Page 113 - Ethel D. Hume - Bešam ili Paster: Izgubljeno poglavlje u istoriji biologije

no BfiCHAMP OR PASTEUR?

Government were not strong enough. He showed that
microzymas and bacteria might exist in the same worm,
but it appeared worthy of attention that the number of
microzymas was in an inverse ratio to that of the bacteria.
It was useless to take seed from moths with the complaint,
which was distinguishable by an examination of the con-
tents of the abdomen. He pointed out that to isolate the
microzymas, they should be treated with a preparation of
caustic potash, which, dissolving everything else, would
leave the elemental micro-organisms.
Thus, as he had at first fully explained the cause and the
mode of prevention of pebrine, so now Professor Bechamp
made an equally clear and complete explanation of the
second silk-worm disease, flacherie. He showed that, unlike
ptbrine, it was not caused by an extraneous parasitic in-
vasion, but was due to an abnormal unhealthy develop-
ment of the microzymas in the body-cells of the silk-
worms. The sericultural trouble had given him a chance
to demonstrate his full understanding of disease conditions.
He was able to provide a clear exposition of, on the one
hand, a parasitic complaint, and, on the other, of one due
not to a foreign agent, but to a diseased status ofanatomical
elements.
Pasteur was well acquainted with all the Notes published
by Bechamp, but, regrettably to say, had not the generosity
to spare praise for his rival's great scientific triumph. It is
undeniable that his thought was of himself and how he
could best vindicate his own pretensions.
Bechamp's explanation offlacherie appeared, as we have
shown, among the Reports of the Academy of Science on
the 8th June, 1868. On the 29th June, the Reports
1
include a letter to M. Dumas from M. Pasteur dated 24th
June-, 1868, Paillerols, Commune de Mees, Basses-Alpes.
Here it is extraordinary to find that he actually dared to
claim that he had been the first to draw attention to this
second silk-worm disease and distinguish it from pebrine.
—
He wrote to M. Dumas: "You know that I was the
1
Comptes Rendus 66, p. 1289.