• DOI:10.1093/JHMAS/XXXIV.3.273
• Corpus ID: 39800747

Experimental method and spontaneous generation: the controversy between Pasteur and Pouchet, 1859--64.

@article{RollHansen1979ExperimentalMA,
  title={Experimental method and spontaneous generation: the controversy between Pasteur and Pouchet, 1859--64.},
  author={Nils Roll-Hansen},
  journal={Journal of the history of medicine and allied sciences},
  year={1979},
  volume={34 3},
  pages={
          273-92
        }
}

• N. Roll-Hansen
• Published 1 July 1979
• History
• Journal of the history of medicine and allied sciences

j HE introduction of the experimental method in biology has traditionally been seen as the main ingredient of the nineteenth century revolution in that science. Louis Pasteur was perhaps the greatest prophet of the new experimental biology, and his contribution to settling the question of spontaneous generation has been taken as a model of proper experimental method. He combined theoretical boldness and imagination with a critical scientific attitude and thorough methods of testing disputed hypotheses. In contrast to his opponents, Pasteur was not led astray by his prejudices, but built methodically on experimental work done largely by himself. The facts behind this interpretation deserve some reexamination. What influence, for instance, did religious or political views have on the conclusions that were drawn? John Farley and Gerald Geison have tried to show 'the very real significance of the extra-scientific, political aspects of the debate.' They claim to have revealed a 'direct influence of extrinsic factors on the conceptual content of serious science,' and they accuse Pasteur of violating the rules of the experimental method. Farley and Geison are 'persuaded that external factors influenced Pasteur's research and scientific judgement more powerfully than they did the defeated Pouchet.' This reinterpretation of the controversy is repeated by