Editing Louis Pasteur (section)

== Controversies ==

A French national hero at age 55, in 1878 Pasteur discreetly told his family to never reveal his laboratory notebooks to anyone. His family obeyed, and all his documents were held and inherited in secrecy. Being that Pasteur did not allow others in his laboratory to keep notebooks,<ref>{{cite book |last1=Descour |first1=L. |title=Pasteur and his work |date=1922 |publisher=Frederick A. Stokes Company |location=New York}}</ref> this secrecy kept many aspects of Pasteur's research unknown until relatively recently. Finally, in 1964 Pasteur's grandson and last surviving male descendant, Pasteur Vallery-Radot, donated the papers to the [[Bibliothèque nationale de France|French national library]]. Yet the papers were restricted for historical studies until the death of Vallery-Radot in 1971. The documents were given a catalogue number only in 1985.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Geison|first1=Gerald L.|title=The Private Science of Louis Pasteur|date=2014|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=978-1-4008-6408-9|page=3|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tEkABAAAQBAJ&pg=PA3}}</ref>

In 1995, the centennial of the death of Louis Pasteur, a historian of science [[Gerald L. Geison]] published an analysis of Pasteur's private notebooks in his ''The Private Science of Louis Pasteur'', and declared that Pasteur had given several misleading accounts and played deceptions in his most important discoveries.<ref name=Geison1995 /><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Altman|first1=Lawrence K|title=Revisionist history sees Pasteur as liar who stole rival's ideas|journal=The New York Times on the Web|year=1995|volume=16|pages=C1, C3|pmid=11647062|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/16/science/doctor-s-world-revisionist-history-sees-pasteur-liar-who-stole-rival-s-ideas.html|access-date=17 February 2017|archive-date=2 February 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170202003043/http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/16/science/doctor-s-world-revisionist-history-sees-pasteur-liar-who-stole-rival-s-ideas.html|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Max Perutz]] published a defense of Pasteur in ''[[The New York Review of Books]]''.<ref>21 December 1995 NY Review of Books [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1995/dec/21/the-pioneer-defended/] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151029083822/http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1995/dec/21/the-pioneer-defended/|date=29 October 2015}}, letters [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1996/apr/04/pasteur-and-the-culture-wars-an-exchange/] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150920173420/http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1996/apr/04/pasteur-and-the-culture-wars-an-exchange/|date=20 September 2015}} [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1997/feb/06/pasteurs-private-science/] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151029083822/http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1995/dec/21/the-pioneer-defended/|date=29 October 2015}}</ref> Based on further examinations of Pasteur's documents, French immunologist Patrice Debré concluded in his book'' Louis Pasteur'' (1998) that, in spite of his genius, Pasteur had some faults. A book review states that Debré "sometimes finds him unfair, combative, arrogant, unattractive in attitude, inflexible and even dogmatic".<ref>{{cite book|last1=Debré|first1=Patrice|title=Louis Pasteur|year=2000|publisher=Johns Hopkins University Press|location=Baltimore|isbn=978-0-8018-6529-9}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Kauffman|first1=George B|title=Book Review: Louis, Louis, Louis|journal=American Scientist|year=1999|url=http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/louis-louis-louis|access-date=27 October 2014|archive-date=27 October 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161027151905/http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/louis-louis-louis|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Fermentation ===

Scientists before Pasteur had studied fermentation. In the 1830s, [[Charles Cagniard-Latour]], [[Friedrich Traugott Kützing]] and Theodor Schwann used microscopes to study yeasts and concluded that yeasts were living organisms. In 1839, [[Justus von Liebig]], [[Friedrich Wöhler]] and [[Jöns Jacob Berzelius]] stated that yeast was not an organism and was produced when air acted on plant juice.<ref name=Barnett />

In 1855, [[Antoine Béchamp]], Professor of Chemistry at the [[University of Montpellier]], conducted experiments with sucrose solutions and concluded that water was the factor for fermentation.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Béchamp|first1=A|title=Note sur l'influence que l'eau pure et certaines dissolutions salines exercent sur le sucre de canne|journal=Comptes Rendus Chimie|year=1855|volume=40|pages=436–438}}</ref> He changed his conclusion in 1858, stating that fermentation was directly related to the growth of moulds, which required air for growth. He regarded himself as the first to show the role of microorganisms in fermentation.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Béchamp|first1=A|title=De l'influence que l'eau pur ou chargée de diverse sels exerce à froid sur the sucre de canne|journal=Comptes Rendus Chimie|year=1858|volume=46|pages=4–47}}</ref><ref name=manchester2007 />

Pasteur started his experiments in 1857 and published his findings in 1858 (April issue of ''Comptes Rendus Chimie'', Béchamp's paper appeared in January issue). Béchamp noted that Pasteur did not bring any novel idea or experiments. On the other hand, Béchamp was probably aware of Pasteur's 1857 preliminary works. With both scientists claiming priority on the discovery, a dispute, extending to several areas, lasted throughout their lives.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Cadeddu|first1=A|title=The heuristic function of 'error' in the scientific methodology of Louis Pasteur: the case of the silkworm diseases|journal=History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences|year=2000|volume=22|issue=1|pages=3–28|pmid=11258099}}</ref><ref name="manchester-2001">{{cite journal |author=Manchester KL |title=Antoine Béchamp: pere de la biologie. Oui ou non? |journal=Endeavour |volume=25 |issue=2 |pages=68–73 |year=2001 |pmid=11484677 |doi= 10.1016/S0160-9327(00)01361-2}}</ref>

However, Béchamp was on the losing side, as the ''[[BMJ]]'' obituary remarked: His name was "associated with bygone controversies as to priority which it would be unprofitable to recall".<ref>{{cite journal|author1=Anonymous|title=Obituary: Professor Bechamp|journal=The British Medical Journal|year=1908|volume=1|issue=2471|page=1150|doi=10.1136/bmj.1.2471.1150-b|pmc=2436492}}</ref> Béchamp proposed the incorrect theory of [[microzyme]]s. According to K. L. Manchester, [[anti-vivisectionist]]s and proponents of [[alternative medicine]] promoted Béchamp and microzymes, unjustifiably claiming that Pasteur plagiarized Béchamp.<ref name=manchester2007 />

Pasteur thought that [[succinic acid]] inverted sucrose. In 1860, [[Marcellin Berthelot]] isolated [[invertase]] and showed that succinic acid did not invert sucrose.<ref name=Barnett /> Pasteur believed that fermentation was only due to living cells. He and Berthelot engaged in a long argument subject of vitalism, in which Berthelot was vehemently opposed to any idea of vitalism.<ref>{{cite book
| last = Friedmann
| first = H C
| chapter = From Friedrich Wöhler's urine to Eduard Buchner's alcohol
| pages = 67–122
| title = New Beer in an Old Bottle: Eduard Buchner and the Growth of Biochemical Knowledge
| editor-last = Cornish-Bowden
| editor-first = A
| date = 1997
| publisher = Universitat de València, Valencia, Spain
| isbn = 84-370-3328-4
}}</ref> [[Hans Ernst August Buchner|Hans Buchner]] discovered that [[zymase]] (not an enzyme, but a mixture of enzymes) catalyzed fermentation, showing that fermentation was catalyzed by enzymes within cells.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Windelspecht|first1=Michael|title=Groundbreaking Scientific Experiments, Inventions, and Discoveries of the 19th Century|year=2003|publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group|location=Westport|isbn=978-0-313-31969-3|page=100|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hX1jPbJVSu4C}}</ref> [[Eduard Buchner]] also discovered that fermentation could take place outside living cells.<ref>{{cite book|editor1-last=Dworkin|editor1-first=Martin|editor2-last=Falkow|editor2-first=Stanley|editor3-last=Rosenberg|editor3-first=Eugene|editor4-last=Schleifer|editor4-first=Karl-Heinz|editor5-last=Stackebrandt|editor5-first=Erko|title=The Prokaryotes: Vol. 1: Symbiotic Associations, Biotechnology, Applied Microbiology|date=2006|publisher=Springer|isbn=978-0-387-25476-0|pages=285–286|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hqh43LFTGBQC&pg=PA285}}</ref>

=== Anthrax vaccine ===

Pasteur publicly claimed his success in developing the anthrax vaccine in 1881.<ref name=trueman /> However, his admirer-turned-rival [[Jean Joseph Henri Toussaint|Henry Toussaint]] was the one who developed the first vaccine. Toussaint isolated the bacteria that caused chicken cholera (later named ''[[Pasteurella]]'' in honour of Pasteur) in 1879 and gave samples to Pasteur who used them for his own works.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Swabe|first1=Joanna|title=Animals, Disease and Human Society: Human-animal Relations and the Rise of Veterinary Medicine|date=2002|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-134-67540-1|page=83|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4WWGAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA83}}</ref> On 12 July 1880, Toussaint presented his successful result to the French Academy of Sciences, using an attenuated vaccine against anthrax in dogs and sheep.<ref>{{cite book|last=Jones|first=Susan D.|title=Death in a Small Package: A Short History of Anthrax|year=2010|publisher=JHU Press|isbn=978-1-4214-0252-9|page=69|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mK72X-XkIKgC}}</ref> Pasteur on grounds of jealousy contested the discovery by publicly displaying his vaccination method at Pouilly-le-Fort on 5 May 1881.<ref name=Chevallier-Jussiau /> Pasteur then gave a misleading account of the preparation of the anthrax vaccine used in the experiment. He claimed that he made a "live vaccine", but used potassium dichromate<ref name=Geison1995 /> to inactivate anthrax spores, a method similar to Toussaint's. The promotional experiment was a success and helped Pasteur sell his products, getting the benefits and glory.<ref name="Giese" /><ref name=Chevallier-Jussiau>{{cite journal|last=Chevallier-Jussiau|first=N|title=[Henry Toussaint and Louis Pasteur. Rivalry over a vaccine]|journal=Histoire des Sciences Médicales|year=2010|volume=44|issue=1|pages=55–64|pmid=20527335|url=http://www.biusante.parisdescartes.fr/sfhm/hsm/HSMx2010x044x001/HSMx2010x044x001x0055.pdf|access-date=14 March 2017|archive-date=25 February 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210225013513/https://www.biusante.parisdescartes.fr/sfhm/hsm/HSMx2010x044x001/HSMx2010x044x001x0055.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Williams|first=E|title=The forgotten giants behind Louis Pasteur: contributions by the veterinarians Toussaint and Galtier|journal=Veterinary Heritage|year=2010|volume=33|issue=2|pages=33–39|pmid=21466009}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Flower|first=Darren R.|title=Bioinformatics for Vaccinology|year=2008|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|location=Chichester|isbn=978-0-470-69982-9|page=31|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Rg6-T_1-LWkC}}</ref>

=== Experimental ethics ===

Pasteur's experiments are often cited as against [[medical ethics]], especially on his vaccination of Meister. He did not have any experience in medical practice, and more importantly, lacked a [[medical license]]. This is often cited as a serious threat to his professional and personal reputation.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Geison|first1=Gerald L.|title=Pasteur, Roux, and Rabies: Scientific Clinical Mentalities|journal=Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences|year=1990|volume=45|issue=3|pages=341–365|doi=10.1093/jhmas/45.3.341|pmid=2212608}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Forster|first1=Patrice Debré; translated by Elborg|title=Louis Pasteur|year=2000|publisher=Johns Hopkins University Press|location=Baltimore|isbn=978-0-8018-6529-9|pages=455–456|edition=Johns Hopkins pbk.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RzOcl-FLw30C}}</ref> His closest partner [[Émile Roux]], who had medical qualifications, refused to participate in the [[clinical trial]], likely because he considered it unjust.<ref name=Jackson>{{cite book|editor-last=Jackson|editor-first=Alan C.|title=Rabies: Scientific Basis of the Disease and Its Management|year=2013|publisher=Academic Press|location=Amsterdam|isbn=978-0-12-397230-9|pages=3–6|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=e1UFMYVHCboC&pg=PA3|edition=3rd}}</ref> However, Pasteur executed vaccination of the boy under the close watch of practising physicians [[Jacques-Joseph Grancher]], head of the Paris Children's Hospital's paediatric clinic, and [[Alfred Vulpian]], a member of the Commission on Rabies. He was not allowed to hold the syringe, although the inoculations were entirely under his supervision.<ref name=Wasik>{{cite book|last=Wasik|first=Bill|title=Rabid: A Cultural History of the World's Most Diabolical Virus|year=2013|publisher=Penguin Books|location=New York|isbn=978-1-101-58374-6|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=i8j30cXPKj8C&q=louis+pasteur+medical+license&pg=PT102|author2=Murphy, Monica}}</ref> It was Grancher who was responsible for the injections, and he defended Pasteur before the [[Académie de Médecine|French National Academy of Medicine]] in the issue.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Gelfand|first=T|title=11 January 1887, the day medicine changed: Joseph Grancher's defense of Pasteur's treatment for rabies|journal=Bulletin of the History of Medicine|year=2002|volume=76|issue=4|pages=698–718|pmid=12446976|doi=10.1353/bhm.2002.0176|s2cid=33145788}}</ref>

Pasteur has also been criticized for keeping secrecy of his procedure and not giving proper pre-clinical trials on animals.<ref name=Ligon /> Pasteur stated that he kept his procedure secret in order to control its quality. He later disclosed his procedures to a small group of scientists. Pasteur wrote that he had successfully vaccinated 50 rabid dogs before using it on Meister.<ref>{{cite book|last=Murphy|first=Timothy F.|title=Case Studies in Biomedical Research Ethics|year=2004|publisher=MIT Press|location=Cambridge|isbn=978-0-262-63286-7|page=[https://archive.org/details/casestudiesinbio0000murp/page/83 83]|url=https://archive.org/details/casestudiesinbio0000murp|url-access=registration}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Geison|first=GL|title=Pasteur's work on rabies: reexamining the ethical issues|journal=The Hastings Center Report|year=1978|volume=8|issue=2|pages=26–33|pmid=348641|doi=10.2307/3560403|jstor=3560403}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Hoenig|first=Leonard J.|title=Triumph and controversy. Pasteur's preventive treatment of rabies as reported in JAMA|journal=Archives of Neurology|year=1986|volume=43|issue=4|pages=397–399|doi=10.1001/archneur.1986.00520040075024|pmid=3513741}}</ref> According to Geison, Pasteur's laboratory notebooks show that he had vaccinated only 11 dogs.<ref name=Ligon />