3.5 stars
This book is the second book I have read in the last month or so whose content substantially diverged from my expectations. It's not a bad book; rather, I would say it is a good book whose content simply didn't interest me all that much.
In short, I was expecting this book to be a behinds-the-scenes look at the historical development of chemistry (with appropriate attention given to the biographies of key players) - and, to be fair, there was some of that. But the focus of this book is rivalry, i.e. the annoying, petty disputes that often characterize academic life. I think the intention was to show how, even in science, social politics can dictate who (or which theory) wins or loses - a point worth making, to be sure. Still, I'm reluctant to adopt the frame of mind that science is, essentially, no less fallible than law or politics: there are big egos in science, but even the author concedes the scientific establishment is perfectly willing to trash popular or orthodox theories if a novel theory is better supported by evidence.
Some reviewers were turned off by its "dense" scientific content - quotation marks because, well, the scientific content was pretty flimsy, at worst. (Suffice it to say it helps to have a basic working knowledge of chemistry, but nothing beyond high school.) I felt the qualitative descriptions of various discoveries were unnecessary - nor did they illuminate why these discoveries were important. Simple equations might have been better; then again, as a reader, I was looking for more science, whereas others may be reading it for history only.