What is most interesting to me is the "science over nature" line and the statement, "Such computationally-designed scents are, after all, safer, allergen-friendly formulations compliant with evolving regulations."
That statement goes against what we have seen for 60-80 years of industrial chemistry, producing chemicals that were deemed safe and "tested" without any real way of having had the lived experience with them to truly know that they are safe.
Part of the problem of modern society, of cities of all eras and epochs, is the abstraction from nature, the moving away from nature. The ego and the mind perceive this move as superior.
But, it seems to me that is a move away from what really are, who really are.
And, that's not a statement against, the digitization of smell or any of the work being done here to understand how smell works, how it shapes us, and how it moves us. All of it could be done in the context of placing us more in touch with nature, making us more connected to the natural world around us and not less. What smells in the world already around us can produce connection or peace or calm or love or alignment or joy? Enhacning our connection to the world in this woudl be truly amazing.
Really great point, Steve. FWIW I agree with you that the digital scents we create should ideally use combinations of molecules which have been tested and shown to be safe, rather than explicitly rely on synthetic molecules with "new" scents. A big win for chemistry in fragrances is, as you've said, the notion that we don't need to collect certain molecules from living animals or plants anymore.
Thank you for pointing this out, Steve - truly! I tried very much to make it evident in this piece that it is not the case of 'man vs nature', and I also felt a bit uncomfortable with the line you've quoted after the final copy-edits. I agree that this came off a bit blunt and that if anything, the endeavor to digitize smell is one that will hopefully encourage us cute-lil-humans to hold more humility and reverence for the wonderful creative potential of the chemical world that nature has provided - and the possible worlds that creativity and technology might unlock! Nature as teacher, always.
I really enjoyed this article, thanks for publishing it. We are just beginning to engineer devices which leverage this ubiquitous sense, although I think one could argue that antibody and small molecule pharmaceutical development are a kind of original smell-technology.
What fascinates me isn’t just the tech, it’s the interface problem. We’ve trained machines to see and hear because we found clean abstractions. Smell feels different, more subjective, more entangled with memory and culture. I’m curious whether we’re mapping chemistry… or mapping perception.
I nominate this article for "Article of the Year 2026" and "Article of the Decade 2020-2029". Such breadth, such depth. My mast cells hate benzene rings and their drunken cousins, phenols. This helps me understand the odours that hurt me badly. Thank you, thank you.
I got a chemist from Mother Murphy's to come visit the high school students at Governor's School years ago. Strawberry has more than two components, but two are enough for most people to recognize. I don't remember which ones.
I found this fascinating.
What is most interesting to me is the "science over nature" line and the statement, "Such computationally-designed scents are, after all, safer, allergen-friendly formulations compliant with evolving regulations."
That statement goes against what we have seen for 60-80 years of industrial chemistry, producing chemicals that were deemed safe and "tested" without any real way of having had the lived experience with them to truly know that they are safe.
Part of the problem of modern society, of cities of all eras and epochs, is the abstraction from nature, the moving away from nature. The ego and the mind perceive this move as superior.
But, it seems to me that is a move away from what really are, who really are.
And, that's not a statement against, the digitization of smell or any of the work being done here to understand how smell works, how it shapes us, and how it moves us. All of it could be done in the context of placing us more in touch with nature, making us more connected to the natural world around us and not less. What smells in the world already around us can produce connection or peace or calm or love or alignment or joy? Enhacning our connection to the world in this woudl be truly amazing.
Really great point, Steve. FWIW I agree with you that the digital scents we create should ideally use combinations of molecules which have been tested and shown to be safe, rather than explicitly rely on synthetic molecules with "new" scents. A big win for chemistry in fragrances is, as you've said, the notion that we don't need to collect certain molecules from living animals or plants anymore.
Thank you for pointing this out, Steve - truly! I tried very much to make it evident in this piece that it is not the case of 'man vs nature', and I also felt a bit uncomfortable with the line you've quoted after the final copy-edits. I agree that this came off a bit blunt and that if anything, the endeavor to digitize smell is one that will hopefully encourage us cute-lil-humans to hold more humility and reverence for the wonderful creative potential of the chemical world that nature has provided - and the possible worlds that creativity and technology might unlock! Nature as teacher, always.
Taylor (author)
I really enjoyed this article, thanks for publishing it. We are just beginning to engineer devices which leverage this ubiquitous sense, although I think one could argue that antibody and small molecule pharmaceutical development are a kind of original smell-technology.
You might find my work here https://loopsandnaughts.substack.com/p/smells-and-cell-signaling and Cyrus Clarke's work on the Anemoia device interesting as well! https://cyrus.website/anemoia-device/
What fascinates me isn’t just the tech, it’s the interface problem. We’ve trained machines to see and hear because we found clean abstractions. Smell feels different, more subjective, more entangled with memory and culture. I’m curious whether we’re mapping chemistry… or mapping perception.
Another wonderfully detailed article! Beautifully written and lucid.
I nominate this article for "Article of the Year 2026" and "Article of the Decade 2020-2029". Such breadth, such depth. My mast cells hate benzene rings and their drunken cousins, phenols. This helps me understand the odours that hurt me badly. Thank you, thank you.
Alan!! Thank YOU. I am so happy you enjoyed the read and that I could help you better relate to the chemicals in your life <3
Taylor (author).
I got a chemist from Mother Murphy's to come visit the high school students at Governor's School years ago. Strawberry has more than two components, but two are enough for most people to recognize. I don't remember which ones.
https://mothermurphys.com/
Fascinating, thank you