Professor Robert L. StarkeyPresident of the American Society for Microbiology

Dow

nloa

ded

from

http

s://j

ourn

als.

asm

.org

/jour

nal/b

r on

03

Dec

embe

r 20

21 b

y 17

5.20

7.46

.164

.

MICROBIOLOGY AND THE MICROBIOLOGIST'

ROBERT L. STARKEYDepartment of Agricultural Microbiology, Rutgers, The State University,

New Brunswick, New Jersey

It is anomalous that microbiology, the studyof the smallest living things, is one of the greatestof the biological sciences. This may be due to theubiquity of microorganisms and their pervasive-ness. They appear everywhere and exert im-portant effects that cannot be ignored. They arebeneficial and destructive. They influence ourhealth, food supplies, goods, industrial develop-ment, and our very survival. The size of theseliving things is not a true index of their signifi-cance, unless it is an inverse relationship.

Microbiology is a professional field in whichthere is great opportunity and need for talent.There is no lack of areas for exploration ortheories for speculation. It is significant and ex-citing. This is likely to be most evident and realto both the very young and the older microbiolo-gists. To the younger scientist, microbiology, asa new adventure, poses innumerable challengingareas for exploration, challenges to learn thatwhich is known and to experiment in the un-known. To the older microbiologist the subject isinspiring because it has greater meaning andsignificance than when he was an initiate.

Some Reflections on Origins and ProgressAs a foreword to brief remarks on historical

aspects of the Society, I wish to express anopinion in favor of greater interest in the historyof our science. History is significant; it delineatesorigins and development, the conditions ofgrowth and the factors underlying genesis, form,and expansion. The fact that the source materialis derived from the past does not detract from thesignificance of history. Consider if you will thatwhat is happening today is history tomorrow.Our science of microbiology is young. Its active

development was initiated by Pasteur only 100

1 The Presidential Address delivered in Cleve-land, Ohio, on 7 May 1963 at the 63rd AnnualMeeting of the American Society for Microbiology.Paper of the Journal Series, New Jersey Agri-cultural Experiment Station, Rutgers, The StateUniversity, Department of Agricultural Micro-biology.

years ago. He first reported on the lactic andalcoholic fermentations in 1857. To me, these 100years represent a brief period; they encompassonly two generations of my family, my fatherhaving been born in 1858, and an incredibleamount has been accomplished in this shortperiod of time.Our Society is now in its sixty-fourth year. It

was organized in 1899 during a meeting of theSociety of American Naturalists (4). At that time,microbiology had developed to a state wheremicrobiologists needed a separate society for the"promotion of the science of bacteriology, thebringing together of American Bacteriologists,the demonstration and discussion of practicalmethods, and the consideration of subjects ofcommon interest." The organizers were thegiants of bacteriology in the United States andCanada who chartered the course of microbiologyon this continent-W. T. Sedgwick, E. O.Jordan, Theobald Smith, Erwin F. Smith, H. W.Conn, William H. Park, V. C. Vaughan, andW. H. Welch, to mention but a few. The Societywas launched with a membership of 59, whichgrew to nearly 1100 in 1925, 4000 in 1950, andnow to 7300. The organizers planned well, butpart of the success of their venture can be as-cribed to the fact that they were concerned withan important and significant branch of sciencethat had great potentialities. This Society canrightly lay claim to having contributed materiallyto the development of microbiology not only inthis country but abroad as well. The remark ofHinshelwood (8) about one person may wellapply also to the Society: "If the individual doesnot determine the event he profoundly influencesthe manner of it."

It may be of value to examine the conditionsassociated with the progress and importance ofthe Royal Society, which celebrated its tercen-tenary in 1960, because, to some degree, theseconditions have relevance to the scientific de-velopment of microbiology. In reviewing thehistorical development of the Royal Society,Hinshelwood stated that its remarkable success

243

Dow

nloa

ded

from

http

s://j

ourn

als.

asm

.org

/jour

nal/b

r on

03

Dec

embe

r 20

21 b

y 17

5.20

7.46

.164

.

BACTERIOL. REV.

was due to the efforts of a group of dedicated menwho, by their intelligence, skill, and effort, workedto uncover the secrets of nature. They weremostly unknown to their contemporaries, yetthey transformed the earth and life of humanity.They accepted the authority of no one and wereas a whole unmoved by praise or blame. Theywere criticized as being concerned with materialends and with idle curiosity to the good of noone.Today it is seldom that one has the financial

independence which admits the indulgence ofpursuing his profession in whatever direction hisinterest and temperament lead him, a conditionthat was common with scientists in 1660. Never-theless, to a considerable degree most of us haveopportunity to promote interests and concernsin microbiology that are particularly enticingto us.Our Society has had a relatively uneventful

history. For the most part it has been a historyof successfully serving its members by pro-moting their scientific efforts. Possibly the prin-cipal contribution of the Society has been thatof fostering communication, through meetingsfor consideration of scientific results and ideas,and through journal publication for more wide-spread dispersal of information. Through itsmany committees it has served also to provideliaison with other scientific societies and toprovide means for groups of people interested inspecific subject areas to act cooperatively whereindividual effort was insufficient.During the 64 years of the Society's activities

there have been no grand disputes either amongmicrobiologists or with the public. In extensivepublicity the accomplishments in microbiologyhave received extravagant and lavish praise aswell as criticism. Recent well-known examplesof both can be found in reports of the popularpress related to use of antibiotics for the controlof microbial diseases and the use of poliomyelitisvaccines. The public is also fearful of use ofpathogenic microorganisms as an instrument ofwar and intimidation, and the belief amonglaymen that the ill effects of microorganismsare much more important than the beneficialones is still the prevalent one. Interest in medicalmicrobiology and human pathogens continuesto exceed that for the microbial benefactors innature that purify our water supplies, transformthe organic and mineral substances in soil, andmake important industrial products.

One of the areas in which the Society has failedto have the desired impact is that of publiceducation. There is appalling lack of under-standing and appreciation of microbiology inrespect to what microorganisms are, what theydo, and their indispensable relations to life aswe know it. In this area our Society is no moreto be criticized than other scientific organiza-tions, but we are no less deserving of criticismfor failing to provide the needed education.Too frequently the purveyors to the public ofideas microbiological have been hucksters whoare selling the science under the slogan "Buy amiracle." Too often the idea has been promotedthat if enough money is put into the scientificvending machine a miracle drug will pop out.Laymen have been known to express the

opinion that it would be desirable to eliminatemicroorganisms completely, to relegate micro-biology and science in general to limbo. Thisdenial of reality might seem to represent anopinion of the uninformed that could be ignored,but persons in high places have established im-portant policies on the basis of faulty evidence andill-conceived concepts. In this connection, itmay be appropriate to refer to an event in thethirties that affected scientific research sponsoredby the federal government, because it has somerelevance to the present time in which thegovernment is the nation's principal sponsorof research.The event occurred at the beginning of a

period of great economic depression and wasconcerned with agriculture. There are few nowto whom the depression years of the thirtieswere a reality, but I attest that they were real,difficult, and discouraging. Many people wereunemployed and there was overproduction ofagricultural commodities. The situation wasdiagnosed as follows. Research in agriculturalsciences had been very effective, in fact so effec-tive that fewer people were needed to providethe agricultural products of the nation andto process them. Scientific agriculture thuscontributed to unemployment. There was over-production under the prevailing economicsystem, with depressed prices of farm productsas a consequence. The principal agencies re-sponsible for the situation were identified asthe United States Department of Agricultureand the Agricultural Experiment Stations locatedin the 48 states. The cure proposed was a simpleone, to curtail the research of these agricultural

244 STARKEY

Dow

nloa

ded

from

http

s://j

ourn

als.

asm

.org

/jour

nal/b

r on

03

Dec

embe

r 20

21 b

y 17

5.20

7.46

.164

.

MICROBIOLOGY AND THE MICROBIOLOGIST

agencies. The effect apparently anticipatedwould be a decrease in production with an in-crease of persons involved in production as aresult of lowered efficiency. The plan, whichwas to have been implemented 1 July 1933,would have greatly reduced the research ac-tivities of the Department of Agriculture,would have dealt a death blow to some of theAgricultural Experiment Stations, and wouldhave eliminated in the other Stations most ofthe studies of fundamental problems in biologicalsciences.

Fortunately, through intervention of variousscientific societies, educators, and influentialknowledgeable people, the plan was not im-plemented. Since agricultural surpluses continueto plague the nation, some may still have themistaken opinion that it was an error to haveabandoned the plan. The decision that therehad been failure in success, that ignorancewould be a desirable solution of economic andsocial problems, and that the future of thecountry should depend on peasant farminginvolving many instead of few workers to producefood, feed, and fiber for the nation, should serveas a warning of what could, in an emergency,happen to science when control of science iscentralized.

Significance of MicrobiologyFor professional microbiologists there is no

need to justify study of microorganisms fortheir immediate practical importance, whetherit be for control of disease or production of somecommercial substance. It would probably beagreed that the most needed information maynot be that dictated by the anticipated practicalvalue of the result of a designated researchproject. Indeed, important information mayresult from exploration in which the principalobjective is to find an answer to an intriguingquestion without regard to the profit motive.

Microorganisms have importance becausethey are significant living things. They live onus and in us; they aid in the production of textilesand destroy them; they are indispensable toforage animals and, as a consequence, funda-mental to the production of our principal supplyof meat and milk; they pollute our waters andpurify them; they are indispensable for con-tinued growth of plants; they have played im-portant roles in the formation of the fossil fuels,the weathering of rocks, the destruction of

man's refuse, and the undirected decompositionof plant and animal wastes; they are the naturalfood of some organisms and there is expressedinterest in their use as feed for domestic animalsand food for humans; they are undesirable,indispensable, loathed and diligently sought,eradicated and fostered, at one time man'sgreatest enemy and at another his servant; theyare indifferent to the size of their hosts andantagonists and to the composition of materialswhich they attack; moreover, they are the mosttolerant of all organisms to great differences inenvironmental conditions. Although, becauseof their small size, they are generally little knownand their significance little appreciated, thesecreatures very much deserve attention in orderthat it may be known generally what they are,where and how they develop, and what theydo, with a view to establishing their role innature and their uses under controlled condi-tions.

This consideration for microorganisms asliving entities is not always the concern of thosewho regulate research and study in microbiologythrough their control of funds; more commonlytheir decisions are determined by the probabilityof ultimate practical results. One might inquire,for example, whether current interest in theinfluence of microorganisms on the growth,development, and morphogenesis of animal andplant cells would continue once the cancerproblem disappears. Interest in pathogenicitywanes or disappears once a disease is controlled.Too frequently microbiology has been sold as anondurable commodity for quick consumptionand not as an area of knowledge inextricablyrelated to other areas and indispensable to anunderstanding of the nature of man and hisenvironment.

It is far from my intention to depreciateapplied research. Application has been theprincipal promoter of fundamental research.Whether or not you agree that it is desirable, thefact remains that the promise of practical resultsconstitutes the basis for the subsidy of mostscientific investigation, including that in micro-biology. But in the achieving of practical resultsattention becomes focused on the need for funda-mental information, and thus generates basicresearch. The words of Foster (7) in his presenta-tion of the Second A. J. Kluyver MemorialLecture at Delft, Netherlands, in 1962 arepertinent. He stated that the salutory effects

245VOL. 272 1963

Dow

nloa

ded

from

http

s://j

ourn

als.

asm

.org

/jour

nal/b

r on

03

Dec

embe

r 20

21 b

y 17

5.20

7.46

.164

.

BACTERIOL. REV.

of practical results on academic research areevident from the fact that "Fundamental in-formation pertinent to the practical develop-ment is eagerly sought, students are attractedto the profession, university research gainsvigor, and science and the community profit.This is one of the greatest single influences onthe course of microbiological science. It is amicrobiological truth that needs explicit declara-tion: a field rich in practical problems is rapidlyinvaded and taken over by the fundamentalscientist."Never have microbiologists lived in a more

fortunate period. There are a large and receptivestudent body, money for research, and a sym-pathetic if unenlightened public. It is not neces-sary to detail evidence to prove that microbiologyhas developed rapidly during the last two decades;the development is evident in the increase innumbers of persons engaged in microbiology,in publications of research, and in scientificmeetings on microbiological subjects. This canbe traced to the influence of several factors.Much of the development of present-day micro-biology resulted from the impact of the discoveryand application of antibiotics and from thediscovery that microorganisms can be used forthe production of vitamins, organic acids, andother commercial products. These discoverieshave affected practice and application in chemo-therapy, food preservation, and nutrition.But there is a second and an even more im-

portant influence for this development, that ofgovernment support of science. The effect ofgovernment support has been prominent in theareas of medical microbiology, particularlythrough the National Institutes of Health, butit has encompassed all areas of microbiology,including morphology, cytology, genetics, bio-chemistry, ecology, and nutrition. Interest hasbeen stimulated in microbiology of the marineenvironment and it has extended to the incredibleenvironment of outer space. Whereas, until thesecond world war, the federal government'ssupport of research in microbiology was prin-cipally through the U.S. Public Health Serviceand Department of Agriculture, its majorinfluence at present is exerted through theNational Institutes of Health, National ScienceFoundation, Office of Naval Research, NationalAeronautics and Space Administration, andDepartment of Defense. Through its variousagencies the federal government has a dominant

influence on research in microbiology, and it isprobable that its role in research, and also inteaching, will increase.At first sight this may appear to be desirable

in all respects because the thriving developmentof the science through the nutritive effect ofgovernment largess is expected to yield a fruit-ful crop of important information in all areas ofmicrobiology. But there may be an analogyhere to certain agricultural experiences. Theagriculturalist recognizes that the crop is affectedby the quality of the seed, the environment inwhich the plant develops, and the attentionthat it receives from planting time to harvest.If, however plants are grown with too muchfertilizer, their susceptibility to disease may beenhanced, or they may be adversely affected byabnormal environmental conditions, or theymay be overgrown and damaged by weeds whichalso thrive when fertilizer is applied.There is already evidence that the fertilizing

effects of government patronage may not bewholly desirable. As indicated by Weinberg(13), the effect of government subsidy may beto actually divert the recipient of the grant fromresearch rather than to increase his personalresearch activity: "One sees evidence of scientistsspending money instead of thought. This is one ofthe most insidious effects of large-scale supportof science.... If [a professor of science] becomestoo involved with Big Science he will have tobecome a publicist, if not a journalist, an ad-ministrator, and a spender of big money....Big Science can ruin our universities by divertingthe universities from their primary purposeand by converting university professors intoadministrators, housekeepers, and publicists."There are dangers also that popularization ofmicrobiology encourages the involvement ofmany who are ill-equipped or motivated asmicrobiologists. Weiss (14) views as dangersignals of Big Science the attractions to thesciences of many who are not thinkers but whooperate by rote performance, and the entranceinto popular fields of workers who repeat andreconfirm already established principles and whoadd little or nothing to the substance of thesubject. We as microbiologists may well heedhis plea for scientists who are "men of scienceand not men in science" and for scientists whosearch for ideas and use them and do not busythemselves with science merely to be occupied.

These undesirable effects of Big Science are

246 STARKEY

Dow

nloa

ded

from

http

s://j

ourn

als.

asm

.org

/jour

nal/b

r on

03

Dec

embe

r 20

21 b

y 17

5.20

7.46

.164

.

MICROBIOLOGY AND THE MICROBIOLOGIST

but one manifestation of the rapid expansion ofscientific research. The beneficial effects areso well known as to require no particulars. Thereis much administration associated with projectresearch that cannot be and should not bedelegated by the scientist. Projects are the cre-ations of the scientist and they are his responsi-bility. It is appropriate also that scientistspolice projects and review needs for physicalfacilities for research and for new programs fortraining students in the sciences. Provision for aconsiderable degree of control of government-sponsored research by scientists reflects crediton those who developed the regulatory pro-cedures. No process that excludes active par-ticipation of the scientists seems practical. Theresult is a commitment of effort to administra-tion at the expense of research, and the com-mitment increases with increase in the size andnumber of the projects in the scientist's program.These are inevitable consequences that should berecognized, for they determine the way in whichthe scientist will expend his time and effort.One may conclude, also, that government servesmore effectively as a patron of science than asdirector of the content and course of scientificresearch.

Motivation and Involvement of Microbiologists

Who is this person referred to as a micro-biologist and what are the ideals that inspireand motivate him in his creative efforts? Whatare the attributes for which he is esteemed andrespected? They are, in general, strikingly similarto the admirable elements of character andpersonality of people in other walks of life. Onefinds repeated reference to the able micro-biologist as being knowledgeable, wise, in-dustrious, resourceful, dedicated, and intel-lectually diligent. There are, however, certainadditional qualities that are particularly im-portant in the microbiologist as a scientist. Sincehe is concerned principally with ideas, he mustbe questioning, imaginative, and nonconforming.Because of his interest in living things it isinevitable that he will have an insatiable in-tellectual curiosity about natural phenomena.He seeks satisfaction in accomplishment, creative-ness, and discovery; he thrives on new factsrather than explaining them away to avoidconflict with established views. Of necessitythe microbiologist is an inquiring and perceptive

individual, and, if he is to be successful, hisintelligence must be well fortified by knowledge.The microbiologist does not conform to a type

but, like other persons, he is patient or im-petuous, humble or pompous, thorough or super-ficial. He may be tolerated but is sometimesfeared and seldom honored by nonscientists,who do not understand the objects and signifi-cance of science because they are perplexed,disturbed, or antagonized by the little theyknow. The scientist is not loved and, accordingto Dubos (6), he is accused of unemotionalism,lack of an appreciation of the arts, and lack of aconcern with the social consequence of hisstudies, whereas, to the contrary, he is sensitive,alert, humanistic, and responsive to others. Hehas high aspirations and is dedicated to hisprofession as something significant to mankind.The practice of science, and this includes micro-biology, is, to quote Dubos, "The quest for thereal, the verifiability of assertions ... andhumble respect for all the discoverable factsrelevant to the problem under study.... Yet,while there is no doubt that science is primarilyconcerned with real, verifiable events, it is alsotrue that many scientists spend their mostpleasant professional hours, and often their mostcreative, in dreamlands unencumbered withrealities and beyond the reach of verifiability."Continuing, Dubos writes: "Indeed, it seems tome that the activities of even the most objectiveand practical of experimenters are conditionednot only by tools, techniques, and logical con-cepts, but also, and perhaps even more, by con-ceptual views which transcend factual knowl-edge."The microbiologist cherishes freedom from

the business of education and management, so asto have opportunity for reading and study,teaching, and research, which are the elementsof his profession. While the position of ad-ministration is usually in support of these idealsand responsibilities of scientists, in the policiesof administration this support is too frequentlyshown to be not much more than lip service.There are increasing distractions that prevent

scientists and scholars from doing their work ofteaching and research, and this has resulted inmounting rumblings of discontent. Ingle (9)commented as follows: "How can an intellectuallygifted man best live his life? First, by cleavingto the way of the intellect. This means that thedistractions which accrue as a man grows older

247VOL. 27, 1963

Dow

nloa

ded

from

http

s://j

ourn

als.

asm

.org

/jour

nal/b

r on

03

Dec

embe

r 20

21 b

y 17

5.20

7.46

.164

.

BACTERIOL. REV.

must be rejected. Administering, organizing, andrunning errands for others are worthy occupa-tions and may be well rewarded financially, but,when a man has the gift for inquiry, he can bespared distractions only by his own effort, notby the thoughtfulness of his friends. I am in-clined not to include committees among worthyoccupations. Each scientific and educationalorganization employs them in abundance, but Iknow that they can destroy the worth andhappiness of a scholar, and frequently do."

There are similar implications of the followingwords of Boroff (2): "A word about facultydemocracy, another sacred cow. Committeeshave been growing like a cancer in most collegesas the vehicle of faculty self-determination.On the surface, the trend is unobjectionable-who is against democracy?-but committeescan be a curse. For one thing, teaching is ademanding art; one wonders about the wisdomof dispersing the teacher's energies. Secondly,committees and policy-making lead to a compli-cated network of relationships and an enforced,often neurotic, intimacy. In the old days, youhated your chairman or the president-or both.Now you hate everybody." One may assume,then, that the purpose of the professor and thescientist becomes lost in administration and inthe justification of what should be done at theexpense of doing it.

For many, the career of a scientist in a uni-versity, and probably also sometimes in industry,will be something less than a completely absorb-ing effort in teaching and research. "There is agrowing conviction," said Tuve (11) ". . . thatthe university is no place for a scholar in sciencetoday, because the professor's life nowadays isa rat race of busyness and activity, managingcontracts and projects, guiding teams of as-sistants, and bossing crews of technicians, plusthe distractions of numerous trips and com-mittees for government agencies, necessary tokeep the whole frenetic business from collapse."To a degree, our Society also contributes to

the dispersal of the scientists' time and thought.We have many committees, possibly too many,that are concerned with the promotion of ourscience. We and others seek the assistance ofmicrobiologists to review papers and books onscientific subjects.The unrecognized and as yet unfound resource-

ful and diligent microbiologist is to be envied.This should be appreciated by the young scientist

who seeks recognition and acclaim, which alltoo often are found to have prevented him fromaccomplishing what he could have done and whathe should have wanted to do as a research micro-biologist. I well recall a remark by Dr. Lipman,for many years Director of the New JerseyAgricultural Experiment Station. At the time itseemed to me a cryptic remark but in the yearsthat followed it gained increasing significance.The happiest days of his scientific life, Dr.Lipman commented, were those before he wasdiscovered. Possibly the time has come for theinclusion in the growing administrative hierarchyof a group whose sole duty will be to protect thescientist from tasks that divert him from teachingand research.

Furthermore, let us not abandon respect andconfidence in the individual in favor of a team.It is an administrator's illusion that conceptsare the product of cooperating groups. In micro-biology as in other areas of science and thearts, the spark that ignites progress can generallybe traced to an individual. The team plays itsimportant role in development. One might inquirewhat the science of microbiology would have beenwithout its Pasteur, Koch, Ehrlich, Wino-gradsky, Beijerinck, and Kluyver. I do notsubscribe to the idea of inevitability nor to theopinion that two half-wits make a wit. In thewords of Kennan (10), "Thought is, by its verynature, an individual process, not a collectiveone; that to be useful, thought must be com-municated; that to be communicated, it mustbe passed through the filter of the single mindthat puts it into words; that it cannot, therefore,be greater than what a single mind can compre-hend and state. There is thus no such thing ascollective judgement; there is only individualjudgement, enriched and refined on occasionby the advice of others, and commanding, incertain cases, the approval of a wider body. Thisbeing the case, the pretense of a collectivewisdom underlying so much of the governmentalcommittee system today is simply a form ofplay acting and self-deception-an elaborateexercise which fragmentizes responsibility with-out broadening thought. Not only this, but itleads . . . to a complete sacrifice of incisivenessand style."

If the idea needs reinforcing, one finds sup-port in the following comments of Wark (12):"With all this talk of teamwork, it is well toremember that no team ever made a brilliant

248 STARKEY

Dow

nloa

ded

from

http

s://j

ourn

als.

asm

.org

/jour

nal/b

r on

03

Dec

embe

r 20

21 b

y 17

5.20

7.46

.164

.

MICROBIOLOGY AND THE MICROBIOLOGIST

discovery. A discovery is made in the mind of asingle person. If the time is ripe it may ariseindependently in the minds of more than oneperson. But the discoveries for which Nobelprizes are awarded are those that one man alonesenses well ahead of his contemporaries, thesort that started rushes into the field of sciencesimilar, in a way, to the gold rushes of NewZealand, the Klondike and Kalgoorlie."

Lest I be misunderstood, my plea is for con-sideration for the responsible wise individualand not for unrestricted activity of all whowould call themselves microbiologists. Researchshould have purpose and direction. Too often,said Weiss (14), the hallmarks of the growingdilution of research effectiveness are "irrelevance,triviality, redundancy, lack of perspective, andan unbounded flair for proliferation."

Glimpses Into the FutureNotwithstanding its attractiveness, the future

is unknown. So many unexpected events charterthe future of microbiology that it may be un-profitable even to indulge in speculation. Never-theless, unconsciously or consciously, we allplan for the future and, in the planning, makeassumptions. To some, the future is dark indeed;there are visions of catastrophy by overpopula-tion and its attendant pressures on space, food,survival, and social customs. It is opined thatwe will inherit deficiencies of liberty, materials,and opportunity, and that there will be increasingpollution of the air, water, and food, moreartificiality, and a tenuous existence based onincreasing dependence of the individual onothers for the services and materials of a regi-mented complex society. To some the threat ofnuclear warfare serves as a discouragement toeffort for attainment of worthy aspirations.

There need not be chaos and oblivion, andour ordered lives indicate that we consider themimprobable. The future has remarkable potenti-alities based on the availability of new forms ofenergy, and with opportunity for time to thinkand to increase our understanding of the forcesof nature. It is within the power of microbiologistsand other scientists to promote the widespreadrespect for ideas, knowledge, understanding, andwisdom which provide meaning and importanceto existence. Although there is no sure security,we do find evidence that knowledge is the mostpowerful weapon against the destructive forcesof environment and men. The probability of

realizing our hopes is increased through replacingwishing by action, ignorance by knowledge,superstition by intelligence, incompetence byresourcefulness, and lethargy by enthusiasm.

Because we cannot see far into the future,Wiener (15) concluded "We must always possessa much larger stock of information concerningthe environment, physical, medical, and social,than we shall probably use in any particularcourse of history. It is of the utmost importanceto our safety against the vicissitudes of the futurethat this stock of fundamental scientific informa-tion be kept extremely wide." A strong casecould be made for research in microbiology with-out any other end in view but to direct the searchtoward a revelation of new principles and relation-ships. There is some agreement with this idea inWiener's statement that "It is not well that wehold the test of social usefulness too immediatelybefore us in the very difficult task of extendingscience."

Research in fads and glamorous popular areasmay provide publicity, but little lasting satis-faction for originality. There is something lessthan scientific achievement in reporting todaywhat another would have reported tomorrow.It is more suggestive of business success andwinning a game. Furthermore, current interestin a subject area is not necessarily a reflection ofits importance when judged in historical per-spective. Interest may be a reflection of practicalneed for the information, novelty of instrumenta-tion to make the type of investigation possible,or lack of originality in developing new andsignificant concepts. Once again I quote signifi-cant words of Hinshelwood (8): "The acclaimof the day seldom anticipates the verdict ofposterity, since the germinal things are almostalways hidden or unrecognized."

Since there is substantial evidence that therewill continue to be demands for increasing in-struction and research in microbiology, it maybe profitable to examine trends and anticipatesome of the areas of microbiology that are likelyto be emphasized in the future.

Increase in population calls for increase infood and commodities and imposes problems ofsanitation and disease. Increase in industrialactivities may be expected to result in greateramounts of wastes that may be decomposed bycontrolled microbial action. Microorganismsmay be called on for production of new andgreater amounts of useful products.

249VOL. 27, 1963

Dow

nloa

ded

from

http

s://j

ourn

als.

asm

.org

/jour

nal/b

r on

03

Dec

embe

r 20

21 b

y 17

5.20

7.46

.164

.

BACTERIOL. REV.

One may expect increased use of microor-ganisms for such desirable purposes as theconversion of cheap organic materials to alcohols,acids, lipids, vitamins, antibiotics, and enzymes,and even microbial cell material to be used asanimal feeds and food supplements. On the otherhand, microorganisms may be displaced asproducers of some commercial products bychemical synthesis. There is increasing evidenceof this in the petrochemical industries.

Microbiologists can hardly be expected to beresponsive to the following plea of a chemicalsuppliant (1):

Oh Lord, I fall upon my kneesAnd pray that all my synthesesMay no longer be inferiorTo those conducted by bacteria. (L. J. B.)

Conservation of food, plant, and animalresources and industrial equipment and com-modities may be expected to call for new andimproved methods of sterilization and protection,and for control of microbial development. Thisincludes protection of building materials, ma-chines, fabric, and paper. There will be need formore knowledge of biological control of micro-organisms pathogenic to man and higher plantsand also for use of microorganisms for controlof undesirable living things. The popular pressindicates that in the immediate future there willbe concern for the destruction by microorganismsof pesticides, surfactants, and other householdand industrial wastes that find their way intothe soil and water supplies.

Consideration of space travel calls for in-formation on susceptibility of the travelers toinfection, the use of microorganisms for thetransformation of human wastes and for theproduction of food, for new techniques of sterili-zation, and for detection of extraterrestrial life.

Certainly there are even now means of avoidingor controlling many microbial diseases that usedto be scourges of society. Because of this manyof us are here today. Accordingly, there is re-sultant need for social systems that will makelife worth the effort. It has been concluded bysome that drugs and sanitary practices have beenused too effectively, in that they have enabledpeople to live too long, with consequent phe-nomenal multiplication of the world population.This poses a serious problem of finding practicalmeans of controlling numbers. Must there be a

catastrophe as a consequence of man's ingenuityto control disease?

There seems little likelihood that there willbe less need for competence in medical micro-biology, for it is probable that information thatwas adequate in the past will be inadequate inthe future. As stated by Dubos (6), the futurewill be as full of diseases as the past but therewill be different ones. To quote Dubos, "Mypersonal view is that the burden of disease isnot likely to decrease in the future, whatever theprogress of medical research and whatever theskill of social organizations in applying newdiscoveries. While methods of control can andwill be found for almost any given pathologicalstate, we can take it for granted that disease willchange its manifestations according to socialcircumstances." Indeed, there may be need formore medical attention because it is likely thatthe individual will have more demanding healthstandards.With the discovery of the remarkable genetic

phenomena among microorganisms there washope that the physiological and biochemicalproperties of microorganisms could be alteredto promote in a practical way production ofdesired substances and in abnormal yields.Whereas results have failed to meet expectations,it may be that additional study will be morerewarding.

There are certain areas of microbiology thatin my opinion are particularly worthy of con-sideration, partly because they have been un-popular and information is needed.To many, intact bacteria have less interest

than the particles and compounds that can beseparated from the cells, such as microsomes,mitochondria, plastids, chromatin bodies, flagella,cell membranes, cell walls, DNA, RNA, andenzymes. I should like to believe that all micro-biologists know a great deal about the intactcells of microorganisms, their nutritive require-ments, their capacities as converters of materials,their natural environments and response toenvironmental conditions, and their morphologi-cal and physiological features. There is need formore concern for taxonomy, classification, andcharacterization of bacteria, with a re-examina-tion of characteristics that can serve as reliablecriteria of differentiation. Possibly what taxon-omy needs is a leavening influence such as thestimulating effect exerted on studies of bacterial

250 STARKEY

Dow

nloa

ded

from

http

s://j

ourn

als.

asm

.org

/jour

nal/b

r on

03

Dec

embe

r 20

21 b

y 17

5.20

7.46

.164

.

MICROBIOLOGY AND THE MICROBIOLOGIST

cytology by the appearance of the electron micro-scope and by the unorthodox views of Pijper.Much more information is needed on the

ecology of bacteria, not only of the speciesthat inhabit soil and water but also rarasiticbacteria of man, beasts, and plants. What arethe factors that determine their ability to thrivein their natural environments and to competeeffectively with their microbial associates?What are the means whereby they grow anddevelop in these environments, and what arethe products of their development? Surely muchremains to be learned of the basis of resistanceto disease, not only resistance of man and animalsto microbial invaders but also resistance ofhigher plants and even miroorganisms to attackby other microorganisms.

There is an opinion that I am sure is shared bymany, that microorganisms offer great opportu-nity for beginning students in biology to learn theprinciples of nutrition, growth, and developmentof living things. It is to be hoped, therefore, thatbacteria and related microorganisms will becomebetter known by the young biologists.

Microorganisms can serve likewise for thosewhose leisure hours are increased in advancingage or through reduced business responsibilities.The following questions were raised by Cogley(3): "What are we going to do with our newleisure? Are we all doomed to romp in the sunfrom the age of fifty onward to the grave insenior-citizen playgrounds? Are educators suffi-ciently aware of the fact that they are becomingmore directly responsible for the use of leisurethan for vocational and occupational training?"With leisure there will be more opportunityfor study and for creative research for personalgratification. This could be a glorified or gloriousadult education experience and could involvestudy and research in microbiology as a culturalendeavor. Leisure can be practically and profit-ably oriented into microbiology and we mightindeed give thought to the involvement of adultsin microbiology as an avocation of absorbinginterest.

Microorganisms have vast potentialities; inthe vernacular of the adventurer, there areunexplored territories of microbiology wherethe hand of man has not yet set foot!

Concluding RemarksThese are some of the conditions of micro-

biology and prospects for the microbiologist

as I view them, ever-changing and always pro-viding surprises. One can gain much by viewingin perspective the startling developments inmicrobiology, even though the greatest dis-coveries seem to shrink in significance in retro-spect. Imagine the amazement of a microbiologistof the thirties if he had been granted a glimpseof the progress of events only 10 years later whenthe significance of antibiotics commenced to,unfold, when the electron microscope presentedentirely new concepts of bacterial cytology,when studies of genetic principles shifted fromDrosophila to microorganisms, and when micro-organisms were becoming the specimens ofchoice to deduce biochemical fundamentals.Were there not evidences also that developmentsduring the second world war were generating anawareness of the insufficiency of the available-scientific information? Indeed, this grew into aconviction of need, and, as a result, governmentfunds were provided to implement an expandedprogram of scientific research. Certain it is thatthere was soon a rapid shift of financial support-and dominance of research from philanthropicand industrial groups to entirely new agencies-of the federal government, and this providedmeans to explore the vast potentialities of thenew vistas in microbiology.

Microbiology has flourished to a degree in-conceivable to our contemporaries of only 30years ago. The future may reveal equally unex-pected concepts and significance of the bacteria,each cell of which, to quote Delbriick (5), "carrieswith it the experiences of a billion years of ex-perimentation by its ancestors."As microbiologists, may we add a new element

to the monuments of the century, monumentsmore significant than metals, rocks, and plasticsmingled in the impressive dams, high-energyaccelerators, and space rockets. May we dreamdreams of perfection and make our contributionthat of ideas. Hopefully, these ideas will spillover from our Science and help to imbue ourfellow man with more desire for accomplishmentthan wealth, more eagerness for involvementthan ease, and greater regard for intelligence andwisdom than things.

LITERATURE CITED1. ANONYMOUS. 1963. European scientific notes.

Office of Naval Research, London, No. 17-2,Feb. 20, p. 21.

2. BOROFF, D. 1960. American colleges. What

251.VOL. 27, 1963

Dow

nloa

ded

from

http

s://j

ourn

als.

asm

.org

/jour

nal/b

r on

03

Dec

embe

r 20

21 b

y 17

5.20

7.46

.164

.

BACTERIOL. REV.

their catalogues never tell you. HarpersMag. 220(no. 1319):33-40.

3. COGLEY, J. 1963. People can be awakened.Center for the Study of Democratic Insti-tutions, Santa Barbara, Calif., Bulletin.March.

4. COHEN, B. 1950. Chronicles of the Society ofAmerican Bacteriologists 1899-1950.

5. DELBRICK, M. 1949. A physicist looks atbiology. Trans. Conn. Acad. Arts Sci.38:173-190.

6. DUBOS, R. 1961. The dreams of reason-scienceand utopias. Columbia University Press,New York.

7. FOSTER, J. W. 1962. Hydrocarbons as sub-strates for microorganisms. Antonie van

Leeuwenhoek J. Microbiol. Serol. 28:241-274.8. HINSHELWOOD, C. 1960. Address of the Presi-

dent of the Royal Society at the formalopening ceremony of the Tercentenary

Celebration at the Royal Albert Hall, 19July 1960. Am. Scientist 48:314A-330A.

9. INGLE, D. 1959. Current status of adreno-cortical research. Am. Scientist 47:413-426.

10. KENNAN, G. F. 1958. America's administrativeresponse to its world problems. Daedalus87(no. 2):5-24.

11. TUVE, M. A. 1959. Basic research in privateresearch institutes, p. 169-184. In D. Wolfle[ed.], Symposium on Basic Research.American Association for the Advancementof Science Publication 56, Washington,D.C.

12. WARK, I. W. 1963. Scientific research as acareer. Nature 197:737-740.

13. WEINBERG, A. M. 1961. Impact of large-scalescience on the United States. Science 134:161-164.

14. WEIss, P. 1962. Experience and experiment inbiology. Science 136:468-471.

15. WIENER, N. 1961. Science and society. Tech-nol. Rev. 63(no. 9):49-52.

252 STARKEY

Dow

nloa

ded

from

http

s://j

ourn

als.

asm

.org

/jour

nal/b

r on

03

Dec

embe

r 20

21 b

y 17

5.20

7.46

.164

.