From Paul Hewlett
I have studied the biography of Howard Florey by Gwyn Macfarlane, referred to by Mitchell J. Notaras (Letters, 8 July), and that of Alexander Fleming by André Maurois, both substantial books.
Macfarlane rightly admired Florey, but mistakenly denigrated Fleming. I am therefore glad to read Milton Wainwright’s defence of Fleming (Letters, 5 August). However, I am sorry that Wainwright in return criticises Florey, supposing that he should have started work on penicillin sooner.
We now know how valuable penicillin is, and it may be difficult for us to imagine the situation as seen by Florey, and by Ernst Boris Chain, when there were but indications of its possible clinical value, and when other lines of research also appeared promising.
Fleming showed that juice from a mould, Penicillium notatum, inhibited the growth of some important disease-causing bacteria in vitro. He carried the work forward so far as his facilities allowed, and attempted unsuccessfully to purify penicillin, between say 1928 and 1932. Florey and his team from 1938 onward worked upon the production and purification of penicillin with resolute skill, devoting more resources to the project as it came to show increasing promise. By the end of 1942 their investigations had shown the great value of penicillin.
Advertisement
No doubt Fleming received much more publicity than Florey’s group, partly owing to a reticence forced upon Florey by complex reasons of honour, which Macfarlane explains. However, the news media understood their public, who could picture Fleming’s initial observation of a culture dish containing a mould colony surrounded by an area free of bacterial colonies.
The public would find it less easy to understand the process of penicillin purification which included unfamiliar procedures such as choice of solvents, adjustment of pH, freeze-drying and bioassay. Credit is owed to Fleming, to Florey, and to all the members of Florey’s team. Their investigations on penicillin benefit the human race.
