1 Lara Marks employed the term ‘sexual chemistry’ to describe the development of the contraceptive pill. Lara Marks, Sexual Chemistry: A History of the Contraceptive Pill, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001.

2 Riddle, John, ‘Oral contraceptives and early-term abortifacients during classical antiquity and the Middle Ages’, Past and Present (1991), 132, pp. 3–32CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; idem, Eve's Herbs: A History of Contraception and Abortion in the West, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997; Angus McLaren, History of Contraception: From Antiquity to the Present Day, Oxford: Blackwell, 1990; Londa Schiebinger, Plants and Empire: Colonial Bioprospecting in the Atlantic World, Cambridge, MA, 2004, pp. 105–149.

3 Angus McLaren, Birth Control in Nineteenth-Century England, London: Croom Helm, 1978. James Woycke, Birth Control in Germany 1871–1933, London: Croom Helm, 1988.

4 Borell, Merriley, ‘Biologists and the promotion of birth control research, 1918–1938’, Journal of the History of Biology (1987), 20, pp. 51–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Adele Clarke, ‘Emergence of reproductive research enterprise: a sociology of biological, medical and agricultural science in the United States, 1910–1940’, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, San Francisco, 1985; idem, Disciplining Reproduction: Modernity, American Life Sciences, and ‘The Problems of Sex’, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998; Soloway, Richard, ‘“The perfect contraceptive”: eugenics and birth control research in Britain and America in the interwar years’, Journal of Contemporary History (1995), 30, pp. 637–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Richard Soloway, Demography and Degeneration: Eugenics and the Declining Birthrate in Twentieth-Century Britain, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995.

5 On the contraceptive market in Germany see Woycke, op. cit. (3); Cornelia Usborne, The Politics of the Body in Weimar Germany: Women's Reproductive Rights and Duties, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1992; Anita Grossmann, Reforming Sex: The German Movement for Birth Control and Abortion Reform, 1920–1950, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. For the United States see Janet Farell Brodie, Contraception and Abortion in Nineteenth-Century America, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994; Tone, Andrea, ‘Contraceptive consumers: gender and the political economy of birth control in the 1930s’, Journal of Social History (1996), 26, pp. 485–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, Devices and Desires: A History of Contraceptives in America, New York: Hill and Wang, 2001. The view of historians on the frequency of use of commercially produced contraceptives in the 1920s and 1930s vary greatly. Thus Andrea Tone claims that probably the majority of (US) couples purchase contraceptives, while Hera Cooks maintains that only a small segment of the (UK) population employed contraceptive products and devices. Hera Cook, The Long Sexual Revolution: English Women, Sex, and Contraception, 1800–1975, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Such variability may reflect the difficulty of assessing the use of these products, but also national differences.

6 Woycke, op. cit. (3), Tone, ‘Contraceptive consumers’, op. cit. (5), idem, Devices and Desires, op. cit. (5).

7 Allan Brandt, No Magic Bullet: A Social History of Venereal Disease in the United States Since 1880, New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.

8 Soloway, Demography and Degeneration, op. cit. (4); Tone, Devices and Desires, op. cit. (5). However, chemical spermicides never achieved the level of legitimacy of condoms as devices that protect from sexually transmitted diseases.

9 Brodie, Contraception and Abortion, op. cit. (5); Woycke, op. cit. (3), pp. 43–44. Brodie explains that substances promoted as contraceptives were sold in the United States from the 1850s on, perhaps even earlier, but it is not clear if these substances were believed to be abortion-inducing or spermicides.

10 Stone, Hannah, ‘Contraceptive jellies’, Journal of Contraception (1936), 1, pp. 201–213Google ScholarPubMed.

11 Linda Gordon, Women's Body, Women's Right: Birth Control in America, New York: Penguin Books, 1975; idem, ‘The politics of birth control, 1920–1940: the impact of professionals’, in Elisabeth Fee (ed.), Women and Health: The Politics of Sex in Medicine, Farmingdale: Baywood, 1982, pp. 151–175; Jensen, Joan, ‘The evolution of Margaret Sanger's “Family Limitation” pamphlet, 1914–1921’, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society (1981), 6, pp. 545–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On Margaret Sanger's central role in the promotion of birth control in the United States see Ellen Chesler, Woman of Valor: Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control Movement in America, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992.

12 For advocacy of the ‘female barrier plus chemical contraceptive’ method see, for example, Margaret Sanger, Happiness in Marriage, New York: Bretanos, 1926; Marie Carmichael Stopes, Contraception (Birth Control): Its Theory, History and Practice. A Manual for the Medical and Legal Professions, London: J. Bale, 1927; Ettie Annie Hornibrook, Practical Birth Control, London: William Heineman, 1931; Norman Haire, Birth Control Methods, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1936. The two barrier methods were not identical. Whereas the diaphragm (favoured by Sanger) was always fitted by a doctor, a cervical cap (favoured by Stopes) could be freely purchased in a pharmacy.

13 Soloway, Demography and Degeneration, op. cit. (4); James Reed, From Private Vice to Public Virtue: The Birth Control Movement and American Society, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978. Birth control experts seldom openly promoted condoms in spite of their efficacy, a reluctance that may be linked to the condom's association with immoral sex and activists' preference for contraceptive methods controlled by women.

14 Gladys Cox, Clinical Contraception, London: William Heineman, 1937, pp. 126–128.

15 Gordon, Women's Body, Women's Right, op. cit. (11), pp. 269–286; idem, ‘The politics of birth control’, op. cit. (11), pp. 163–171; Soloway, ‘The perfect contraceptive’, op. cit. (4); Soloway, Demography and Degeneration, op. cit. (4).

16 The zoologist John Baker explained that since soap is a known spermicide, the paucity of its use favours high fertility. Baker, First Report to Birth Control Investigation Committee (BCIC), Wellcome Library, London, Archives and Manuscripts Collection (hereafter Wellcome), Family Planning Association (FPA) papers, records of Birth Control Investigation Committee, SA/FPA/A14/1. The geneticist Francis Crew proposed a different explanation of the relation between dirt and high fertility: women who seldom wash themselves have a rich vaginal flora, and, as a consequence, low pH of vaginal secretions, which facilitates fertilization. Crew to Mrs Huse, from Bureau of Social Hygiene, 31 October 1931, Countway Medicine Harvard Depository Rare Books, H MS c78, National Committee on Maternal Health, records 1923–1959 (subsequently Countway, NCMH Papers), box 17, folder 569.

17 Quoted by Soloway, ‘The perfect contraceptive’, op. cit. (4), p. 641.

18 Robert Latou Dickinson, draft of a text, ‘Are present methods satisfactory?’, of 12 January 1934, Countway, NCMH Papers, box 6, folder 231. On history of NCMH see Gordon, Women's Body, Women's Right, op. cit. (11); Reed, op. cit. (13), Borell, op. cit. (4), Clarke, Disciplining Reproduction, op. cit. (4).

19 In the interwar era, the only contraceptive method dissociated from the sexual act was the intrauterine ring. This device was invented in the late nineteenth century, but considered unsafe by the majority of experts until the 1960s. See Vern Bullough (ed.), Encyclopedia of Birth Control, Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2001, pp. 149–153.

20 Dickinson, Robert Latou, ‘Contraception: medical review of the situation’, Transactions of the American Gynecological Society (1924), 49, pp. 95–117Google Scholar, p. 115. The NCMH was founded by Dickinson mainly to persuade the medical establishment that the promotion of contraception is an important task of a doctor. The NCMH was affiliated with the American Birth Control League (ABCL).

21 According to Woycke, German scientists investigated the spermicidic activity of commercial contraceptives in the early 1920s. Woycke, op. cit. (3), pp. 44–45.

22 On US–UK differences in studies of reproduction see Borrel, op. cit. (4); Clarke, Disciplining Reproduction, op. cit. (4); Soloway, ‘The perfect contraceptive’, op. cit. (4).

23 Crew to Mrs Huse, from Bureau of Social Hygiene, 31 October 1931, Countway, NCMH's papers, box 17, folder 569.

24 Bryant to Dickinson, 18 March 1933, Countway, NCMH papers, box 17, folder 575.

25 Bryant was able to persuade Clarence Gamble to provide $3,000 for Voge's studies. L.S. Bryant, Memorandum to the Executive Committee of NCMH on Contraceptive Standards Program, 12 July 1934, Countway, NCMH papers, box 6, folder 228. Later, Voge became an ‘industrial chemist and development consultant’ (the heading on his letters); he remained interested in contraceptive products. Voge to Gamble, 20 June 1949, Countway Medicine Harvard Depository Rare Books, H MS c23, Papers of Clarence J. Gamble, 1920–1966 (subsequently Countway, Gamble's Papers) box 204, folder 3211.

26 Baker, best known (most infamous for some) for his studies of differences between human races, summed up his views on the subject in his controversial 1974 book Race. On Baker's career see Wilmer, E.N. and Brunet, P.C.J., ‘John Randal Baker, 1900–1984’, Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society (1985), 31, pp. 33–63Google Scholar; Kenny, Michael, ‘Racial science in social context: John R. Baker on eugenics, race and the public role of the scientist’, Isis (2004), 95, pp. 394–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Wellcome, Minutes BCIC meeting of 25 October 1928, 2SA/FPA/A13/4, box 333. On the history of the BCIC see Soloway, ‘The perfect contraceptive’, op. cit. (4); and on the role of progressive biologists in the British eugenic movement see Diane Paul, Controlling Human Heredity, 1885 to Present, Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press, 1995.

28 Bryant's report on Voge's work from 21 April 1929, Countway, NCMH papers, box 17, folder 569. Bryant to Spring Rice, 7 October 1930; Bryant to Spring Rice, 24 February 1931, Wellcome, Margery Spring Rice papers, SR/10/1–6. Baker claimed priority on testing spermicides in the test tube, while Voge hinted that the two tests were developed independently. Cecil Voge, The Chemistry and Physics of Contraceptives, London: Cape, 1933, p. 21–22; John R. Baker, The Chemical Control of Conception, London: Chapman & Hall, 1935, p. 7–8. In 1949, Voge argued that both tests were imperfect. Baker's test was probably too complicated, while his own was perhaps too simple. Voge to Gamble, 5 July 1949, Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 204, folder 3211.

29 Memorandum of Bureau of Social Hygiene (Rockefeller Foundation), about its relationships with the National Birth Control Association (NBCA), London, undated, Wellcome, Rockefeller Collection, GC/88/1; Borell, op. cit. (4); Soloway, ‘The perfect contraceptive’, op. cit. (4).

30 Voge, op. cit. (28), p. 28.

31 Voge's intervention in ‘Discussion on chemistry and physics of contraceptives’, in Margaret Sanger (ed.), Biological and Medical Aspects of Contraception, Washington, DC: The National Committee on Federal Legistation for Birth Control, 1934, pp. 119–130, p. 119.

32 Voge, op. cit. (28), pp. 22–24.

33 Voge to Bryant, 12 June 1930, Countway, NCMH papers, folder 570.

34 Voge, ‘Discussion on chemistry and physics of contraceptives’, in Sanger, op. cit. (31), p. 122.

35 Baker, John R., ‘The spermicidal powers of chemical contraceptives: I. Introduction and experiments on guinea pig sperms’, Journal of Hygiene (1930), 29, pp. 323–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Baker acknowledged nevertheless that a combination of two relatively inefficient substances such as quinine and urea could provide a better protection than each substance alone. Baker, John R., ‘The spermicidal power of chemical contraceptives: II. Pure substances’, Journal of Hygiene (1931), 31, pp. 189–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 Baker, op. cit. (36).

38 John R. Baker, First Report for the Birth Control Investigation Committe, Wellcome, SR/A14/1. Idem, ‘The production of vaginal epithelium suitable for the testing of chemical contraceptives in the laboratory for harmful effects’, Journal of Contraception (1938) 2, pp. 105–106Google Scholar.

39 Baker, First Report for the Birth Control Investigation Committe, op. cit. (38).

40 Baker, op. cit. (28).

41 Wellcome, Memorandum, BCIC activities, 1930, SA/FPA/A13/5/(7), box 333.

42 Memorandum of BCIC's activity for the years 1993–1934, Wellcome, SA/FPA/A13/5/(13), box 333.

43 BCIC, report of a meeting of 26 January 1933, Wellcome, SA/FPA/A13/4, box 333, Birth Control Investigation Committee (BCIC), minutes 1927–1939.

44 Memorandum of the BCIC's activity for the years 1933–1934, Wellcome, SA/FPA/A13/5/(13), box 333.

45 Minutes of the BCIC's meeting of 10 October 1933, Wellcome, SA/FPA/A13/4, box 333.

46 Minutes of the BCIC's meeting of 17 October 1935, Wellcome, SA/FPA/A13/4, box 333.

47 Minutes of a meeting of 20 December 1935, between representatives of BCIC, NBCA, and British Drug Houses, Wellcome, SA/FPA/A13/4, box 333.

48 Volpar was put on the market in 1937, and some members of the BCIC then wished to endorse this product in a letter addressed to medical journals. Minutes of BCIC meeting of 4 May 1938, Wellcome, SA/FPA/A13/4, box 333.

49 Baker, John R., Ranson, R.M. and Tynen, J., ‘The spermicidal power of chemical contraceptives: VII. Approved tests’, Journal of Hygiene (1937), 37, pp. 474–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 Baker, John R., ‘A new chemical contraceptive’, The Lancet, 15 October 1938, ii, pp. 883–885, p. 883Google Scholar.

51 Baker, John R., Ranson, R.M. and Tynen, J., ‘The chemical composition of the Volpar contraceptive products: Part 1. Phenyl mercuric acetate as a spermicide’, Eugenic Review (1938), 29, pp. 261–268Google Scholar; Baker, John R., Ranson, R.M. and Tynen, J., ‘The chemical composition of the Volpar contraceptive products: Part 2. Vehicles for phenyl mercuric acetate’, Eugenic Review (1939–40) 30, pp. 23–31Google Scholar.

52 Baker, Ranson and Tynen, op. cit. (51); Editorial, ‘A new contraceptive’, Journal of Contraception (1938) 3, pp. 204–205Google Scholar.

53 In the first discussion on clinical trials of Volpar, British Drug Houses representatives insisted above all on testing its innocuity and its acceptability for users. Minutes of a meeting of 20 December 1935, between representatives of BCIC, NBCA, and British Drug Houses, Wellcome, SA/FPA/A13/4, box 333. Before the 1960s (in the USA) and 1970s–1980s (in Europe), drug producers were not obliged to prove the efficacy of their preparations in controlled clinical trials to obtain a marketing permit. Peter Temin, Taking Your Medicine: History of Drug Regulation in the United States, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980; John Abraham, Science, Politics, and the Pharmaceutical Industry: Controversy and Bias in Drug Regulation, New York: St Martin's Press, 1995; Arthur Daemmrich, Pharmacopolitics: Drug Regulation in the US and Germany, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004.

54 In parallel, British Drug Houses discussed a possible licence agreement with two US companies: Sharp and Dome, and Eli Lilli. Raymond Squier to Packard, 2 March 1938; Squier to Blacker, 11 March 1938; Blacker to Squier, 2 November 1938; R.R. Bennett, from British Drug Houses to Blacker, 1 November 1938; Blacker to Squier, 29 August 1938, Blacker to Squier, 2 November 1938. Copies of documents from the Rockefeller family archives, relative to the relations between the National Committee on Maternal Health and the BCIC, and the funding of Baker's work, Wellcome, CG/88/1.

55 Squier to Arthur W. Packard from the Rockefeller Foundation, 13 December 1937, Wellcome, CG/88/1.

56 Baker received $1,000 to study the stability of chemical contraceptives in hot climates. Squier to Packard, 2 March 1938, Wellcome, CG/88/1. On Baker's travels to the tropics see Wilmer and Brunet, op. cit. (26).

57 Memorandum NCMH, 3 March 1938, Wellcome, CG/88/1.

58 On Gamble's biography see Doone Williams, Every Child a Wanted Child: Clarence James Gamble, M.D. and His Work in the Birth Control Movement, Cambride MA: Harvard University Press, 1978; Reed, op. cit. (13).

59 On the attitude of US doctors towards contraception see Gordon, Women's Body, Women's Right, op. cit. (11), pp. 245–296; idem, ‘The politics of birth control’, op. cit. (11), pp. 151–175.

60 Gamble's correspondance with Royal Brown on the calibration of their spermicidal test, Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 200, folder 3164. Brown worked at Washington University, St Louis. His studies of spermicides were funded by Gamble.

61 Brown, Royal and Gamble, Clarence, ‘A method of testing of the relative spermicidal effectiveness of contraceptives and its application to commercial products’, Human Fertility (1940), 5, pp. 97–108Google ScholarPubMed.

62 Note, ‘Human sperm donors’, Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 119, folder 3153.

63 Brown and Gamble, op. cit. (61), p. 105.

64 Brown, Royal and Gamble, Clarence, ‘The comparative spermicidal powers of fifteen commercial contraceptives’, Human Fertility (1941), 6, pp. 1–7Google Scholar.

65 Shedlovsky, Leo, Belcher, Donald and Bodner, Harry, ‘The consistency of some commercial contraceptive jellies’, Human Fertility (1941), 6, pp. 65–78Google Scholar. Shedlovsky worked at the department of chemistry at Washington Square College (affiliated with NYU).

66 For example: Brown, Royal, ‘Changes in the consistency of contraceptive preparations during storage’, Human Fertility (1943), 7, pp. 161–163Google Scholar; Brown, Royal, Levenstein, Irving and Becker, Bernard, ‘The spermicidal times of samples of commercial contraceptives secured in 1942’, Human Fertility (1943), 7, pp. 65–67Google Scholar; Brown, Royal and Gamble, Clarence, ‘Studies of spermicidal times of contraceptive materials’, Human Fertility (1943), 8, pp. 9–17Google Scholar; Becker, Bernard and Gamble, Clarence, ‘The spermicidal times of commercial contraceptives secured in 1943’, Human Fertility (1944), 9, pp. 6–11Google Scholar; Becker, Bernard and Gamble, Clarence, ‘The spermicidal times of contraceptive jellies and creams, 1946’, Human Fertility (1946), 11, pp. 111–115Google Scholar.

67 Gamble, Clarence and Hamblin, Lois, ‘The spermicidal times of contraceptive jellies and creams, 1949’, Journal of the American Medical Association (1952), 148, pp. 50–54Google Scholar.

68 Dickinson to Dr John F. Anderson, director of research laboratory of E. Squibb & Sons, 9 July 1923, Countway Medicine Harvard Depository Rare Books B MS c72, Robert Latou Dickinson, Papers 1881–1950 (subsequently Countway, Dickinson's papers), box 2, folder 55.

69 Gamble to Cautley, 24 January 1937; Gamble to Cautley, 2 February 1937, Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 119, folder 3151.

70 Gamble, memorandum on ‘Manufacture of contraceptive jellies’, 21 May 1937, Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 119, folder 3151.

71 Cautley to Gamble, 30 September 1937, Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 119, folder 3151. The main obstacle for this commercial venture was its high overhead costs.

72 Gamble conducted voluminous correspondence with producers of contraceptives. See, for example, Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 119, folder 3158. The full disclosure of a chemical composition was seen as one of the main differences between ‘ethical drugs’ and other preparations.

73 James Reed, ‘Doctors, birth control and social values 1830–1970’, in Morris Vogel and Charles Rosenberg (eds.), The Therapeutic Revolution, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1979, pp. 109–133.

74 Ray, Joyce and Gosling, F.G., ‘American physicians and birth control, 1936–1947’, Journal of Social History (1985), 18, pp. 399–411CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. The Advisory Committee on Contraception was dismantled in 1957, following the reorganization of AMA's councils, but also because it was felt that its activity had been superseded by larger use of individual consultants. Harold Kautz (president of AMA's Council on Drugs) to Gamble, 11 December 1957, Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 209, folder 3269.

75 Leaflet of the Consumers Union of the USA, ‘Analysis of contraceptives, 1937’, Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 119, folder 3154. The main reasons for the classification of a product as ‘unacceptable’ were the manufacturer's refusal to disclose its formula, suspicion of toxicity, lack of uniformity of batches and short shelf life.

76 Britt, Lewis C., ‘Laboratory studies of commercial prophylactics and contraceptives’, Journal of Contraception (1937), 1, pp. 197–200Google Scholar. I did not find other publications on attempts to regulate chemical contraceptives at the state level.

77 Sander, F.V. and Cramer, Sanford, ‘A practical method for testing the spermicidal action of contraceptives’, Human Fertility (1941), 6, pp. 134–137Google Scholar, p. 134.

78 Gamble, Clarence, ‘An improved test of spermicidal activities without dilution or mixing’, Journal of the American Medical Association (1952), 11, pp. 1037–1041Google Scholar.

79 Nathan Millman and Abraham Stone systematically compared several methods of testing spermicidal activity in the test tube: Voge's, Baker's, Brown and Gamble's (both dilution and diffusion), Sander and Cramer's, and Shedlovsky's and Tyne's. Millman, Nathan, ‘A critical study of methods used to measure spermicidal actions’, Annals of the New York Academy of Science (1951–1952) 54, pp. 806–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Abraham Stone, ‘Spermicides’, undated, probably 1950s, Countway Medicine Harvard Depository Rare Books, H MS c157, Abraham Stone, Personal and Professional Papers 1916–1959 (subsequently Countway, Abraham Stone's Papers), box 3, folder 16.

80 Dr Sophia Kleegman to Gamble, 26 January 1941, Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 200, folder 3175. The proposal to employ a post-coital test for routine testing of spermicides was reiterated in the 1950s. Abraham Stone, MS, ‘Clinical tests of chemical contraceptives’, undated, 1950s, Countway, Abraham Stone's Papers, box 3, folder 16; Cohen, Melvin and Kaye, Bernard, ‘The post-coital test and a method of evaluating a contraceptive jelly’, Journal of the American Medical Association (1953), 152, pp. 1042–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

81 The post-coital test is usually conducted in the framework of investigation of infertility. Women who wish to become pregnant are often highly motivated and are willing to undergo inconvenient tests.

82 John Swann, ‘Sure cure: public policy on drug efficacy before 1962’, in Gregory Higby and Elaine Stroud (eds.), The Inside Story of Medicines: A Symposium, Madison: American Institute of the History of Pharmacy, 1997, pp. 223–261. Swann enumerates multiple occasions in which the FDA seized batches of drugs, or fined their producers. The reasons were, however, mostly manufacturers' defects or lack of conformity with the announced formula. Only in a handful of cases were such actions motivated by a presumed absence of clinical efficacy of the offending pharmaceutical preparation.

83 Tone, ‘Contraceptive consumers’, op. cit. (5); idem, Devices and Desires, op. cit. (5), pp. 196–200.

84 Holz, Rose, ‘Nurse Gordon on trial: those early days of the birth control clinics reconsidered’, Journal of Social History (2005), 39, pp. 112–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In practice, the majority of birth control clinics did not ask their clients to prove that they were married.

85 Rosemarie Petra Holz, ‘The birth control clinics in America: life within, life without, 1923–1972’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, 2002, pp. 77–125. According to Holz, Lanteen clinics also accepted a few charity patients, again, usually without discriminating against unmarried women.

86 Holz, op. cit. (85), pp. 110–111. Lanteen failed, however, to secure a patent for this invention, mainly because a diaphragm sold without a medical control was perceived as an amoral device.

87 The libel was filed on 20 June 1947, in the Northern District of California. Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, Notices of Judgement, 1948, p. 89, notice 2362. This was not the first time the FDA had charged Lanteen with misbranding, but previous accusations did not explicitly claim that the product was not efficient. Thus on 14 November 1939, the FDA filed a libel against sixty-six packages of Refill Lanteen Jelly in Baltimore, ‘charging that it was misbranded in that its container was so made, formed or filled to be misleading’. The product was ordered destroyed on 6 December 1939. Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, Notices of Judgement, 1940, p. 51, notice 111.

88 Until 1944, Lanteen Blue jelly was always on the bottom of the list of performance of spermicides and it was listed in 1937 by the Consumer Union of the USA among ‘non satisfactory contraceptive preparations’. Countway, Gamble's Papers, Box 119, Folder 3154. By contrast, it was listed among the ‘rapid spermicides’ in 1946. Becker and Gamble, ‘The spermicidal times of contraceptive jellies and creams’, op. cit. (66), p. 114. This seems to be a permanent improvement. Tests made in 1949 again classified Lanteen Blue among the ‘fast substances’ (spermicidal efficacy of less than five minutes). Gamble and Hamblin, op. cit. (67), p. 52.

89 Gamble to Royal Brown, 25 June 1946, Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 202, folder 3194.

90 C.C. Fowler, The Fowler Laboratories, Chicago, to Lanteen Medical Laboratories, 15 June 1946, Countway, Gamble's papers, Box 202, folder 3197.

91 Fowler to Gamble, 7 December 1946, Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 202, folder 3194.

92 Gamble to Brown, 20 December 1946, Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 202, folder 3194.

93 Brown to Gamble, 6 January 1947, Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 202, folder 3203.

94 Gamble to Brown, 13 January 1947, Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 202, folder 3203.

95 Gamble, ‘Spermicidal times and the law’, MS, Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 202, folder 3203.

96 Gamble to Fowler, 1 January 1947, Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 202, folder 3203. A copy of Gamble's first draft of his article is joined to this letter.

97 Fowler to Gamble, 18 January 1947, Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 202, folder 3203.

98 Brown to Gamble, 22 January 1947, Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 202, folder 3203.

99 Robert Latou Dickinson to Gamble, 3 February 1947, Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 202, folder 3203.

100 Fowler to Gamble, 12 April 1947, Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 203, folder 3204. The FDA modified its charge against Lanteen on 1 April 1947. On 23 April 1948, Lanteen was condemned in violation of Section 502(f), ‘in that statements and designs in the booklet represent and suggest that the directions contained in the booklet were adequate and sufficient for the use of the product in preventing conception, whereas the directions for use were not adequate and sufficient for such a purpose’, and the relabeling of the product was ordered. Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, Notices of Judgement, 1948, p. 89, notice 2362. The FDA continued to be concerned by tests of spermicidal activity of chemical contraceptives. In 1947, Lanteen Laboratories asked Gamble's collaborator, Bernard Becker, to design a spermicidal test for them in order to present the results to the FDA. Gamble to Becker, 7 January 1947, Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 203, folder 3205.

101 In 1957, Gamble stated that his laboratory testing was having an effect on manufacturers. Lanteen producers redesigned their jelly according to his specifications, and the new jelly was near the top of the list of spermicides. Gamble (probably to his children), 21 March 1957, Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 209, folder 3269.

102 Gamble, op. cit. (95); Brown and Gamble, op. cit. (61), p. 107.

103 Brown and Gamble, op. cit. (64), p. 1.

104 Brown, Levenstein and Becker, op. cit. (66), p. 67.

105 Brown and Gamble's test remained a standard measure of the acceptability of chemical contraceptives. Well into the mid-1950s, a good spermicidal time on the Gamble–Brown test was seen as one of the main criteria for evaluation of contraceptive products. ‘New and non-official remedies, 1955’, Countway, Abraham Stone's Papers, box 8, folder 25, pp. 34–35.

106 Eastman and Scott did not provide details on their experimental subjects, but one can extrapolate from the description of plans of another experiment (see below) that these women were unconscious, and perhaps dying. Experiments conducted on such patients are not only problematic from an ethical point of view, but also from a scientific point of view. Observations made on very sick patients are not necessarily valid for healthy people.

107 Eastman, Nicholson and Scott, A.B., ‘Phenylmercuric acetate as a contraceptive’, Human Fertility (1944), 9, pp. 33–42Google Scholar.

108 Laug, Edwin and Kunze, Frieda, ‘The absorption of phenylmercuric acetate from the vaginal tract of the rat’, Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (1949), 95, pp. 460–464Google ScholarPubMed.

109 Kautz to Gamble, 12 July 1949; Gamble to Eaton Laboratories 14 July 1949; Gamble to Advisory Committee on Contraception (of AMA) 19 July 1949, Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 205, folder 3214.

110 Kautz to to Gamble, 19 March 1952; Gamble to Kautz, 2 April 52, Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 205, folder 3226.

111 Kautz to to Gamble, 20 April 1952; Kautz to Gamble, 22 April 1952, Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 205, folder 3226.

112 Eastman to Kautz, 14 April 1952. Kautz joined the copy of this letter to his letter to Gamble of 22 April 1952. Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 205, folder 3226.

113 Gamble to Advisory Committee on Contraceptives, 7 May 1952, Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 205, folder 3226.

114 Gamble to Kautz, 16 May 52, Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 205, folder 3227.

115 Dr Stormont from Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry to Gamble, 31 July 1952; copies of the Council's letters to Eaton and Whittaker laboratories about an advertisement of Whittaker's product as mercury-free, both from 31 July 1952, Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 205, folder 3226.

116 Kautz to Holland Rantos company, 15 May 1953, Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 205, folder 3235.

117 Millman, op. cit. (79), p. 824.

118 Himes, Norman, ‘A decade of progress in birth control’, Annals of the Academy of Political and Social Science (1949), 212, pp. 88–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

119 For example, the statistician Enid Charles (wife of the biologist Lancelot Hogben) studied the use of contraceptives by nine hundred women who attended Birmingham birth control clinics, and concluded that the condom alone was efficient in 82 per cent of cases; the condom with spermicide up to 98 per cent; coitus interruptus, 66 per cent; rubber cap, 79 per cent; and quinine suppositories and sponge, 84 per cent. Enid Charles, The Practice of Birth Control, London: Williams and Norgate, 1932.

120 Dickinson, Robert Latou, ‘Contraception: a medical review of the situation’, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (1924), 8, pp. 583–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Marie Stopes, The First Five Thousands, Being the Report of the First Birth Control Clinics in the British Empire, London: J. Bale, Sons & Danielson, Ltd, 1925; Himes, Norman and Himes, Vera, ‘Birth control for the British working classes: a study of the first thousand cases to visit birth control clinics’, Hospital Social Services (1929), 19, pp. 578–617Google Scholar; Charles, op. cit. (119).

121 Wessels, Marie, ‘Jelly versus cream: a study of clinic patients’ preferences', Human Fertility (1940) 5, pp. 170–171Google Scholar; Anker, Harry, ‘The choice of supplies in contraception’, Human Fertility (1943), 7, pp. 11–13Google Scholar.

122 Gamble to Ella Roberts, 12 April 1936; Gamble to Norman Miller, University of Michigan, 9 October 1936, Countway, Gamble's Papers, box 119, folder 3147; Stone, op. cit. (10).

123 H.M. Carleton and Howard Florey, report to BCIC, 1930, Wellcome, SA/FPA/A13/5 (4), box 333. Carlos P. Blacker, Memorandum, BCIC activity 1931,Wellcome, SA/FPA/A13/5 (9), box 333. Carleton, H.M. and Florey, Howard, ‘Birth controls studes I. On the ingress of semen into uterus during coitus’, Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the British Empire (1931), 38, pp. 550–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

124 Wellcome, SA/FPA/A13/5(8), box 333.

125 Project of radiological investigation of the fate of semen after intercourse, undated, probably 1932, Wellcome, SA SA/FPA/A13/5/13/5(11), box 333. The radiological studies were scheduled to be done by Dr H.M. Worth, a radiologist at Guy's Hospital. The BCIC document added that the experiment was not dangerous: barium is a chemically inert substance, while many substances employed as contraceptives were not.

126 Undated and unsigned typed MS, in Papers for the North Kensington Birth Control Clinics, 1936–1937, Wellcome, SA/FPA/A22/1A, box 422. I did not find any indication as to whether this research was implemented.

127 Baker, op. cit. (50), p. 884.

128 For example, only nineteen of 151 women enrolled in Stone's study of contraceptive jellies used the prescribed preparation for at least a year. Stone, Hannah, ‘Clinical experience with foam powder method’, Journal of Contraception (1938), 3, pp. 3–6Google Scholar.

129 Pearl, Raymond, ‘Conception and fertility in 2000 women’, Human Biology (1932), 4, pp. 363–366Google Scholar. On Pearl's career see Kingsland, Sharon, ‘Raymond Pearl: on the frontier in the 1920s’, Human Biology (1984), 56, pp. 1–18Google Scholar.

130 Stone, op. cit. (128).

131 Garvin, O.D., ‘Jelly alone versus diaphragm and jelly’, Human Fertility (1944), 9, pp. 73–76Google Scholar; Siebels, Robert, ‘The effectiveness of a simple contraceptive method’, Human Fertility (1944), 9, pp. 43–47Google Scholar; Eastman, Nicholson, ‘Further observations on the suppository as contraceptive’, Southern Medical Journal (1949), 42, pp. 346–350CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Eastman, Nicholson and Siebles, Robert, ‘Efficacy of the suppository and of jelly alone as contraceptive agents’, Journal of the American Medical Association (1949), 139, pp. 16–20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

132 de Vilbiss, Lydia, ‘The contraceptive effectiveness of the foam-powder and sponge method’, Journal of Contraception (1938) 3, pp. 7–9Google Scholar and 19, p. 19.

133 Tietze, Christopher and Gamble, Clarence, ‘A field study of contraceptive suppositoires’, Human Fertility (1948), 13, pp. 33–36Google Scholar, quotation on p. 36.

134 Steichen, Mary and Calderone, M.S., ‘The PPFA Medical Committee, 1954–1964’, Journal of Sex Research (1967), 3, pp. 256–267Google Scholar; Marcia Meldrum, ‘Departure from design: the randomized clinical trial in historical context, 1946–1970’, Ph.D. thesis, SUNY, Stony Brook, 1994; idem, ‘“Simple methods” and “determined contraceptors”: the statistical evaluation of fertility control, 1957–1968’, Bulletin of the History of Medicine (1996), 70, pp. 266–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the rise of clinical trials in the post-Second World War era see Harry Marks, The Progress of Experiment: Science and Therapeutic Reform in the United States, 1900–1990, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

135 Calderone to Mrs Fergunson, 26 February 1960, Harvard University, Schlesinger Library, 179, papers of Mary Steichen Calderone, 1904–1983 (subsequently Schlesinger, Calderone's papers), 179/M–125, box 5, folder 69.

136 For example, Calderone's memorandum of 29 September 1959, Schlesinger, Calderone's papers, M–125, box 5, folder 69.

137 Box 5, folders 70–76, and box 6, folders 77–84, CIP, reports from individual testing centres. Schlesinger, Calderone's papers, 179/M–125.

138 Calderone to Dr Goodrich Schauffler, 14 July 1960. Schlesinger, Calderone's papers, 179/M–125, box 9, folder 155; Calderone to Tietze, 29 December 1960, Schlesinger, Calderone's papers, 179/M–125, box 9, folder 192.

139 Interview with Sarah Lewit and Christopher Tietze, Schlesinger Library, Family Planning Oral History Project: M–138, part A.

140 On clinical trials of contraceptives see Elisabeth Siegel Watkins, On the Pill: A Social History of Oral Contraceptives, 1950–1970, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998; Marks, op. cit. (1); Nelly Oudshoorn, The Male Pill: A Biography of a Technology in the Making, Durham: Duke University Press, 2003. On intrauterine devices see Meldrum, ‘Departure from design’, op. cit. (134); Tone, Devices and Desires, op. cit. (5).

141 Barbara Seaman, The Doctors' Case against the Pill, New York: P.H. Wyden, 1969; Boston Women's Health Collective, Our Bodies Ourselves: A Book By and For Women, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1973.

142 Initially, surfactants were also credited with a capacity to protect from sexually transmitted diseases. In 2007, the FDA declared, however, that contraceptive products containing surfactants should carry a warning that the product does not protect against STDs. See http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2007/NEW01758.html, accessed 25 October 2009.

143 Hughes, LaRon, Griffith, R. and Aitken, R.J., ‘The search for topical dual action spermicide/microbicide’, Current Medicinal Chemistry (2007), 14, pp. 775–786CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Gupta, Gaurav, ‘Microbicidal spermicide or spermicidal microbicide’, European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Care (2005), 10, pp. 212–218CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Vieira, Otilia V., Hartmann, Diego O., Cardoso, Carla M.P., Oberdoerfer, Daniel, Baptista, Marta, Santos, Manuel A.S., Almeida, Luis, Ramalho-Santos, João and Vaz, Winchil L.C., ‘Surfactants as microbicides and contraceptive agents: a systematic in vitro study’, PloS One (2008), 3(8CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

144 Pinch, Trevor and Collins, Harry, ‘Private science and public knowledge: the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of the Claims of the Paranormal and its use of the literature’, Social Studies of Science (1984), 14, pp. 521–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hacking, Ian, ‘Telepathy: origins of randomization in experimental design’, Isis (1988), 79, pp. 427–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar.