Check out this article with breaking news from Sept. 17th, 1683!
Leave a comment about one of your impressions from the article, or respond to one of your classmates comments by class-time on Monday, September 27th.
This article is highly applicable to one of your review questions for this unit:
What were the major contributions to biology of Anton van Leeuwenhoek?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi, I thought this article was interesting. I still wonder why he did not choose to use a more powerful microscope (it was available to him). Also, the article made me realize how important his findings were because they led to the Germ theory, among other important things.
ReplyDeleteThis article was really interesting, because it described the process that led to Van Leeuwenhoek being the first person to see living bacteria. The part of the article that impressed me the most was that the samples he used hundreds of years ago are still valid, and can be examined with modern microscopes. I hadn't realized that he had been the first person that discovered bacteria, or "animalcules."
ReplyDeleteThe last sentence of the article, which was, "...van Leeuwenhoek's place in history is not as the inventor of anything, but as a scientist, the founder of experimental microbiology", really summed up the whole article for me. While reading the article, that thought in the final sentence was one i thought of as well. I find the fact that Van Leeuwenhoek started the experimentation of microbiology almost of same importance as the invention of the microscope because inventing the microscope would have been useless without the discoveries made by Leeuwenhoek, however Leeuwenhoek's discoveries would have been impossible without the microscope. These two discoveries worked together in making a giant and important step in science.
ReplyDeleteAlthough his observations have clearly advanced microbiology, Leeuwenhoek is depicted by the article to be less of a "true" scientist and more of an expert in lens-crafting. Given the fact that he was a "fabric merchant, surveyor, wine assayer and minor city official," I wouldn't be surprised if he hadn't received any formal training in science whatsoever. His discoveries seem to have hinged on his talent and capability in the fields of microscopy and optics. I think the article's claim that Leeuwenhoek isn't an inventor is quite inaccurate. Although he didn't invent the microscope, he was clearly the only person of his time capable of crafting one powerful enough to catch sight of bacteria.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Dan's comment, I'm quite certain Leeuwenhoek did in fact use the most powerful microscopes, otherwise he wouldn't have been the first to make the groundbreaking discoveries that he did. According to the article, the compound microscopes in his day couldn't generate a clear image past 20x or 30x magnification, whereas his self-built microscopes could reach magnifications over 200x.
I found it most interesting that Van Leeuwenhoek discovered red blood cells. Before reading the article, I was unaware of this. It's amazing to realize how big of an effect Van Leeuwenhoek had on modern science and medicine.
ReplyDeleteI think that what nour said is really accurate, because Van Leeuwenhoek opened new doors for biology and medicine, and made huge advancements for all fields of science. It makes me wonder what impact Van Leeuwenhoek had on society and the general public if he had such an impact on science.
ReplyDeleteObviously van Leeuwenhoek's discoveries, of "animalcules," blood cells, etc, were very important for the advancement of microbiology, and this article certainly emphasized that. In doing so, it calls him not an inventor but the founding scientist of experimental microbiology, which I thought was interesting, because it shifted the focus of his work from the actual development of his microscope (which was in itself pretty impressive) to the ways in which he put it to use, and the conclusions that could be drawn from his observations. It seemed that, more than the tools he used, his natural curiosity and persistence were what the author set out to praise.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that Leeuwenhoek worked on making his own microscopes even though the microscope was invented in 1590s and was available to him. I thought that this showed how curious Leeuwenhoek really was, and this curiosity carried over to his experimentation with plaque on teeth. I can only imagine how astonished he was, one of the first to see living bacteria, and his quote "all the water...seemed to be alive" demonstrates this response. The article title, that people started to brush there teeth, shows how huge of a contribution Leeuwenhoek made. His findings led to the development of germ theory and caused doctor's to start washing there hands to kill bacteria. It's amazing how, and I'm going to repeat the traits natalie mentioned- one man's natural curiosity and persistence, led to such major contributions.
ReplyDeleteI liked how Leeuwenhoek grossed out the scientific community by showing that there were "animalcules" that were so tiny that a normal human's eye could not be able to see it. I also enjoyed how he had likened one of the bacteria to a "pike [shooting] through spittle". What I don't understand is how a simple microscope (with only one lens) is capable of a greater magnification than a complex microscope. Besides that, it is great to see that one doesn't need to create a new object to be a great scientist but rather use an existing invention to delve further into a not well-known branch of science.
ReplyDeleteI dont know how easily this could happen in modern day, but I found it inspiring how a guy who worked as a fabric merchant and city official (among other jobs), and only experimented in science for personal interest could discover such an important and significant leap in biology. Leeuwenhoek's success in building and selling the best microscopes of his time shows the quality of his work. I thought it was very interesting and surprising that when people later discovered some of Leeuwenhoek's samples in 1981, they were so well preserved that scientists were still able to examine them under microscopes. All in all, i enjoyed the article.
ReplyDeleteThis article was really interesting. I think it's kind of weird that he didn't figure out a way to develop a new microscope, but I am sure he had his reasons... I think it's really cool that there had to be so many specific requirements in order to find what he did and he still managed it. It's crazy that he figured out everything about bacteria hunderds of years ago. It's very "inspiring." I wish that I could figure something as cool as that out... not going to happen.
ReplyDeleteI thought this was a really interesting article and I think its really cool that his research hundreds of years ago is still applicable. Why he didn't develop the exact kind of microscope he needed is obviously a little confusing but he still managed to have a huge impact on what we understand about germs and things without it so it clearly wasn't a huge obstacle.
ReplyDeleteI really want to brush my teethe after reading this article. I think that the idea of bacteria LIVING on your teeth is a true problem. It certainly is the most compelling evidence for dental hygiene.
ReplyDelete