The Fundamentals of BacteriologyMorrey, Charles Bradfield
Science
The Fundamentals of Bacteriology
Morrey, Charles Bradfield
Bacteriology
John Tyndall, in combating Bastian’s views showed that boiled infusions
left open to the air in a closed box through which air circulated
did not show any growth of organisms provided the air was so free of
particles that the path of a ray of light sent through it from side to
side could not be seen (Fig. 7). Or if such sterilized infusions were
exposed to dust-free air, as in the high Alps, the majority showed
no growth, while all infusions in dusty air did show an abundance of
organisms. Tyndall’s experiments confirmed those of Pasteur and his
predecessors and showed that the organisms developed from “germs”
present in the air falling into the liquids and not spontaneously.
While Tyndall’s experiments were of great value as indicated, they
probably were harmful in another way. These “germs in the air” were
considered by bacteriologists as well as laymen to include necessarily
many _disease germs_ and to indicate the very general, if not
universal, presence of these latter _in the air_. This idea led to many
erroneous practices in sanitation and disinfection which even to this
day are not eliminated.
CAUSATION OF DISEASE.
The transmission of disease from person to person was recognized by the
ancients of European and Asiatic countries. Inoculation of smallpox was
practiced in China and India probably several thousand years ago and
was introduced by Lady Mary Wortley Montague into England in 1721, from
Constantinople. These beliefs and practices do not seem to have been
associated with any speculations or theories as to the cause of the
disease.
Apparently the first writer on this subject was Varo, about B.C. 70,
who suggested that fevers in swampy places were due to invisible
organisms. The treatment of wounds during the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries by hot wine fomentations and by the application of plasters
was based on the theory that the _air_ brought about conditions in the
wounds which led to suppuration. These practices were indeed primitive
antisepsis, yet were not based on a _germ theory_ of the conditions
which were partially prevented. Fracastorius (1484-1553), in a work
published in 1546, elaborated a theory of “disease germs” and “direct
and indirect contagion” very similar to modern views, though based
on no direct pathological knowledge. Nevertheless Kircher (mentioned
already) is usually given undeserved credit for the “contagium vivum”
theory. In 1657 by the use of simple lenses he observed “worms” in
decaying substances, in blood and in the pus from bubonic plague
patients (probably rouleaux of corpuscles in the blood, certainly not
bacteria in any case). Based on these observations and possibly also on
reading the work of Fracastorius, his theory of a “living cause” for
various diseases was published in 1671, but received little support.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account