Some Choice Words From Waksman

Since scientists operate in small worlds populated by people with common research interests, they repeatedly encounter one another in the literature as well as at conferences. The world I inhabited as a graduate student and for some years thereafter revolved around the study of antibiotics. I earned my doctorate in the department of microbiology at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, where antibiotics were the focus of interest. The chairman of the department was Selman A. Waksman. He was the first to identify the group of bacteria known as actinomycetes as a major source of antibiotics important in industry and medicine. Along with his associates at Rutgers, Waksman discovered an impressive array of actinomycete antibiotics, the most noteworthy of which are actinomycin, neomycin and streptomycin. His many contributions to microbiology did not go without recognition. In 1952, just after I had completed my graduate work and departed the United States for two years in Great Britain as a postdoctoral fellow, Waksman received the Nobel prize. Because he was a colorful personality, Waksman is the subject of numerous stories. He had a somewhat disheveled appearance, an unhurried gait and a Russian accent. This toasty-warm, grandfatherly exterior masked a nimble wit and inventive mind. ] was not menacing, but in conversation he could display a directness that took others by surprise. This at times created interesting and humorous situations. The mere mention of his name among microbiologists of my generation results in an outpouring of anecdotes, and I would like here to add a personal experience to the Waksman repertory. Waksman took special pride in having defined the word antibiotic, and he had great concern that it be used properly. The word was coined in 1889 by the French biologist P. Vuillemin in an effort to describe the destruction of one creature by another to sustain its own life. Ten years later the meaning of antibiotic was broadened by the British biologist H.M. Ward to include antagonistic relationships among microorganisms. In 1941, Waksman received a request from J.E. Flynn, who was then editor of Biological Abstracts, for a word that could be used to index a new group of products of microorganisms with an inhibitory effect on the growth of other microorganisms. The number of compounds of microbial origin that possessed antimicrobial activity assigned to this group was increasing rapidly with the discovery of substances such as gramicidin, tyrothricin and penicillin. Waksman suggested use of the word antibiotics, and the term was first employed for indexing purposes by Biological Abstracts in 1943. Waksman defined antibiotics as “chemical substances that are produced by microorganisms and that have the capacity, in dilute solution, to selectively inhibit the growth of and even to destroy other microorganisms. The word antibiotics was immediately adopted by the scientific and medical communities, and the public found it attractive as well. Although the readiness with which his suggestion was accepted must have pleased Waksman, it was apparent that he was distressed by the growing misuse of the term. His original definition limited antibiotics to products of microbial origin possessing antimicrobial activity. However, professionals and lay people alike used the word to describe not only antimicrobial substances produced by microorganisms but also substances of plant and animal origin as well as synthetic compounds. These departures from his original definition were totally unacceptable to Waksman, and at every opportunity he corrected those who misused the term. In an effort to set the record straight, he published at least three papers on the "Definition of Antibiotics" he wrote letters to editors commenting on incorrect usage of the term in journal papers, and at meetings he would take the floor to criticize and correct anyone who incorrectly used the word antibiotics. Waksman was concerned that in time people would fail to differentiate antibiotics from synthetic compounds, such as sulfanilamide, or from antimicrobial substances of plant origin, such as quinine and alkaloids, or of animal origin, such as lysozyme and blood serum. He feared that the popularity of the word antibiotics would broaden its usage until it was no longer meaningful. Waksman’s sensitivity to what he considered abuse of the word antibiotics evoked philological discussion and debate on numerous occasions. I vividly recall a conference on cancer chemotherapy in the mid-1950s that I attended after completing my stay in Great Britain and returning to the United States. A featured speaker reported the discovery of a new substance of microbial origin that suppressed growth in the laboratory of animal cells that were cancerous. The speaker referred to this substance as an antibiotic; this misuse of the word prompted Waksman to interrupt the presentation, and to remind the speaker that by definition antibiotics are active against microorganisms, not against animal cells. Waksman’s insistence that the word had been misused was forceful enough to persuade the speaker to consent to correction. The directness of Waksman’s criticism was followed by an awkward moment of silence, and during that moment, before the speaker could continue, my curiosity and professional inexperience led me into the fray. For reasons I will never fully understand, I directed to Waksman a question intended to challenge his wisdom. Inspired by the occasion and always anxious to learn, I asked this senior statesman of science who was a Nobel laureate and my former professor, a man whose mastery of the language was evident in his more than 500 papers and 28 books, “If use of the word antibiotics is to be limited only to substances of microbial origin that are active against other microorganisms, then what word do you suggest be used to describe a substance of microbial origin that is active against cancer? The questions hung between us in a crowded room that was now silent. I recall first from Waksman a look of dismay, then an exasperated sigh, and finally a weary wave of his hand. "Pramer," he said, "first you find something that is active against cancer and then I will tell you what to call it!" Waksman died in 1973 at age 85. I learned much from him in the classroom and here. Eight years ago, I had the honor of being appointed director of the institute that bears his name: the Waksman Institute of Microbiology at Rutgers. To this day, it is not unusual for me, when confronted by administrative and scientific complexities, to wonder what course of action Waksman might have suggested. Though this seldom is helpful, I think it enables Waksman, wherever he may be, to know that he is not forgotten by those of us attempting to carry on. Pramer, who was named director of the Waksman Institute in 1980, also chairs the International Committee on Microbial Ecology of the International Union of Microbiological Societies. He serves on NIH’s Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee and is an organizer of the First International Conference on the Release of Genetically Engineered Organisms (REGEM), being held this week in Cardiff, Wales.

Some Choice Words From Waksman

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of