Talk:Louis Pasteur

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is the current History of Science Collaboration of the Month! Please help improve it to featured article standard.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Louis Pasteur article.
Article policies
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
To-do list for Louis Pasteur: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Rewrite Intro
  • Find Higher Quality Pics

Contents

[edit] Unknown Error?

When clicking on the following image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lou_p.gif, the error

[[[[[Image:Failed to parse (unknown error): --Micro.pw 12:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)#REDIRECT [[[[Media:'Bold text'== Summary == Pasteur and his device for disproving spontaneous generation theory. Which he did.]]]] ]]]]]]

Appears. Any ideas on how to fix it? Should I contact an admin? Micro.pw 12:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Potoligest?

A quick google search reveals this site as the only reference to the word potoligest, used in reference to chemist. Anybody know if it's a typo or if it was accidently added? A quick search on the when the word was added shows that it was added by a known vandal, so I shall change it. Please tell me if you have a problem with this action. Magicmonster 22:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quote

The French WP collection of Pasteur quotes says this: La chance ne sourit qu'aux esprits bien préparés. Is this the correct one or the one on this page? Awolf002 12:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Literature

Do those new references really fit in here? Are they giving details about Pasteur's life or are they criticising some part of his research (as they seem to indicate), and should they be in the related articles because of that? Awolf002 14:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spontaneous generation "death blow" and Pasteur´s view on that

Doing my research for improvement of the article in portuguese about abiogenesis/spontaneous generation, I've found something that I simply found startling. Pasteur didn't disbelieved spontaneous generation, despite of being the major icon of the refutal of this hypothesis. In fact, he neither really refuted the hypothesis, or disbelieved it. He indeed did publish the results appointing to the refutation of spontaneous generation. But apparently, as was discovered later (1970's), only 10% of his experiments were according with what he published

Isn't that spontaneous generation did happened, though, but failures in proper sterilization and maybe the presence of heat-resistant endospores, as discovered by John Tyndall and/or Ferdinand Cohn, during the british debate about spontaneous generation. I'm my research I've read that outside France, the refutal of spontaneous generation wasn't immediatelly accepted. In fact, I've read that many thought that was just luck, as many repeated the experiments with different levels of success, but I haven't found many details, and I guess that they're referring to Henry Charlton Bastian's and Félix Archimède Pouchet's experiments. I admit that it's weird that he became such an icon of the rebutal of spontaneous generation if these really are the facts. But, I guess that it's nothing that inertial school textbook's writers couldn't manage to make happen acidentally during the course of history.

I was saving the best for last. Pasteur, as I've said before, believed in spontaneous generation, despite of publically refuting it. Secretly, he conducted experiments trying to spontaneously generate life, and also believed that parasitic worms were spontaneously generated. The reason of keeping this secretly, according to what I've read, is that disproving spontaneous generation was the better thing to do at that time in order to be agreeble with his scientific patrons. Also, during the course of his work with crystals, he developed a belief in a sort of "cosmic asymmetric force". He believed that since Pouchet, his opponent, was approaching the question of spontaneous unaware of this "cosmic asymetric force", he ought to be wrong.

I think that I've read the most or the most relevant of that in New Details Add to Our Understanding of Spontaneous Generation Controversies, ASM News 63, 1997. p.193. Where "ASM" doesn't stands for "Amazing Spider Man" but for "American Society of Microbiology". A text by James Strick.

Some points I think I should make: I'm not a creationist, a spontaneous generation believer, or a HIV denier or anything like that, and these things doesn't seem related with what I said anyway. Actually, despite of being somewhat shocking at first, something in the sense of "denying history", something you'd expect from crackpots, gradually I realize that actually mades sense that the history is more complicated than what is commonly known, iconized, high-contrasted "heroes versus losers" version. Anyway, I'm not "defending" it, I'm puting it in the table because I think it deserves attention. If someone knows more about that than I do, and can assure that these worries about the article and history are somehow invalid, I'd like to know (specially with references, although... "nah, the history is just what is commonly known" wouldn't convince me... still... I won't debate more about that, I'll just not be convinced) --Extremophile 01:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The new details... reference remarks that Pateur never accepted that the first organisms arose from non-living matter - I suspect he was religious. It also suggests, at least to me, that he was testing the assertions of others - whether by repeating their experiments or by going from scratch with his own is unclear, but either or both are quite sensible, even if you have a feeling that you will conclude one way. Interesting piece, and certainly the caricatures of scientists that are sometimes presented in order to further current preoccupations are best discarded. It takes a while for a paradigm to be accepted is what I see in that. Midgley 16:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The article satates that Pasteur never accepted that it was happened in the conditions that others were assuming it was happening, but clearly mentions that he believed in spontaneous generation of parasitic worms. I would prefer to read his private annotations rather than this second or third hand account, though. About his religiousness, in an article on Talk Origins is said that Pasteur´s religious views are a bit obscure, but that at least he was not an strongly religious person . And anyway, that does not really says much about what he thought about the origin of first organisms by non-living matter. In fact, Pouchet was religious, notably more religious than Pasteur, as we can find accounts of him making explicit that he thought that spontaneous generation was divinely guided. I guess that it was more or less a recapitulation of somewhat earlier ideas of sponaneous generation, when it served as a form opposition to evolution, in the form of special creations.
And I still think that the "final death blow" part puts too much importance on Pasteur´s experiments, as if everybody was fully convinced, while in reality the idea lasted a bit longer and the work of Tyndall and Cohn was also important. And would be fair to mention that about selecting only 10% of the results to publishing, and that he won a prize for that. --Extremophile 00:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I read The Spontaneous Generation Controversy From Descartes to Oparin by John Farley (1977). He gives a detailed account of Pasteur's motives and experiments, it is a thorough academic investigation. According to Farley, Pasteur opposed spontaneous generation on religious grounds. To disprove spontaneous generation (a Godless theory) and prove germ theory (that God created all life, including invisible germs) Pasteur sterilized "Fertile Broths" in hermetically sealed flasks etc.
Farley claims Pasteur's contribution to science is as substantial as Boyle's, that he represents a maturation of science into its modern form. While he did not deal the death blow to spontaneous generation (it lingered on until 1911 with Stephane Leduc's Mechanism of Life), Pasteur improved the scientific method and encompassed the invisible. --Diamonddavej (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pasteurisation

By definition that has to be what he is most famous for, no? Midgley 17:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say he is even more famous for the germ theory of disease, ranking as the 6th most important event of the millennium in:

He even has been called the greatest benefactor of mankind:

Science History 13:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Similar images

Lou_p.gif looks like a drawing of Pasteur.jpg. The photograph is nice. The drawing is not as nice and perhaps should be replaced. [unsigned]


While is very honourable that someone produced the image to be used here, I think that it´s a bit redundant as it´s a copy of one photo and also there´s a photo of another version of the swan neck flask. (I ´ve put that "unsigned" there just to make clear that was not me that wrote that) --Extremophile 00:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Quote attributed to Pasteur

When roaming the internet there is a quote attributed to Pasteur that says something along the lines of "The germ is nothing, the soil is everything" (or words to such effect). Is anybody aware if this is actually attributed to a biographer (or the like) as I have not been able to find anything. Likewise it is an urban myth? Shot info 04:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

when did he discover the germ theory of disease???? help !!!!!!!!!!


    Its my understanding that Pasteur, to the surprise of his attendants,
    rejected germ theory on his deathbed. The quote I heard was similar -
    "The germ is nothing, the terrain is everything." 97.84.174.65 (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Josh M

[edit] Louis Pasteur and creationism

From Answers in Genesis on Louis Pasteur.


In 1857, Pasteur returned to the Ecole Normale. This time he was not a student, but was the Director of Scientific Studies. Here he continued his work on microbes.

The ancient Greeks had believed that small animals such as worms, mice, and maggots sprang to life automatically from the non-living matter around (such as rotting flour, a sweaty shirt, or decaying meat). This belief that living matter arose from non-living material is called spontaneous generation. The idea of maggots’ coming spontaneously to life out of decaying meat was successfully challenged in 1668 by Italian biologist Francesco Redi. When he covered the meat with gauze to prevent flies from laying their eggs on it, no maggots appeared in the meat. (The maggots are actually the larvae which hatch from flies’ eggs).

Long after the idea of spontaneous generation of maggots, mice and worms had been generally discarded, scientists still clung to the idea of spontaneous generation of microscopic animals. To disprove this idea also, Pasteur boiled some broth to kill any microbes present. With special glassware, he allowed air to circulate over the broth, but prevented microbes in the air from reaching the broth. As Pasteur expected, no microbes appeared in the broth. Pasteur’s findings showed that microbes were not spontaneously generated from the broth itself. Microbes would only appear in the broth if they were allowed in with the air. He clearly showed that even for microbes, life came only from life—‘Microscopic beings must come into the world from parents similar to themselves.

Pasteur’s work should have dealt the death blow to the idea of spontaneous generation. But spontaneous generation is an essential part of the theory of evolution. Despite all the efforts of evolutionary scientists, not one observable case of spontaneous generation has ever been found. Pasteur’s findings conflicted with the idea of spontaneous generation (as do all scientific results since). Consequently, Louis Pasteur was a strong opponent of Darwin’s theory.

It clearly states that Pasteur was NOT an evolutionist.. perhaps the only opponents to evolution are young-earth creationists...... ¬¬ Arturo #7 22:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Arturo, there are many problems with the above. In fact, more problems than I have the time or desire to enumerate (and many of the problems are not sufficiently germane to this page to bear mention anyways). First, I already pointed out to you [1] regarding Pasteur's attitude (and I find it puzzling that you attack me for using what you branded as an "evolutionist site" (all caps removed) while you use a creationist ministry website for your evidence. Second, you need to get away from these false dichotomies of everyone falling into "evolutionist" "creationist" categories. If you read the above reference or read Pasteur's writings you might be aware that he was most likely ok with evolution but skeptical of natural selection. Third as I have already tried to explain to you abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are not the same thing and in any event evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. JoshuaZ 23:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
AiG dos not meet WP:RS. Anyway, AFAIK, Pasteur was a Lamarckian not a Darwinian, which is not surprising considering he was French and so was of the French school which followed Lamarck. — Dunc|☺ 12:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
OMG.... why ur ignorance doesn't surprise me? u quote something written by someone else, not Pasteur. It could have been true or false, ur quote makes no sense. Anyway, u clearly will defend ur POV instead of respecting Wikipedia's NPOV policy, that's why I dropped down this shit. cyaArturo #7 23:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Arturo #7, just because somebody doesn't support your creationist POV doesn't mean that they aren't respecting Wikipedia's NPOV policy. You can be a creationist all your want, but it doesn't make Pasteur one regardless of various quotes in AiG. Also as JoshuaZ states, abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are not the same thing. It is creationism fantasy that tries (badly) to make them the same. Shot info 05:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Pasteur had some issues with "darwinism", as natural selection for the main mechanism for development of adaptations. But he was an evolutionist and also believed in spontaneous generation. He just did not believed that Félix Archimède Pouchet's (and other common) views on the process of spontaneous generation were correct. He believed both in the spontaneous generation of microbial life at some point, and in spontaneous generation (heterogenesis) of parasitic worms, rather than infection or "xenogenesis". I suppose that since there was a prize offered for settling the debate over spontaneous generation, and it would be easier to disprove Pouchet's views than to prove his owns, he did the former, and was needless and maybe a bit inconvenient to express too much his still unproven views on that matter. He probably thought that whenever he had enough to show, he would do that. Things on this sense can be read on ASM news article, "New Details Add to Our Understanding of Spontaneous Generation Controversies". Besides that, Talk Origins, contrarily to what Arturo is saying, quotes Pasteur himself, whereas the quote of AIG site is another person attempting to guess (if not to deceive) about Pasteur's opinions. --Extremophile 03:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

"In 1854, he was named Pot Smoker of the new College of Science in Lille. In 1856, he was made administrator and director of scientific studies of the École Normale Supérieure." ... somehow this doesn't sound right. Professor maybe? ;) 164.54.53.165 18:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural depictions of Louis Pasteur

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 18:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed 'kill all bacteria' to 'most bacteria' in main pasteur page because 'all' is factually incorrect (eg see pasteurization page) matt

[edit] Recantation myth?

Should the article mention the myth that he recanted his theories on his death bed? --Havermayer 19:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Could probably mention it, with the caveat that it is a myth with no evidence of him actually having said it?? Shot info 04:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Only, if there is a reliable source that assert this. If there is no attribution it should not be in this article. Awolf002 21:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asymmetric crystals in wine and deducing and proving fermentation is a biological process

I have heard multiple and interesting accounts on how Pastuer deduced and proved that wine was created by fermentation as opposed to a simple inorganic chemical reaction. If I have the facts correct (I will do a better job before adding this to the article), Pastuer noted that a sample tartaric acid became moldy, and rather than throwing it out, he cleaned it up, and noted that they were now asymmetric, even though originally they contained the left hand and right hand crystals. He also noted that in wine, only one or the other (I can't remember which) were present, and from this, deduced, and later proved, that a biological process and not a chemical process was involved. While this may or may not be historically important, I think it is interesting none the less

This is touched upon here: http://www.vigyanprasar.gov.in/scientists/PLouis.htm

I have also heard it in a history lecture, and remember seeing something about this in a documentary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StudyAndBeWise (talk • contribs) 05:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Effect pasteur

The "effect Pasteur" (reduction of the glycolisis flow when a cell switches from anaerobic to aerobic metabolism) deserves an article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.0.153.139 (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Etudes sur la Biere

While understanding that "pasteurization" is most often thought of in relationship to milk, it seems very odd to me that there is NO mention of the fact that Pasteur's major work on the subject is "Etudes sur la Biere," translated into English in 1879 as "Studies on Fermentation; the Diseases of Beer, their causes, and the means of preventing them." The studies were commissioned and supported by the French government and the French brewing industry. Yet the word "beer" appears nowhere in this article. It would seem only fair to add this. 72.78.2.206 16:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's up to you ! It's a wikipedia !! --Symposiarch 21:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dear author(s) of this page

You are a puswank of the first order. I have just wasted hour upon hour of work, including missing lunch and staying behind after school, on my chemistry prodject - repeating Pasteur's optical isomer experiment, under the immpression created by your limp wristed page that the crystals used were tartaric acid. after several fruitless attempts I decided to reserch the experiment further, whereupon i discorvered that the crystals used were sodium ammonium tartrate,a practically unique chemical in that it displays the required property for a sucessful experiment, and not, as your page suggests, tartric acid. I have corrected your Augustus Gloop of a page accordingly.

dude, please sign comments and remember, wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a primary source. -- Akb4 18:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] other Munthe personal descriptions

In The Story of San Michele (page 49-50 in the copy I have), physician Axel Munthe devotes a page or three to descriptions of Pasteur and his rabies vaccine research. It includes some interesting personal exposition, namely that Pasteur loved animals but was frequently attacked by anti-vivisectionists but continued his research because he knew it would save both human and animal lives. Some relevant bits: He himself went on his way undaunted by failure, but those who saw him in those days knew well how much he suffered from the tortures he had to inflict upon the dogs, for he himself was a great lover of dogs. and [...] even the keeper of the kennel at Villaneuve de l'Etang, an ex-gendarme called Pernier, had been chosen for his post by Pasteur himself because he was known as a great lover of dogs."

Munthe also described a case of euthanasia; six Russian peasants who had been mauled by rabid wolves were sent to Pasteur by the Tsar for treatment. The cases were hopeless, and the peasants went insane at the disease progressed. Their screams and howls could be heard all over the Hotel Dieu, people said even below in Place Notre Dame. The whole hospital was in emotion. Nobody wanted to go near the ward. Even the courageous sisters fled in terror. I can see now the white face of Pasteur as he passed in silence from bed to bed, looking at the doomed men with infinite compassion in his eyes. He sank down on a chair, his head between his hands. That night, Pasteur consulted with one of the hospital's surgeons, Tillaux. There are few who know the decision they arrived at, but it was the right one and an honour to them both. The next morning, all was silent in the ward. During the night the doomed men had been helped to a painless death.

I'm not quite sure how to work this material into the article; maybe someone else could take a shot at it. --Akb4 18:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed citations

I've pulled the following from the text as references which fail to meet the reliable sources criteria:

"R. B. Pearson and Nancy Appleton said--his theory was false. [1][2]"
  1. ^ Pearson, R.B. "The Dream and Lie of Louis Pasteur", 2001.
  2. ^ Appleton, Nancy. "Rethinking Pasteur's Germ Theory: How to Maintain Your Optimal Health", Berkeley, CA: Frog, Ltd. 2002.

-- MarcoTolo 20:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geison does not accuse Pasteur of plagiarism

The article says (in the section "Allegations of plagiarism of Bechamp") :
"In 1995, the centennial of the death of Louis Pasteur the New York Times ran an article titled "Pasteur's Deception". After having thouroughly read Pasteur's lab notes the science historian Gerald L. Geison declared that Pasteur had lied about his research on vaccines and furthermore had stolen a competitor's ideas."

In fact, Geison 1995 (p. 275) writes about a book of E. D. Hume :
"The book does reveal that Pasteur treated his sometime assistant Antoine Béchamp (1816-1908) very shabbily, but it does not persuade me that Pasteur "plagiarized" Béchamp's work and ideas in any meaningful sense of the term."

But Geison accuses indeed Pasteur of deception, about the experiment of Pouilly-le-Fort. You can find details in the article "Louis Pasteur" of the French Wikipedia, where we are fond of Geison's book. Marvoir (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

by 1957 pasteur had become world famous and took up an Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.80.150.129 (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)