Department of Biotechnology and Science Centre, Delft University of Technology, Van der Burgweg 1, 2628CS Delft, The Netherlands.
FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2022 Feb 24;369(1). doi: 10.1093/femsle/fnac022.
When Antoni van Leeuwenhoek began his work with microscopes in the late 17th century, western medicine was mostly based on the work of a Roman doctor called Galen (129-199 ad), theological interpretation, superstition, and folk remedies. During modern discussions of Van Leeuwenhoek's work, a common question from listeners is why it took so long for the link between Van Leeuwenhoek's discoveries and infectious disease to be accepted. Published literature, examples of which are discussed here, shows that many researchers, doctors, and others reported the link, even during Van Leeuwenhoek's lifetime. However, it was frequently not taken seriously by the most influential people. The scientific establishment included a faction of the Royal Society of London who called themselves the 'Mechanical Philosophers'. They ridiculed those reporting animalcule-linked infection, dismissing them as 'Contagionists'. The medical establishment also included many influential people with a lot to lose if they changed their established approaches, and many quack doctors. Most religious ministers were strongly orthodox, some even claiming that helping the sick angered God. A major problem, of course, was that technology and biological understanding also lagged far behind. Despite the fact that the use of vaccination was under active discussion in the Royal Society at the time of Van Leeuwenhoek's death and quarantine was in regular use, a possible microbial connection was apparently not considered. It was not until late in the 19th century, that Robert Koch (1843-1910) isolated Bacillus anthracis, proved that it caused anthrax, and was believed. This paper follows a lecture given during the online Microbe Forum in June 2021, and illustrates the difficulties of establishing the true link between Van Leeuwenhoek's animalcules and infectious disease in humans, animals, and plants.
当安东尼·范·列文虎克（Antoni van Leeuwenhoek）在 17 世纪后期开始使用显微镜进行研究时，当时的西方医学主要基于罗马医生盖伦（Galen）的著作（公元 129-199 年）、神学解释、迷信和民间疗法。在现代对范列文虎克工作的讨论中，听众经常会问一个问题，为什么范列文虎克的发现与传染病之间的联系花了这么长时间才被接受。本文所讨论的已发表文献表明，许多研究人员、医生和其他人报告了这种联系，甚至在范列文虎克的有生之年也是如此。然而，它并没有被最有影响力的人认真对待。科学机构包括伦敦皇家学会的一个派系，他们自称“机械哲学家”。他们嘲笑那些报告微生物与感染有关的人，称他们为“传染病学家”。医学机构也包括许多有影响力的人，如果他们改变既定的方法，他们会有很多损失，还有许多庸医。大多数宗教部长都非常正统，有些人甚至声称帮助病人会激怒上帝。当然，一个主要问题是技术和生物学理解也远远落后。尽管在范列文虎克去世时，皇家学会正在积极讨论接种疫苗的使用，并且经常进行检疫，但显然没有考虑到可能的微生物联系。直到 19 世纪后期，罗伯特·科赫（Robert Koch）（1843-1910 年）才分离出炭疽杆菌，证明它会引起炭疽病，并被人们相信。本文是在 2021 年 6 月在线微生物论坛上发表的演讲之后撰写的，它说明了在人类、动物和植物中确立范列文虎克的微生物与传染病之间真正联系的困难。
