This article is about
Howard Florey, the scientist who led the team that developed
penicillin. They developed techniques for growing, purifying and manufacturing the drug, determined its chemical and physical structure, discovered how it worked, tested it for toxicity and efficacy on animals, and carried out the first clinical trials. The development of antibiotics revolutionised medicine and agriculture. His discoveries are estimated to have saved over 80 million lives, and earned him a share of the
Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1945.
Hawkeye7(discuss)20:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Image review
Suggest adding alt text
File:Sir_Howard_Florey.jpg: as per the tag given, also needs a US tag and first publication details. Ditto File:Howard_Florey_with_sister_Hilda_on_arrival_in_Melbourne,_1944.jpg
FUR=Fair Use Rationale. The image is in copyright, so we need to provide a detailed rationale as to why we should be allowed to use it in this specific article.
UndercoverClassicist (
talk)
11:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The one it has should be elaborated on to better justify why a non-free image is justified here, or to turn that around why simply saying he appeared on the note via text is insufficient.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
04:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)reply
"It adds significantly to the article, as it illustrates the subject of the image and illustrates a significant cultural reference to Florey."
Hawkeye7(discuss)05:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't know what I more need to add to the justification. I did not add it and am not attached to it, and would remove it if I thought it would make a difference.
Hawkeye7(discuss)10:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The image has been removed. This is a shame, as the text won't mean as much to the reader without it, and the article on the $50 note does not cover it. The note is no longer in circulation, so many people have not seen it. Perhaps we should remove the text to avoid confusion.
Hawkeye7(discuss)20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Prose comments, CT55555
Lots of prose comments, none are critical, all should be considered very mild suggestions:
Lead: I think commas are needed after "In 1941", "In 1935" and "In 1962".
Rhodes scholar: It surprised me that the 2018 cash equivalent of £300 is given in dollars and not pounds, or both.
Dollars replaced pounds in 1966. Back then the Australian pound was tied to the value of gold like the sterling, but after 1929 the Australian pound left the gold standard and the two currencies diverged.
Hawkeye7(discuss)03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)reply
LS: "...the mercy of..." reads like the reader should know that there are scheduling or reliability issues, but the reader doesn't, so some context/explanation would help.
Throughout: cash equivalents seem to vary between 2018, 2021 and other years. I assume this is unavoidable, but if it is avoidable, would be nice to have consistent years for easier comparisons. Not a critical issue.
North Africa: Change "made available for Allied invasion of Italy" to "made available for the Allied invasion of Italy" or "made available, ahead of the Allied invasion of Italy" perhaps?
Soviet Union: the one sentence section looks odd, but I understand why it is like that. Is there any way to reduce the number of sections here? (I see maybe there is not)
Throughout: the term "the children" I find out of place. Should "his children" be used, that seems more normal.
Cephalosporin:Should "The Oxford team" be the "The Oxford University team". The article talks about the university and the city, so the need to differentiate exists.
Provost of Queens: "On the other hand" is out of place, as that is normally a phrase that is followed by a "one one hand..." intro. Maybe something like "Conversely..." would flow better?
Personal life: I think "cardiac" is more widely understood than "cardiacal" so a mild suggestion to change that, but if you know something that I don't, then ignore this.
Death: "Although Florey was an agnostic" implies there is a tension between Agnosticism and christianity, but I think that is not necessarily true. I think that it is possible and common to believe in christianity and also to believe that the beliefs of christianity cannot be proven, or known (but still can be believed). Atheists are in tension, Agnostics are not. So the "although" is out of place. I think in some contexts (North American" Agnosticism is colloquially used for "mild atheism" but I think that is not technically correct. I may be in
WP:OR territory here, so others should critique my logic perhaps. Later it says "disbelief" so maybe we should call him an atheist?
Overall I found this a very comprehensive article, with maybe just slightly too many sections and occasional use of non Australian-English terms, occasionally too much abbreviation of academic institution names, occasionally very slightly colloquial tone, all very fixable and trivial issues. My comments are borderline pedantic. I found zero major issues with this article.
CT55555(
talk)
23:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for taking my feedback on board. I note a couple of errors in my comments (commonly things already being linked) and very mild suggestions not agreed with (that's fine by me, all were just suggestions). I am happy that most were accepted and for some to be rejected.
CT55555(
talk)
03:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Support with comments from Graham Beards
I found a few errors, which I have taken the liberty of correcting.
[3] I am happy to discuss any of these changes.
I was a little shocked to see Florey credited with elucidating the structure of penicillin when it was Dorothy Hodgkin (who won a Nobel Prize for it
[4]). The same error is repeated in the nomination statement at the top of this page!
It says that Florey was the leader of the team that did these things; Heatley handled production, Abraham and Chain the chemistry, Florey and Jennings the testing; Hodgkin was part of the Oxford team. Abraham, Baker, Chain, Florey, Holiday and Robinson published the chemical formula in 1942; Hodgkin used X-rays to determine its structure in 1949. I wrote about this in the
History of Penicillin article.
Hawkeye7(discuss)22:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Although certainly a collaborator, I am not convinced Hodgkin was part of Florey's research group (team). It was Chain that postulated the presence of the beta-lactam ring and it was Chain who suggested to Hodgkin that she have a go at elucidating penicillin's structure. Hodgkin was not answerable to Florey in the sense implied in the article. The article comes across as a tad to biased in Florey's favour in my view. Hodgkin was awarded the Nobel Prize for determining the structure, she didn't share it with Florey who got his “for the discovery of penicillin and its curative effect in various infectious diseases”, shared with Fleming.
Graham Beards (
talk)
08:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)reply
There are a couple of sentences (for now), which need some clarification:
Here "While the lysozyme research was successful, it was not fruitful, because while it was lethal to certain bacteria, these were not bacteria that caused illness, and were therefore of negligible concern to medicine." This is vague and possibly not true. What are the "certain bacteria"? Are they Gram-positive? And how do we know that these bacteria are non-pathogenic? Also doesn't "successful" and "fruitful" mean the same thing in this context?
The source says:
Meanwhile the research on lysozyme by Roberts and Maegraith — for which he had succeeded in getting a further grant of $1280 from the Rockefeller Foundation in 1936— had proved fruitful. They had succeeded in effecting a considerable degree of puri- fication and in 1937 E. P. Abraham— who was working with Robinson as a DPhil student— succeeded in crystallizing it: he was later to join Florey in the Sir William Dunn School of Path- logy. This provided an appropriate starting-point for Chain, who had completed his snake venom work; he was joined in 1937 by an American Rhodes Scholar, L. A. Epstein (later Falk), in an investigation of the nature and mode of action of lysozyme. They confirmed that it was indeed an enzyme and that its action was directed specifically against a polysaccharide in the cell wall of Micrococcus lysodeikticus and other lysozyme-sensitive organisms. To identify the polysaccharide it was necessary to grow substantial quantities of the bacteria in Winchester bottles— a technique in which the advice of Professor Gardner was helpful— and separate and fractionate the bacterial cells. With this material it was possible to show that the cell-wall component destroyed by lysozyme was a simple derivative of glucose-N-acetylglucosamine. The destruction of this by lysozyme accounted for the disintegration and lysis of the cells originally observed by Fleming. Today, when research techniques are so much more sensitive and versatile, this would not rank as a remarkable achievement but with the techniques available immediately before the last War it was unquestionably a brilliant success.
As things stood, however, it was something of a self-contained success; it did not immediately suggest a further line of fruitful investigation. Indirectly, none the less, it initiated new research which was to culminate in the development of penicillin as a chemotherapeutic agent in a class on its own. The distinctive feature of lysozyme was its unusual combination of two properties. On the one hand it was innocuous to human tissue; on the other, it was lethal to certain bacteria. Its disappointing feature was that the bacteria it destroyed were not those of practical significance in medicine.
The point here is a recurring theme in the article; Florey was a scientist, who was interested in research for its own sake. Finding useful things was very much a byproduct of his work.
Hawkeye7(discuss)22:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Here "Abraham and Chain discovered that some airborne bacteria that produced penicillinase, an enzyme that destroys penicillin." The term "penicillinase" is outdated, the enzyme is called "
betalactamase".
I noticed that the author was uncertain of the nomenclature used when describing bacteria. There was a mixture of formal taxonomic names , e.g. "streptococcus" and informal common names e.g. "gonococcus". I think I caught them all in my edits, but they might creep back in. If it helps it should be either Streptococcus spp (formal) or just streptococci (informal), and Neisseria gonorrhoeae or just gonococci.
Thanks. I think this arose from multiple authors editing the article, but your are quite right about me being uncertain about the nomenclature, or I would have made it mode consistent. Your work is much appreciated.
Hawkeye7(discuss)22:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Although my review has mainly focussed on the accuracy of the microbiology, I think this article is ready for promotion with regard to the other criteria. The nominator has done excellent and admirable work.
Graham Beards (
talk)
12:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Support with comments by Draken Bowser
Hello. Just a few queries:
"He collaborated with biochemist Marjory Stephenson on his lysozyme project.." The use of "his" makes me think, as I'm reading it, that I should already have heard about this project.
"..much less dangerous amyl nitrite.." Could a more specific adjective be used here?
If you have one. Had to deal with this at the Research School of Chemistry. Nasty awful stuff, responsible for many deaths, fires and explosions. Added a source on how nasty it is.
Hawkeye7(discuss)10:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
"The erroneous impression given by Fleming that penicillin was a bactericidal enzyme led Chain to consider that it would be similar to lysozyme." While implied by both this sentence and its name, consider specifying that lysozyme is an enzyme at some point before this.
An inquiry: Robert P. Gaynes mentions that after Florey elected Heatley as his plus-one for the US: Chain never forgave Florey for leaving him behind, leading to a feud lasting years.[1] Which is not hard to imagine given that Heatly after meeting Chain had refused to work for him, instead electing to report directly to Florey.[2] But Gaynes does not detail the consequences of the quarrel. Was there any significance to this schism?
Draken Bowser (
talk)
08:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Florey took Heatley to the US with him because he wanted an expert on production, and Heatley was his team member for that. But to Chain penicillin was a joint project between the two of them, and Heatley was just a technician. Added words to this effect.
Hawkeye7(discuss)10:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Reviewing
this version, spot-check only upon request. It seems like all sources have the requisite information and formatting is consistent. The trove.nla.gov.au source seems to throw a lot of "forbidden" errors. Some sources seem to link PMC twice, first as an ID and second as a link from the article title; dunno that it's necessary. What is source #114 and #158? Is the link to
Brett Mason correct? Is
this review of Wilson 1976 a problem?
Very well. I have removed the image of the $50 note. Many people carried it around for years but never knew who the picture was of or what the surrounding images are about. Now I guess now they will never know. Without the image, the text should probably be deleted as well, as it is no longer intelligible to the reader.
I get no errors from the Trove links. (Runs
checklinks) We have HTTP 302 status but they work and display on the checklinks page) fine.
I don't think the double-linking of PMCs is necessary either, but they are not my doing; they are automatically generated by the |pmc card in the {{cite journal}} template.
Fn 114 is a citation to Macfarlane; fn 158 is a reference to the London Gazette. Is there a problem with them?
In the case of the PMC links, I'd probably remove the url link from the citation templates. WRT the image, I think folks would probably look at
Australian fifty-dollar note rather to find out who he is. WRT the review, it raises some questions about the reliability of Wilson 1976.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
19:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The are no url links in the citations in the article; the link generated by the template itself, and local consensus here is insufficient to remove it from a template used by millions of articles.
The review of David Wilson's book does not question its reliability. It says that it:
at last sets out the full story of the modern discovery and development of penicillin. It is attractively written - if we ignore uncritically enthusiastic statements about Pasteur which appear intermittently. But nothing is said about earlier discoveries of penicillin.
The earlier discoveries are out of scope of this article, having nothing to do with Florey. Other reviews are positive:
It has long been suspected that the accepted description of the discovery and therapeutic use of penicillin is not entirely accurate. Professor Ronald Hare's The birth of penicillin (London, 1970) and Professor Sir Ernst Chain's lecture of 1971 have helped to set the record straight and this book contributes further to the process. The author, who is a science writer and broadcaster, has collected together all the available data and presents what seems to be the most acceptable, detailed account so far available. He has carried out extensive research and presents his facts and conclusions in a lucid, undramatic style, with some documentation. The picture gradually clarifies but there are still problems the resolution of which will probably have to await the demise of all who were concerned with this remarkable venture.
— Medical History, 1977, Vol.21 (4), p. 460
Wilson does a first-rate job of picturing the personalities of Florey, Fleming, Chain and others who kept moving on and off the stage and distinguishing between the mythical and factual elements of the story. The time lag between the discovery and development of penicillin is examined carefully; Wilson explains the scientific atmosphere that militated against faster progress. The problems of manufacturing penicillin are especially well handled.
OK, this works then. I thought that the article links were as a "url" parameter, although it certainly surprises me that the templates themselves feel the need to link twice.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
20:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi Hawkeye, really enjoyed this article. I used to get Fleming and Florey and their roles mixed, probably the Fl alliteration. You've cured me!
That is not uncommon. Now that the influence of the UK on the English-speaking world has waned, fewer people have heard of Fleming. We have a whole suburb of Canberra named after Florey, but the residents don't know how his name is pronounced. I hope that the Wikipedia article will correct this.
Hawkeye7(discuss)20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)reply
after the task had been abandoned ten years before - ten years after the task had been abandoned -(just a bit strange with "after" followed by "before") (the "abandoned" relates to "Dreyer had been given a sample of the mould in 1930 for his work on bacteriophages. He had lost interest in penicillin..." not Fleming?)
They developed techniques for growing, purifying and manufacturing the drug, and tested it for toxicity and efficacy on animals, and carried out the first clinical trials on people. - there are four "and"s in that sentence. Only suggestion, swap "and carried out " to 'then' carried out
where his high school headmaster, A. G. Girdlestone, had gone - this is (Canon)
Henry Girdlestone - was at Magdalen College, was headmaster at
St Peter's College, Adelaide 1894-1915. When I see Williams on gbooks, it only shows me 3 snippets... page 4 says A.G. Girdlestone, page 6 has Canon Girdlestone and, on page 398 (index?), it has Gibson, A. G. and then Girdlestone, A. G. - Maybe the A. G. got transposed? Macfarlane has Canon. Should swap A. G. to Canon piped to Henry?
awarded the degrees of Bachelor of Arts in 1924 - "degrees" plural? should include B.Sc.? ADB has both for 1924 but then MA for 1935 (but is it a typo and should be 1925?)
but when Florey approached Pirie's boss, Sir Frederick Gowland Hopkins, Hopkins refused - tweak to avoid "Hopkins, Hopkins" Perhaps 'but when Florey approached Sir Frederick Gowland Hopkins, Pirie's boss, Hopkins refused'
recommending Ernst Boris Chain. Chain was one of many Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany who had found sanctuary in the UK, and he had recently completed - same thing? "Chain. Chain" maybe 'recommending Ernst Boris Chain. One of many Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany who had found sanctuary in the UK, Chain had found...'
facial infection involving streptococci and staphylococci. His whole - those unitalicised look odd compared to same words italicised in previous para. Nothing to suggest
Chain, who saw penicillin as a joint project between himself and Florey and Heatley as a laboratory technician - Chain felt Heatley equal or is that 'joint project between himself and Florey with Heatley as a laboratory technician'?
It ended with Blamey convinced that Florey - Did Florey actually suggest and convince? or just Blamey's idea? did he discuss with Florey?
Blamey's pet project.
Ginger Burston was involved. After seeing the effects of antibiotics and antimalarials, Blamey became convinced that medical knowledge would be an important factor in future conflicts, and Australia needed its own medical research institute. I don't know why he wanted it to be in Canberra, but that is part of his original proposal.
Hawkeye7(discuss)23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)reply
research institute in Canberra, - the capital Canberra
It was quickly approved, but Curtin became ill, and he died in July 1945 - remove he? Why "but", did that put kibosh on the approved proposal? Approved as in Curtin had only verbally agreed or was some paperwork, legislation, budget, etc "approved"
He was created a Knight Bachelor on 18 July 1944 - while it came from Whitehall on 18 July, it was conferred on the 4th? ie per Gazette "The KING was pleased on Tuesday, the 4th instant, at Buckingham Palace, to confer the honour of Knighthood...
Sir David Rivett, who chaired a committee exploring the proposal - the original uni or Florey's? If Florey's, maybe 'who chaired a committee to explore the proposal'
"elected to both the United States National Academy of Sciences" and "a Foreign Associate of the American National Academy of Sciences in 1963" - these are two separate things in 1963?
home at the provost's lodging - lodgings plural elsewhere
outspoken in his disbelief - nonbelief? "Florey was an agnostic" I can't see the refs but I can see the Williams quote provided ie "he was not aggressive in his disbelief." but then there's "Florey had been so outspoken in his disbelief"? Contradictory? Wouldn't someone "aggressive in his disbelief" be atheist not an agnostic?
The screen is the work of Grinling Gibbons. As an agnostic, the chapel services meant nothing to Florey but, unlike some contemporary scientists, he was not aggressive in his disbelief.
— Williams, p. 363
A plaque in his honor is embedded in the wall by the door entering the Anglican church in Old Marston, across the street from the house he and Ethel built. The vestry refused to install it inside because Florey was so outspoken in his disbelief.
No, I haven't been reading w3! I see editors add the spaces and other editors remove them. I've never known which is correct. Now I do, so thanks!
JennyOz (
talk)
11:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks
Hawkeye for tweaks and patient explanations. I have just made a few minor changes, hope OK.
In ANU section there are still two figures in "modern" pounds rather than A$, ie £100,000 (equivalent to £4,591,000 in 2021) and £240,000 (equivalent to £11,019,000 in 2021). Not sure if you missed them?
This is a sterling article! (I just hope, for your sake that
Mr Nolan doesn't make a new movie about Florey - you deserve a medal for coping with the hundreds of "you've seen the movie, now play with all the related articles" consequences!)
This article is about
Howard Florey, the scientist who led the team that developed
penicillin. They developed techniques for growing, purifying and manufacturing the drug, determined its chemical and physical structure, discovered how it worked, tested it for toxicity and efficacy on animals, and carried out the first clinical trials. The development of antibiotics revolutionised medicine and agriculture. His discoveries are estimated to have saved over 80 million lives, and earned him a share of the
Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1945.
Hawkeye7(discuss)20:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Image review
Suggest adding alt text
File:Sir_Howard_Florey.jpg: as per the tag given, also needs a US tag and first publication details. Ditto File:Howard_Florey_with_sister_Hilda_on_arrival_in_Melbourne,_1944.jpg
FUR=Fair Use Rationale. The image is in copyright, so we need to provide a detailed rationale as to why we should be allowed to use it in this specific article.
UndercoverClassicist (
talk)
11:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The one it has should be elaborated on to better justify why a non-free image is justified here, or to turn that around why simply saying he appeared on the note via text is insufficient.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
04:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)reply
"It adds significantly to the article, as it illustrates the subject of the image and illustrates a significant cultural reference to Florey."
Hawkeye7(discuss)05:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't know what I more need to add to the justification. I did not add it and am not attached to it, and would remove it if I thought it would make a difference.
Hawkeye7(discuss)10:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The image has been removed. This is a shame, as the text won't mean as much to the reader without it, and the article on the $50 note does not cover it. The note is no longer in circulation, so many people have not seen it. Perhaps we should remove the text to avoid confusion.
Hawkeye7(discuss)20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Prose comments, CT55555
Lots of prose comments, none are critical, all should be considered very mild suggestions:
Lead: I think commas are needed after "In 1941", "In 1935" and "In 1962".
Rhodes scholar: It surprised me that the 2018 cash equivalent of £300 is given in dollars and not pounds, or both.
Dollars replaced pounds in 1966. Back then the Australian pound was tied to the value of gold like the sterling, but after 1929 the Australian pound left the gold standard and the two currencies diverged.
Hawkeye7(discuss)03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)reply
LS: "...the mercy of..." reads like the reader should know that there are scheduling or reliability issues, but the reader doesn't, so some context/explanation would help.
Throughout: cash equivalents seem to vary between 2018, 2021 and other years. I assume this is unavoidable, but if it is avoidable, would be nice to have consistent years for easier comparisons. Not a critical issue.
North Africa: Change "made available for Allied invasion of Italy" to "made available for the Allied invasion of Italy" or "made available, ahead of the Allied invasion of Italy" perhaps?
Soviet Union: the one sentence section looks odd, but I understand why it is like that. Is there any way to reduce the number of sections here? (I see maybe there is not)
Throughout: the term "the children" I find out of place. Should "his children" be used, that seems more normal.
Cephalosporin:Should "The Oxford team" be the "The Oxford University team". The article talks about the university and the city, so the need to differentiate exists.
Provost of Queens: "On the other hand" is out of place, as that is normally a phrase that is followed by a "one one hand..." intro. Maybe something like "Conversely..." would flow better?
Personal life: I think "cardiac" is more widely understood than "cardiacal" so a mild suggestion to change that, but if you know something that I don't, then ignore this.
Death: "Although Florey was an agnostic" implies there is a tension between Agnosticism and christianity, but I think that is not necessarily true. I think that it is possible and common to believe in christianity and also to believe that the beliefs of christianity cannot be proven, or known (but still can be believed). Atheists are in tension, Agnostics are not. So the "although" is out of place. I think in some contexts (North American" Agnosticism is colloquially used for "mild atheism" but I think that is not technically correct. I may be in
WP:OR territory here, so others should critique my logic perhaps. Later it says "disbelief" so maybe we should call him an atheist?
Overall I found this a very comprehensive article, with maybe just slightly too many sections and occasional use of non Australian-English terms, occasionally too much abbreviation of academic institution names, occasionally very slightly colloquial tone, all very fixable and trivial issues. My comments are borderline pedantic. I found zero major issues with this article.
CT55555(
talk)
23:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for taking my feedback on board. I note a couple of errors in my comments (commonly things already being linked) and very mild suggestions not agreed with (that's fine by me, all were just suggestions). I am happy that most were accepted and for some to be rejected.
CT55555(
talk)
03:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Support with comments from Graham Beards
I found a few errors, which I have taken the liberty of correcting.
[3] I am happy to discuss any of these changes.
I was a little shocked to see Florey credited with elucidating the structure of penicillin when it was Dorothy Hodgkin (who won a Nobel Prize for it
[4]). The same error is repeated in the nomination statement at the top of this page!
It says that Florey was the leader of the team that did these things; Heatley handled production, Abraham and Chain the chemistry, Florey and Jennings the testing; Hodgkin was part of the Oxford team. Abraham, Baker, Chain, Florey, Holiday and Robinson published the chemical formula in 1942; Hodgkin used X-rays to determine its structure in 1949. I wrote about this in the
History of Penicillin article.
Hawkeye7(discuss)22:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Although certainly a collaborator, I am not convinced Hodgkin was part of Florey's research group (team). It was Chain that postulated the presence of the beta-lactam ring and it was Chain who suggested to Hodgkin that she have a go at elucidating penicillin's structure. Hodgkin was not answerable to Florey in the sense implied in the article. The article comes across as a tad to biased in Florey's favour in my view. Hodgkin was awarded the Nobel Prize for determining the structure, she didn't share it with Florey who got his “for the discovery of penicillin and its curative effect in various infectious diseases”, shared with Fleming.
Graham Beards (
talk)
08:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)reply
There are a couple of sentences (for now), which need some clarification:
Here "While the lysozyme research was successful, it was not fruitful, because while it was lethal to certain bacteria, these were not bacteria that caused illness, and were therefore of negligible concern to medicine." This is vague and possibly not true. What are the "certain bacteria"? Are they Gram-positive? And how do we know that these bacteria are non-pathogenic? Also doesn't "successful" and "fruitful" mean the same thing in this context?
The source says:
Meanwhile the research on lysozyme by Roberts and Maegraith — for which he had succeeded in getting a further grant of $1280 from the Rockefeller Foundation in 1936— had proved fruitful. They had succeeded in effecting a considerable degree of puri- fication and in 1937 E. P. Abraham— who was working with Robinson as a DPhil student— succeeded in crystallizing it: he was later to join Florey in the Sir William Dunn School of Path- logy. This provided an appropriate starting-point for Chain, who had completed his snake venom work; he was joined in 1937 by an American Rhodes Scholar, L. A. Epstein (later Falk), in an investigation of the nature and mode of action of lysozyme. They confirmed that it was indeed an enzyme and that its action was directed specifically against a polysaccharide in the cell wall of Micrococcus lysodeikticus and other lysozyme-sensitive organisms. To identify the polysaccharide it was necessary to grow substantial quantities of the bacteria in Winchester bottles— a technique in which the advice of Professor Gardner was helpful— and separate and fractionate the bacterial cells. With this material it was possible to show that the cell-wall component destroyed by lysozyme was a simple derivative of glucose-N-acetylglucosamine. The destruction of this by lysozyme accounted for the disintegration and lysis of the cells originally observed by Fleming. Today, when research techniques are so much more sensitive and versatile, this would not rank as a remarkable achievement but with the techniques available immediately before the last War it was unquestionably a brilliant success.
As things stood, however, it was something of a self-contained success; it did not immediately suggest a further line of fruitful investigation. Indirectly, none the less, it initiated new research which was to culminate in the development of penicillin as a chemotherapeutic agent in a class on its own. The distinctive feature of lysozyme was its unusual combination of two properties. On the one hand it was innocuous to human tissue; on the other, it was lethal to certain bacteria. Its disappointing feature was that the bacteria it destroyed were not those of practical significance in medicine.
The point here is a recurring theme in the article; Florey was a scientist, who was interested in research for its own sake. Finding useful things was very much a byproduct of his work.
Hawkeye7(discuss)22:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Here "Abraham and Chain discovered that some airborne bacteria that produced penicillinase, an enzyme that destroys penicillin." The term "penicillinase" is outdated, the enzyme is called "
betalactamase".
I noticed that the author was uncertain of the nomenclature used when describing bacteria. There was a mixture of formal taxonomic names , e.g. "streptococcus" and informal common names e.g. "gonococcus". I think I caught them all in my edits, but they might creep back in. If it helps it should be either Streptococcus spp (formal) or just streptococci (informal), and Neisseria gonorrhoeae or just gonococci.
Thanks. I think this arose from multiple authors editing the article, but your are quite right about me being uncertain about the nomenclature, or I would have made it mode consistent. Your work is much appreciated.
Hawkeye7(discuss)22:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Although my review has mainly focussed on the accuracy of the microbiology, I think this article is ready for promotion with regard to the other criteria. The nominator has done excellent and admirable work.
Graham Beards (
talk)
12:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Support with comments by Draken Bowser
Hello. Just a few queries:
"He collaborated with biochemist Marjory Stephenson on his lysozyme project.." The use of "his" makes me think, as I'm reading it, that I should already have heard about this project.
"..much less dangerous amyl nitrite.." Could a more specific adjective be used here?
If you have one. Had to deal with this at the Research School of Chemistry. Nasty awful stuff, responsible for many deaths, fires and explosions. Added a source on how nasty it is.
Hawkeye7(discuss)10:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
"The erroneous impression given by Fleming that penicillin was a bactericidal enzyme led Chain to consider that it would be similar to lysozyme." While implied by both this sentence and its name, consider specifying that lysozyme is an enzyme at some point before this.
An inquiry: Robert P. Gaynes mentions that after Florey elected Heatley as his plus-one for the US: Chain never forgave Florey for leaving him behind, leading to a feud lasting years.[1] Which is not hard to imagine given that Heatly after meeting Chain had refused to work for him, instead electing to report directly to Florey.[2] But Gaynes does not detail the consequences of the quarrel. Was there any significance to this schism?
Draken Bowser (
talk)
08:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Florey took Heatley to the US with him because he wanted an expert on production, and Heatley was his team member for that. But to Chain penicillin was a joint project between the two of them, and Heatley was just a technician. Added words to this effect.
Hawkeye7(discuss)10:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Reviewing
this version, spot-check only upon request. It seems like all sources have the requisite information and formatting is consistent. The trove.nla.gov.au source seems to throw a lot of "forbidden" errors. Some sources seem to link PMC twice, first as an ID and second as a link from the article title; dunno that it's necessary. What is source #114 and #158? Is the link to
Brett Mason correct? Is
this review of Wilson 1976 a problem?
Very well. I have removed the image of the $50 note. Many people carried it around for years but never knew who the picture was of or what the surrounding images are about. Now I guess now they will never know. Without the image, the text should probably be deleted as well, as it is no longer intelligible to the reader.
I get no errors from the Trove links. (Runs
checklinks) We have HTTP 302 status but they work and display on the checklinks page) fine.
I don't think the double-linking of PMCs is necessary either, but they are not my doing; they are automatically generated by the |pmc card in the {{cite journal}} template.
Fn 114 is a citation to Macfarlane; fn 158 is a reference to the London Gazette. Is there a problem with them?
In the case of the PMC links, I'd probably remove the url link from the citation templates. WRT the image, I think folks would probably look at
Australian fifty-dollar note rather to find out who he is. WRT the review, it raises some questions about the reliability of Wilson 1976.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
19:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The are no url links in the citations in the article; the link generated by the template itself, and local consensus here is insufficient to remove it from a template used by millions of articles.
The review of David Wilson's book does not question its reliability. It says that it:
at last sets out the full story of the modern discovery and development of penicillin. It is attractively written - if we ignore uncritically enthusiastic statements about Pasteur which appear intermittently. But nothing is said about earlier discoveries of penicillin.
The earlier discoveries are out of scope of this article, having nothing to do with Florey. Other reviews are positive:
It has long been suspected that the accepted description of the discovery and therapeutic use of penicillin is not entirely accurate. Professor Ronald Hare's The birth of penicillin (London, 1970) and Professor Sir Ernst Chain's lecture of 1971 have helped to set the record straight and this book contributes further to the process. The author, who is a science writer and broadcaster, has collected together all the available data and presents what seems to be the most acceptable, detailed account so far available. He has carried out extensive research and presents his facts and conclusions in a lucid, undramatic style, with some documentation. The picture gradually clarifies but there are still problems the resolution of which will probably have to await the demise of all who were concerned with this remarkable venture.
— Medical History, 1977, Vol.21 (4), p. 460
Wilson does a first-rate job of picturing the personalities of Florey, Fleming, Chain and others who kept moving on and off the stage and distinguishing between the mythical and factual elements of the story. The time lag between the discovery and development of penicillin is examined carefully; Wilson explains the scientific atmosphere that militated against faster progress. The problems of manufacturing penicillin are especially well handled.
OK, this works then. I thought that the article links were as a "url" parameter, although it certainly surprises me that the templates themselves feel the need to link twice.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
20:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi Hawkeye, really enjoyed this article. I used to get Fleming and Florey and their roles mixed, probably the Fl alliteration. You've cured me!
That is not uncommon. Now that the influence of the UK on the English-speaking world has waned, fewer people have heard of Fleming. We have a whole suburb of Canberra named after Florey, but the residents don't know how his name is pronounced. I hope that the Wikipedia article will correct this.
Hawkeye7(discuss)20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)reply
after the task had been abandoned ten years before - ten years after the task had been abandoned -(just a bit strange with "after" followed by "before") (the "abandoned" relates to "Dreyer had been given a sample of the mould in 1930 for his work on bacteriophages. He had lost interest in penicillin..." not Fleming?)
They developed techniques for growing, purifying and manufacturing the drug, and tested it for toxicity and efficacy on animals, and carried out the first clinical trials on people. - there are four "and"s in that sentence. Only suggestion, swap "and carried out " to 'then' carried out
where his high school headmaster, A. G. Girdlestone, had gone - this is (Canon)
Henry Girdlestone - was at Magdalen College, was headmaster at
St Peter's College, Adelaide 1894-1915. When I see Williams on gbooks, it only shows me 3 snippets... page 4 says A.G. Girdlestone, page 6 has Canon Girdlestone and, on page 398 (index?), it has Gibson, A. G. and then Girdlestone, A. G. - Maybe the A. G. got transposed? Macfarlane has Canon. Should swap A. G. to Canon piped to Henry?
awarded the degrees of Bachelor of Arts in 1924 - "degrees" plural? should include B.Sc.? ADB has both for 1924 but then MA for 1935 (but is it a typo and should be 1925?)
but when Florey approached Pirie's boss, Sir Frederick Gowland Hopkins, Hopkins refused - tweak to avoid "Hopkins, Hopkins" Perhaps 'but when Florey approached Sir Frederick Gowland Hopkins, Pirie's boss, Hopkins refused'
recommending Ernst Boris Chain. Chain was one of many Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany who had found sanctuary in the UK, and he had recently completed - same thing? "Chain. Chain" maybe 'recommending Ernst Boris Chain. One of many Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany who had found sanctuary in the UK, Chain had found...'
facial infection involving streptococci and staphylococci. His whole - those unitalicised look odd compared to same words italicised in previous para. Nothing to suggest
Chain, who saw penicillin as a joint project between himself and Florey and Heatley as a laboratory technician - Chain felt Heatley equal or is that 'joint project between himself and Florey with Heatley as a laboratory technician'?
It ended with Blamey convinced that Florey - Did Florey actually suggest and convince? or just Blamey's idea? did he discuss with Florey?
Blamey's pet project.
Ginger Burston was involved. After seeing the effects of antibiotics and antimalarials, Blamey became convinced that medical knowledge would be an important factor in future conflicts, and Australia needed its own medical research institute. I don't know why he wanted it to be in Canberra, but that is part of his original proposal.
Hawkeye7(discuss)23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)reply
research institute in Canberra, - the capital Canberra
It was quickly approved, but Curtin became ill, and he died in July 1945 - remove he? Why "but", did that put kibosh on the approved proposal? Approved as in Curtin had only verbally agreed or was some paperwork, legislation, budget, etc "approved"
He was created a Knight Bachelor on 18 July 1944 - while it came from Whitehall on 18 July, it was conferred on the 4th? ie per Gazette "The KING was pleased on Tuesday, the 4th instant, at Buckingham Palace, to confer the honour of Knighthood...
Sir David Rivett, who chaired a committee exploring the proposal - the original uni or Florey's? If Florey's, maybe 'who chaired a committee to explore the proposal'
"elected to both the United States National Academy of Sciences" and "a Foreign Associate of the American National Academy of Sciences in 1963" - these are two separate things in 1963?
home at the provost's lodging - lodgings plural elsewhere
outspoken in his disbelief - nonbelief? "Florey was an agnostic" I can't see the refs but I can see the Williams quote provided ie "he was not aggressive in his disbelief." but then there's "Florey had been so outspoken in his disbelief"? Contradictory? Wouldn't someone "aggressive in his disbelief" be atheist not an agnostic?
The screen is the work of Grinling Gibbons. As an agnostic, the chapel services meant nothing to Florey but, unlike some contemporary scientists, he was not aggressive in his disbelief.
— Williams, p. 363
A plaque in his honor is embedded in the wall by the door entering the Anglican church in Old Marston, across the street from the house he and Ethel built. The vestry refused to install it inside because Florey was so outspoken in his disbelief.
No, I haven't been reading w3! I see editors add the spaces and other editors remove them. I've never known which is correct. Now I do, so thanks!
JennyOz (
talk)
11:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks
Hawkeye for tweaks and patient explanations. I have just made a few minor changes, hope OK.
In ANU section there are still two figures in "modern" pounds rather than A$, ie £100,000 (equivalent to £4,591,000 in 2021) and £240,000 (equivalent to £11,019,000 in 2021). Not sure if you missed them?
This is a sterling article! (I just hope, for your sake that
Mr Nolan doesn't make a new movie about Florey - you deserve a medal for coping with the hundreds of "you've seen the movie, now play with all the related articles" consequences!)