How can re-creating chemical processes help us to work with non-specialist audiences? My academic research focuses on nineteenth-century projects to make chemical analysis and synthesis credible among industrial producers: an apparently dry subject, and one which bemuses many regular attendees of public events on science, who tend to see these approaches as self-evidently sound and useful. Fortunately, my chosen case study offers a beautifully clear opening question: “Who likes beer with chemicals in it?” Even those who rush to defend chemical manipulation can immediately see the potential reputational problem; I go on to explain that fears of an unnatural, degraded, or poisonous product have persisted in various forms since the mid-eighteenth century, and discuss some of the strategies used to overcome them.

To emphasise the point, I have developed a somewhat artificial re-creation of how a nineteenth-century brewer might compensate for a weakened product, showing the action of artificial colouring, flavouring, and foaming agents. Since most of my public presentations take place in pub venues, I naturally encourage the audience to apply the same (non-toxic) additives to their own glasses, providing a literally visceral sense of what is at stake. The fact that only a hardy minority ever take me up on the offer of “beer-doctoring” by means of caramel, vinegar, or extract of grains of paradise is, in itself, a useful source of comment.

My presentation will include a brief run-through of the demo as typically performed, before raising some wider questions: is the extensive and acknowledged compromise of historical authenticity (to avoid toxic materials, but also for convenience) justified? Is this serious replication, or mere showmanship? And, if the approach is useful, how could it be extended to other cases and other historical message?