Close
today i learned (til)

A Spritz of Sperm Whale

November 14, 2025

When you think of perfume, what kinds of ingredients come to mind? Some people may think about flowery scents like rose, cherry blossom, or jasmine. Others may think of sweet notes vanilla, cinnamon, or honey. For some, the note “ambergris” may come to mind, but what is it? It can be described as a unique, musky scent with hints of the ocean. The original scent is actually derived from the intestines of sperm whales. How in the world would part of an animal’s digestive system end up in a perfume bottle?

History of Ambergris

According to the Smithsonian Museum, ambergris is a waxy substance that can only be found in the bowels of sperm whales, and it can only be collected if the whale regurgitates or defecates it (Brito, Jordão & Pierce, 2016). In other words, the scent comes directly from sperm whale intestines, where food is digested and turned into waste. The idea of the substance coming from intestines can certainly be off-putting. After all, the substance comes from the same place that feces are made in the whale. 

Despite such an unappealing origin, ambergris was actually beloved throughout history. It was used by a multitude of cultures, ranging from Egypt to Europe. Ancient Egyptians burned the substance as incense to ward off evil spirits, Arabic regions used it as medicine, and some people in medieval Europe even consumed it in luxury dishes (Olson, 2024). Evidently, ambergris had many different uses throughout history. It was even described to have a sweet, musky scent with “notes of tobacco, sandalwood, and ocean” that got better with age (Olson, 2024). Thus, it makes sense that the fatty gold somehow found its way into the perfume industry. 

Animal Products in Perfume

At first glance, hearing about animal parts in perfume may sound alarming. However, animal products were commonly used in perfumes before chemists could synthetically recreate those scents. For instance, many common perfumes found in beauty stores will often have “musk” listed as one of the key notes. Musk actually comes from a sac in the musk deer, which is then removed and excreted to make perfume. (Fortneau, 2004). Thus, it was not necessarily a strange practice to implement the secretions of different animals into perfume. In fact, the same ambergris was originally used in Chanel No.5, utilizing the ambrein alcohol found within ambergris to help enhance the other scents within the perfume (Olson, 2024). 

Is it Still Used Today?

If there are any perfumes that contain the scent of ambergris in modern times, chances are the scent is synthetic. This is due to the fact that whale poaching is now illegal in most countries. In fact, it is illegal to even sell the ambergris in certain countries because the sperm whale is considered an endangered species due to the over hunting of the animal in the past (Olson, 2024). In order to emulate the same scent while keeping wildlife safe, chemists have found ways to replicate similar scents to those made with animals synthetically. 

For instance, it was previously discussed that the scent “musk” originally came from the musk deer. However, it would likely cause harm to the population if the deer were to be hunted to satiate the demand of the perfume industry. Thus, chemists can replicate the scent by creating synthetic compounds that are chemically similar to what gives each note its specific scent. For musk, the main component that gives it its scent is called muscone. This was replaced by “musk Baur”, a scent that was discovered by Albert Baur when experimenting with trinitrotoluene (TNT) and “tert-butylhalides” to create new explosives (Fortneau, 2004). Today, chemicals like musk Baur are used much more often because they are much cheaper than hunting the animal themselves.

This way, endangered species can be kept safe from hunting, while people can still enjoy the scents they love – even if they do come from the innermost parts of a whale.

 

References

Brito C, Jordão VL, Pierce GJ. (2016). Ambergris as an overlooked historical marine resource: its biology and role as a global economic commodity. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315415000910 

Fortneau, AD. (2004). Chemistry Perfumes Your Daily Life. Journal of Chemical Education. American Chemical Society. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed081p45 

Olson, D. (2024). The Mystery of Ambergris. Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/marine-mammals/mystery-ambergris 

0Likes
About Author

Hey hi! I'm a CS major here at Georgia Tech that enjoys learning all things art and design.

You May Also Like

Courtesy of Bella Beeco
Articles, Story Time, today i learned (til)
The Evolution from Fossil to Monster
today i learned (til)
How Nature can Influence Innovation and Design
today i learned (til)
Sleeping Position Matters
today i learned (til)
Sharing the Magic of Science Even In the Dark

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.