the tales of the businesses and business people involved, even when aspirin is not the main business focus); I think this article covers all the main issues in the history of aspirin.--ragesoss (talk) 06:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Have you taken a look at the article on Paracetamol? It has featured status and a great many diverse references. There are a great many websites you could cite just as back-up, including: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] etc etc etc! The paracetamol article also has an info box on the drug next to the lead, which I think this article could benefit from.--seahamlass 11:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The comparison there would be to aspirin, not this article, right?  The main aspirin article does have an infobox, and has information about the usage, etc., and developing uses that are not yet firmly established (like for colon cancer prevention)... information that is out of place in a historical article.  The one source above which does have some history is aspirin-foundation.com, which has just one short overview that doesn't have anything to add.--ragesoss (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. I was just trying to help you. It doesn't matter to me if you pass or fail, I don't care one iota. I would wish you luck - but, as it stands, I'm pretty sure that this is a quick-fail due to lack of references. You can't just rely on a couple of books and repeatedly refer to them., you need a much wider range than that.--seahamlass 19:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your suggestions, and the point that the article could be improve with more diversity of references is a good one.  I was just saying that the paracetamol-type references are not the kind that will be appropriate for this article, since it is a historical article and that article, naturally, is filled with scientific references.  There are a handful of articles by historians about aspirin, as well as some historical material from aspirin makers and historical actors that might supplement the current sources (though of course that must be taken with a grain of salt).  However, the two books I primarily used in putting together this article are broad, reliable sources that, as far as I can tell, cover all the major issues that a history of aspirin article should cover.  If there are specific aspects that you think are missing from the article, I can look into that.  But the general complaint that there are few source isn't that big of a deal, certainly not a show-stopper for Good Article status, which requires broad coverage, not many sources.--ragesoss (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree with Seahamlass - this is nice article, but not enough references. Although you don't seem to appreciate any criticism I'll risk it and suggest you add at least ten more web-based ones to the page. Perhaps some of these might meet your rather high, snobbish and panickity standards.

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blaspirin.htm
http://www.bayeraspirin.com/pain/asp_history.htm
http://content.karger.com/produktedb/produkte.asp?doi=110894
http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/mjm/v02n02/aspirin.html
http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/aspirin.htm
http://www.aspirin.com/world_of_aspirin_en.html
http://healthfully.org/aspirin/id3.html
http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Aspirin.html
Good Article status certainly does require broad coverage, but to say that means "not many sources is rather naive. --79.68.135.162 (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both.  I've add the article from the McGill Journal of Medicine as a reference on the Bayer synthesis section (although it doesn't really say anything different from the books, which is not surprising since the article is at least partly based on the Mann and Plummer book, although with details from primary sources).  I also added several of the Bayer websites to the external links; they don't have anything content-wise that needs adding (and of course, they have a Bayer-centric take on the history), but readers may want to consult them.  Most of the rest of websites are either not reliable sources (no author listed and not published by academic organizations) or don't have any historical significant historical content.  The one partial exception is the review article, "From Aspirin to Aspirin Resistance – History, Biochemical Background, Diagnostics and Clinical Relevance".  However, the historical section of that article is very brief and I don't see any content that should be added here; this is not surprising, since the main point of that review is to discuss aspirin resistance, a recently identified phenomenon for which it is much too early to speculate about its place in history.--ragesoss (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Wellcome: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/histmed/PDFS/Publications/Witness/wit23.pdf
This paper summarises development of aspirin vs thrombosis. JFW | T@lk 14:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


### second nomination review
While I am still a little cautious that so much of the article comes from one primary source, there are a good number of additional sources added in that I think the article meets the citation requirement of WP:WIAGA. It is clear that a lot of research has gone into this material, and it is reasonably accurate, well written, neutral, and I don't see any major edit wars in the edit history.
I did make a few minor spelling & grammatical corrections here and there, and removed a few internal wikilinks, mostly to some rather obscure individuals that probably won't have wiki articles for some time, or if at all, for that matter. It would be nice if there was an image for the top right corner of the article, and I think some chemical diagrams outlining some of the early synthetic routes to aspirin might be a nice touch. But overall, as it stands currently, I think it does meet the Good Article criteria, and can be listed. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination.  It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please.  Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?  If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?  Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?  At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style.  Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with the GA reviews this article has generated; comments about prose, content and sources have been on point and helpful.  (This has been my experience with previous GA reviews on other articles as well.)  I object slightly to the series of delinking edits Dr. Cash made with the explanation that the red links were "mostly to some rather obscure individuals that probably won't have wiki articles for some time, or if at all, for that matter".  Most if not all probably do merit articles (I'd venture that all are "notable" by current standards), and red links are one of the ways to increase the likelihood that such articles will be created sooner rather than later.  However, it's not a big deal (not even a big enough deal to revert the delinking).  I write a lot outside of Wikipedia, primarily as a graduate student in history (and secondarily as a blogger).--ragesoss (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses, and I'm happy you enjoyed the GA reviews.
This is only a personal preference, but I would have asked for fewer red links too, simply out of a desire for efficiency of the GAN process.  (I agree with you about red links in un-reviewed articles.)  You will be more familiar with the people than I am, and finding a few references that establish notability and writing a quick stub article usually doesn't take a long time, if they really do seem notable, and takes the burden off the GAN reviewer to try to figure out for themselves if there ever will be articles on those people.   Also, the people who patrol new articles are generally good at looking at sources and giving a quick thumbs up or thumbs down ... and that would also take a burden off the GAN reviewer.  This is efficient use of wiki-volunteers, because we've got a 200 article backlog here, but there's no backlog (that I'm aware of) on patroling new pages. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Would like to see information on Bayer's loss of trademark recognition for the name "aspirin," by which "aspirin" came to be considered to be a generic name which any producer could use. Xenophon777 (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Aspirin is a registered trademark in most of the world, but is a generic name in most English-speaking countries.  The Aspirin article has a section on the trademark history involving loss of trademark status in the USA and other countries.  Yes, it should be here too as well as the intro which should clearly state that Aspirin is a trademark. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Aspirin#Renaming "aspirin" to "Aspirin" and also the failed move request on that same talk page. Andrewa (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I am aware of the failed attempt as I created the straw poll in the first place.  As a result, it is important to state at the start of the article that Aspirin is a trademark in most of the world. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The fact that the word aspirin is a trademark (in some countries) does not need to be mentioned in the opening sentence. If the article was about the word aspirin then it would be justified to call it a trademark in the opening sentence, but it is about this history of the drug aspirin. So in the context of this article, aspirin should be defined as a drug, not a trademark. I've moved the trademark issue to later in the lead. Tweak that if you like, but the issue doesn't deserve more than a sentence. Colin°Talk 13:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I beg to differ Colin, but it's a fact backed by citations already listed in the Aspirin article, that Aspirin is a trademark in most countries, not some countries.  Aspirin is a generic name in 11 countries as cited at [7] while it is a registered trademark in over 80 countries as stated at [8].
I can add that a Canadian medical journal got a tongue lashing by Sterling Drug Ltd. because of the journal's misuse of the Aspirin name in an article as Aspirin is a registered trademark in Canada as shown by the citation [9] which is already in this article. Bayer later bought Sterling Drug thus restoring their ownership of the Aspirin trademark in Canada. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree that it's important to be clear on the status of the trademark. And that was the main problem with your version of the lead: It was misleading. To state in the first sentence that it is a trademark, with no mention of the other fact that this is not true in much of the English-speaking world, is misinformation. Andrewa (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No mention of him in the history section ? Trente7cinq (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on History of aspirin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080225105334/http://www.aspirin.com:80/faq_en.html to http://www.aspirin.com/faq_en.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080530182956/http://www.inta.org:80/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=202&Itemid=126&getcontent=5 to http://www.inta.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=202&Itemid=126&getcontent=5
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on History of aspirin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071011101824/http://www.bmj.com:80/cgi/eletters/321/7276/1591 to http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/321/7276/1591#12342
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110719060758/http://www.medizin-2000.de/pharma-presse/presseerklaerungen/texte/pharma_medikamente/bayer/bayer_110999.html to http://www.medizin-2000.de/pharma-presse/presseerklaerungen/texte/pharma_medikamente/bayer/bayer_110999.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I am trying to establish whether aspirin is synthesised entirely from coal tar or a combination of both  coal tar and botanical compounds . In other words , are there any botanical derived compounds contained within the aspirin tablets which one can purchase from a pharmacy ?  I was not able to clarify this after reading the " synthesis of ASA " section ; though I should add that I am not scientifically qualified and hence my question . Thanks in advance for any help you can provide .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.49.37.180 (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on History of aspirin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080418032250/http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/mjm/v02n02/aspirin.html to http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/mjm/v02n02/aspirin.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080224234036/http://www.aspirin-foundation.com/what/100.html to http://www.aspirin-foundation.com/what/100.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060717200451/http://www.ucl.ac.uk/histmed/PDFS/Publications/Witness/wit23.pdf to http://www.ucl.ac.uk/histmed/PDFS/Publications/Witness/wit23.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The early history of aspirin section strikes me as being completely misleading. I've been checking herbals and ancient medical texts, and I can't find any reference to willow or meadowsweet being used as a painkiller. This story seems to mostly come from Jeffreys's 2005 book 'Aspirin - the remarkable story of a wonder drug', or from people repeating the arguments given there. It seems to be entirely false. There was no use of salicylic acid as a painkiller, and the Bayer chemists were not looking for a safer alternative when they synthesised aspirin. There isn't even any aspirin in willow bank, so why that should relevant to this page at all is a mystery. But is it the right place to put a refutation of Jeffreys's theories, or is it better just to ignore them altogether? I suspect that if I remove the incorrect statements, they'll just reappear again because they are so often repeated on the internet. E Wusk (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
On its face, sentences two through four of the first paragraph of this early history section are blatantly contradicted by the first paragraph of the following section on the history of Aspirin's synthesis by chemists. Given that the former seems to adopt familiar debunking-herbal-medicine kind of tone, it really should be rewritten to align with the latter. Unless the information in the latter is entirely incorrect; given that this article has Good Article status, I rather doubt that is the case. Given this discrepancy, perhaps a more precise rewrite of sentence five is in order, as it depends on two, three and four. We should expect better from a Good Article. 2607:FEA8:8442:B900:E4A1:BE80:5E8C:D5B8 (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

There's a difference between "willow being used as a painkiller" and "salicylate being trialled for medicinal purposes", especially given that the salicylate wasn't necessarily extracted from willow (the salicin in aspirin came from meadowsweet). So both paragraphs are basically true. You won't find any mention of willow being a painkiller in any herbal before 1900, although salicin was used by a few people for rheumatic fever for a short while before 1899. The only real discrepancy is Pagenstecher's alleged claim of a pain-reducing substance. I can't find that in the article quoted, although my German isn't that good. E Wusk (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

There's currently a statement in the Synthesis of acetylsalycilic acid section as follows: "In 1834, Swiss pharmacist Johann Pagenstecher discovered what he thought was a new pain-reducing substance, isolated from the common remedy of meadowsweet." The reference is to Pagenstecher's own 1834 paper, which is in old-fashioned German, so I can't read it. But I got it translated, and the closest it comes to saying anything about the therapeutic qualities of the extract is at the end... "It is almost to be expected that a body possessing such exceptional chemical properties would reveal a no less excellent therapeutic aspect. In this connection  no such experiments have been essayed and I feel myself less inclined towards such since I am convinced that it is less a case of increasing the number of new medical products than of submitting them to extended careful study."
This does not support the claim that Pagenstecher thought salicylic acid (or salicin) was a pain-reducing substance, so I think that part of the statement should be deleted. "Common remedy" might also be a bit of a stretch, as that seems to be explicitly denied in the paper. E Wusk (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Published by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1119266/


= The discovery of aspirin: a reappraisal =
View original

The discovery of aspirin is customarily said to have resulted from Felix Hoffmann's rheumatic father encouraging his son to produce a medicine devoid of the unpleasant effects of sodium salicylate. Hoffmann, a chemist in the pharmaceutical laboratory of the German dye manufacturer Friedrich Bayer & Co in Elberfeld, consulted the chemical literature and came across the synthesis of acetylsalicylic acid and then prepared the first sample of pure acetylsalicylic acid on 10 August 1897. This was marketed in 1899 under the registered trademark of Aspirin. This account of the discovery first appeared in 1934 as a footnote in a history of chemical engineering written by Albrecht Schmidt, a chemist who had recently retired from IG Farbenindustrie—the organisation into which F Bayer & Co had been incorporated in 1925.1


### Summary points
Until now, it has been generally accepted that Felix Hoffmann developed aspirin to help his rheumatic father
In 1949 Hoffman's former colleague Arthur Eichengrün claimed that the work had been done under his direction
Analysis of relevant archival and published material now supports Eichengrün's claim and throws doubt on the reliability of the source crediting Hoffmann
It is likely that acetylsalicylic acid was synthesised under Eichengrün's direction and that it would not have been introduced in 1899 without his intervention

The footnote also stated that Hoffmann had arranged for several chemical derivatives of salicylic acid to be examined, not just its acetyl ester. No indication was given of what the others were, but in 1899 Heinrich Dreser, head of the experimental pharmacology laboratory at Elberfeld, named them in a paper as propionyl, butyryl, valeryl, and benzoyl salicylic acids.2 He further alluded to them in 1907,3 and again in 1918.4 No earlier reports of the preparation of any of these are to be found, but three of them appear in a British patent awarded on 3 March 1900 to Hoffmann's colleague Otto Bonhoeffer,5 and there is also a United States patent for propionylsalicylic acid, again in the name of Bonhoeffer.6 The award of these patents is indicative of the absence of any prior mention of these compounds in the literature. It must therefore be concluded that the 1934 footnote is unreliable since it clearly stated that Hoffmann had examined “preparations of salicylic acid derivatives which remained unnoticed amongst several prepared a long time before for other purposes.” The patents show that the derivatives were newly prepared for the specific purpose of finding a salicylic acid derivative that would be of therapeutic value. Is then the remainder of the footnote to be believed?

The page on which Hoffmann reported his synthesis of pure acetylsalicylic acid in 1897 is retained in the archives of Bayer AG in Leverkusen. The significance of the final sentence on it—“Durch ihre physikalischen Eigenschaften wie eine sauren Geschmack ohne jede Ätzwirkung unterscheidet sich die Acetylsalicylsäure vorteilhaft von der Salicylsäure und wird dieselbe in diesem Sinne auf ihre Verwendbarkeit geprüft”—has been overlooked.
The correct translation is: “Due to its physical properties, such as an acid taste without any corrosive action, acetylsalicylic acid differs advantageously from salicylic acid and is being examined for its usefulness with just this in mind.” The German is, however, grammatically awkward and the sentence is capable of being misread to mean that the compound was about to be tested rather than that it was being tested. The most likely interpretation, however, is that testing of acetylsalicylic acid was already taking place at the time Hoffmann wrote.
In a commemorative volume marking Bayer's 50th anniversary Arthur Eichengrün, a colleague of Hoffmann, pointed out that after examining acetylsalicylic acid Dreser had set it aside for nearly 18 months until he once again became involved with it in 1898.7 This statement was never disputed by Dreser, who contributed the next article in the same publication.4 A recent Bayer publication notes, too, that Hoffmann had repeatedly told his colleagues that Dreser had set acetylsalicylic acid aside.8 Because Dreser did not begin to write laboratory reports until 16 May 1898 there is no record of his testing salicylic acid derivatives in 1897. However, his laboratory notebook shows that on 27 September 1898, and three more times that year, he investigated acetylsalicylic acid on its own. If there was an interval of nearly 18 months between Dreser's first and later experimenting with acetylsalicylic acid, this interval obviously could not have ended much before 27 September 1898, since he took up his appointment at Elberfield on 1 April 1897. His initial work testing salicylic acid derivatives must have been soon after his arrival there.
His laboratory reports from 27September 1898 onward do not reveal why Dreser was then testing acetylsalicylic acid on its own rather than with the other four derivatives named in his 1899 paper. Something must have induced him to single out acetylsalicylic acid, and the explanation can be found in a paper written by Eichengrün.

In a paper published in Pharmazie in 1949, Eichengrün claimed that he had instructed Hoffmann to synthesise acetylsalicylic acid and that the latter had done so without knowing the purpose of the work.9 Five years earlier, while in Theresienstadt concentration camp, he had typed a letter (now in the Bayer archives) with wording similar to his 1949 paper.10 Eichengrün wrote that his objective had been to obtain a salicylate that would not give rise to the adverse effects (gastric irritation, nausea, or tinnitus) frequently associated with sodium salicylate. He was present when the derivatives of salicylic acid were tested by Dreser and came to the conclusion that acetylsalicylic acid was superior to all the other compounds. At a management meeting, Eichengrün called for clinical studies to be initiated, but Dreser used his right of veto as head of the pharmacology division. He believed, mistakenly, that the drug was harmful to the heart.
Convinced of the potential of acetylsalicylic acid, Eichengrün tested it on himself, experiencing no ill effects. He stated that he then surreptitiously gave a supply of it to his colleague Dr Felix Goldmann, who then recruited physicians to evaluate the drug in strict secrecy. Their reports were most encouraging. Tinnitus was rare, while the antirheumatic effects were unmistakable. But there was more—a dentist had given the drug to a patient with a raised temperature as well as toothache. Hardly was he out of the chair before he exclaimed, “My toothache's gone!” Such a rapid onset of analgesia was unique. After a similar response was confirmed in other patients, Goldmann sent a report to the Bayer management. According to Eichengrün, when Dreser was asked to comment, he scribbled on it, “This is the usual loud-mouthing of Berlin—the product has no value.”
Eichengrün goes on to tell us that Carl Duisberg, the renowned head of research for Bayer, had ordered Dreser's results to be checked by an independent pharmacologist. This intervention might explain why Hoffmann synthesised stable, pure acetylsalicylic acid on 10 August 1897. If the meaning of the last sentence in Hoffmann's report is that acetylsalicylic acid was already under test at that time, it would be consistent with all that Eichengrün has written. Had acetylsalicylic acid been tested along with the other salicylic acid derivatives in April 1897, there would have been no written record of its original synthesis, since Hoffmann did not write any reports between 13 March 1896 and 5 May 1897. Significantly, in none of his laboratory reports did he mention the synthesis of any of the other salicylates known to have been tested by Dreser. Presumably they were prepared for evaluation in April 1897.
In his 1949 paper Eichengrün went on to claim that acetylsalicylic acid was sent to several leading clinics for expert assessment. Confirmation of this claim is found in the first published clinical report on aspirin by Kurt Witthauer of the Deaconess Hospital in Halle, which appeared in the April 1899 issue of Die Heilkunde.11 Revealingly, Witthauer remarked, “After long hesitation, the factory was able to be convinced by my favourable experiences to bring aspirin on to the market.” Further light is thrown on this statement by Friedrich Fischer, the head of the Elberfeld pharmaceutical laboratory in 1897, when he wrote that Witthauer had energetically pushed for the introduction of the drug owing to its excellent success in the clinic.12 It should be noted that Witthauer stated that he had received the new salicylate compound nearly one year earlier—that is, around April 1898.
Eichengrün claimed that Dreser was then instructed to write a report that would give scientific credibility to the new drug. This explains why Dreser reinvestigated acetylsalicylic acid on its own in September 1898.

Why did Eichengrün wait 15 years before refuting what had been written in 1934 about the role of Hoffmann? The answer may be found by considering Eichengrün's situation at that time. After the introduction of aspirin, he had developed not only several more drugs but also cellulose acetate, acetate silk, and acetate safety film before leaving Bayer in 1908 to establish his own factory in Berlin. There, he produced flame resistant materials based on acetyl cellulose and also pioneered the process of injection moulding of plastics. Consequently, he enjoyed the affluent life style of a successful industrialist, yet because he was a Jew all this was put at risk after the Nazi party gained power.
By the time the claim that Hoffmann had initiated the development of aspirin was published, the Nazis had banned Jews from the civil service and from independent positions in the professions and in economic life. Even as a prominent industrialist, Eichengrün was not exempt from their attentions. He was forced to take an associate into his company to avoid loss of contracts from state enterprises. A low profile was the order of the day, but that was not enough to prevent his company being forcibly transferred to another owner in 1938. His marriage to an “Aryan” wife enabled him to retain his freedom until 1944, when at the age of 76 he was interned for 14 months in Theresienstadt, languishing there until its liberation by the Soviet Army.
During the Nazi era, Eichengrün was in no position to issue a public rebuttal of what had been published about Hoffmann. Some insight into his feelings at that time is given by a paragraph in his 1949 paper: “In 1941, there stood in the Hall of Honour of the chemical section of the German Museum in Munich a showcase filled with white crystals, with the inscription, ‘Aspirin: inventors Dreser and Hoffmann’. Dreser had nothing whatsoever to do with the discovery, and Hoffmann carried out my chemical instructions in the first place without knowing the aim of the work. Next to the showcase was a similar one filled with acetylcellulose, today also a product of worldwide importance, whose discovery by me it is impossible to doubt since it was established in a series of German patents from 1901 to 1920. It was simply described by the expression ‘Acetylcellulose—Cellit’; they had refrained from naming the inventor. But, at the main entrance to the museum there hung a large sign which forbade non-Aryans from entering this institute! Those who understand will read between the lines.”
In his letter from Theresienstadt, Eichengrün concluded a similar paragraph with a different sentence: “To what influences this omission is to be attributed, can be only assumed.” There can be little doubt that he felt that he had been written out of history because he was a Jew. Such historical revisionism was not unknown in the Nazi era.
Two years after the war ended, Eichengrün celebrated his 80th birthday amid glowing tributes in German scientific journals.13–15He died in Berlin on 23 December 1949, in the same month that his account of the discovery of aspirin was published. He was spared from knowing that it would remain largely ignored for another half century.

Everything that Eichengrün claimed in 1949 about the discovery of aspirin is compatible with the chronology of events presented here, which in turn depends to a great extent upon the reliability of the statement by Eichengrün that Dreser set acetylsalicylic acid aside for 18 months. This statement, however, has never been challenged. As Eichengrün did not refer to his own role in the discovery of aspirin in the chapter in which the statement appeared in 1918, it would be unreasonable to argue that the source is tainted. Also, Hoffmann—who lived until 1946 without ever publishing his own account of the discovery of aspirin—repeatedly spoke of Dreser setting the drug aside, albeit without indicating for how long. But had it only been for a short period, he would not have mentioned it.
In deciding whether it is Hoffmann or Eichengrün who initiated the events leading to the introduction of aspirin, the unreliability of the 1934 footnote about Hoffmann must be balanced against the plausibility of the 1949 paper by Eichengrün. The most reasonable conclusion is that Arthur Eichengrün was telling the truth when he wrote that acetylsalicylic acid was synthesised under his direction and that the drug would not have been introduced in 1899 without his intervention.
F Bayer & Co was truly fortunate in having Eichengrün as an employee, yet it is unlikely that he would have discovered aspirin had he not been working for the company. Its successor, Bayer AG, had every reason last year to celebrate proudly the centenary of the most widely used drug in history.

I thank M Frings and H-H Pogarell of Bayer-Archiv, Leverkusen, as well as their former colleague Dr M Busch, for valuable assistance throughout the course of my investigations and visits to the archive. I am also indebted to Joan Girling for the translation of the paper in Pharmazi.

Funding: None.
Competing interests: None declared.

1. Schmidt A. Die industrielle Chemie in ihrer Bedeutung im Wetbild und Errinnerungen an ihren Aufban. Berlin: De Greuter; 1934. p. 775. [Google Scholar]
2. Dreser H. Pharmakologisches über aspirin (Acetylsalicylsäure) Pflugers Arch. 1899;76:306–318. [Google Scholar]
3. Bayer-Archiv. Pharmakologisches Labor Elberfeld. 103/12.1. Prof Dreser, 27.07.1907. Die pharmakologische Laboratorium der Farbenfabriken, pp 6-7.
4. Dreser H. Geschichte und Entwicklung der Farbenfabriken vorm Friedr Bayer & Co, Elberfield, in den ersten 50 Jahren. Munich: Meisenbach-Riffrath; 1918. Das pharmakologische Laboratorium der Farbenfabriken; pp. 419–424. [Google Scholar]
5. Bonhoeffer O. The manufacture or production of acidyl salicylic acids. British Patent 9123, 3 March 1900.
6. Bonhoeffer O. Propionyl-salicylic acid and process of making same. US Patent 656435, 21 August 1900.
7. Eichengrün A. Geschichte und Entwicklung der Farbenfabriken vorm Friedr Bayer & Co, Elberfield, in den ersten 50 Jahren. Munich: Meisenbach-Riffrath; 1918. Pharmaceutisch-wissenschafliche Abteilung; pp. 409–416. [Google Scholar]
8. Zündorf U. Leverkusen: Bayer; 1997. 100 Years of aspirin : the future has just begun; p. 33. [Google Scholar]
9. Eichengrün A. 50 Jahre Aspirin. Pharmazie. 1949;4:582–584. [Google Scholar]
10. Bayer-Archiv. 271/2.1 Personal data on Eichengrün. Dr A. Eichengrün, Aspirin, KZ Theresienstadt. 1944:2.
11. Witthauer K. Aspirin, eine neues Salicylpräparat. Die Heilkunde. 1899;3:396. [Google Scholar]
12. Fischer F. Geschichte und Entwicklung der Farbenfabriken vorm Friedr Bayer & Co, Elberfield, in den ersten 50 Jahren. Munich: Meisenbach-Riffrath; 1918. Die Pharmazeutischen Betriebe; pp. 427–436. [Google Scholar]
13. Stadlinger H. Gedenktage. Dr Ing eh, dr phil Arthur Eichengrün 80 Jahre. Pharmazie. 1947;2:383–384. [Google Scholar]
14. Escales E. A Eichengrün 80 Jahre. Kunstoffe. 1947;37:180. [Google Scholar]
15. Bodenbender HG. A Eichengrün zum 80 Geburtstag. Angewandte Chemie. 1948;60:111–112. [Google Scholar] 2603:8000:D000:5DAB:865:1B9E:EFFF:E37F (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)