4 BIOLOGY OF PNEUMOCOCCUS 



also stated that this new disease was not a septicemia, and this mis- 

 take undoubtedly contributed to the confusion of ideas. Disturbed 

 by this false imputation, Pasteur, in March, 1881, in a letter to 

 Parrot 1064 who had, like Sternberg, produced a fatal infection in 

 rabbits with normal saliva, again stated positively that his or- 

 ganism bore no relation to rabies. Pasteur, by the way, showed his 

 great perspicacity in a paragraph which was included in that let- 

 ter. It bears repeating: J'y vois, pour ma part, un symptome nou- 

 veaw de grand avenir pour la connaissance etiologique des maladies 

 dont la cause doit etre attribuee a la presence et au developpement 

 d'organismes micro sco piques. Again, in a communication read at 

 the May 31st session of the Academie de Medecine, Pasteur 

 sharply protested against the claims ascribed to him. 



In this connection, the originals of Pasteur's and of Sternberg's 

 later papers (1885 and 1887 ) 1319 " 20 are well-worth reading. In 

 these days of petty priority claims it is refreshing to read of these 

 two gentlemen of the eighteen-eighties, of whom one, Pasteur, 

 frankly acknowledged his ignorance, while the other granted prece- 

 dence and magnanimously named the organism after Pasteur. 

 Sternberg's statement (1885) ran as follows: 



In attaching to this micrococcus the name of the illustrious French 

 chemist I have no desire to perpetuate the memory of the mistake he 

 made in supposing for a time that it was the germ of hydrophobia. Hav* 

 ing found that this was a mistake, he did not fail to correct it. . . . It 

 is easy to make mistakes in this field of investigation ; easier, perhaps, 

 than to acknowledge them.* And believing, as I do, in human fallibility, 

 I have no hesitation in questioning the conclusions of the most illus- 

 trious workers in the field of microbiology, if they are in conflict with 

 my own observations. On the other hand, if, upon fuller investigation, I 

 am convinced that I have been mistaken in regard to this or any other 

 question, I shall feel no hesitation in following the example of Pasteur 

 in making a public announcement of my error. 



Here is material for a Hippocratic oath for the biologist or any 



other fellow of science. 



* Sternberg was prominent among those who had given an entirely errone- 

 ous interpretation to Pasteur's claims, and this statement, gracious though it 

 was, served to foster the unfortunate misconception. 



