Haddad 1

Julia Haddad

25 February 2018

Journal Entry 5

A. The purpose of the Introduction to Microorganism Laboratory was to determine and test if the theory

of spontaneous generation, living organisms arising from nonliving matter, and biogenesis, living

organisms arising from preexisting life, and to determine which hypothesis out of the two is true.

Many scientists have conducted experiments to try to determine which of the theories was true and

correct. Scientists like Fransisco Redi and John Needham supported the theories of spontaneous

generation. Fransisco Redi filled jars with decaying meat, 3 with a cover and 3 open, and tested to see

whether maggots would form and appear in the cups. The 3 open cups resulted with maggots

appearing, therefore being labeled as spontaneous generation. John Needham, on the other hand,

tested the theory in a way very similar to ours. He filled flasks with boiled nutrient broth, sealed them,

and waited to see the results. Since there was microbial growth within the flask he claimed that the

cause was spontaneous generation. Another scientist, Lazzaro Spallanzani, also boiled nutrient

solutions into sealed flasks and saw that there was no microbial growth, supporting spontaneous

generation and biogenesis. His experiment did not provide clear results to what it could be supporting.

Along with Spallanzani, Louis Pasteur also tested the theories using nutrient broth, but rather than

just using one glass he used a bent glass stopper. The bent glass stopped would help him determine

if the microorganisms were being carried in the air, or if they were actually appearing. He had one

flask that had broth, was heated, and was not sealed and had a second flask which was sealed. In the

first flask, which was open to a vertical airway, he found microbial growth. In his second, closed,

flask he found no microbial growth, which also makes sense because of the limited change of
 Haddad 2

anything entering the flask. Pasteur’s findings supported the theory of biogenesis, proving that the

growth was from preexisting organisms.

B. Microorganisms cannot be formed from non-living materials in broth by spontaneous

generation but can be formed through preexisting life, called biogenesis. In our lab, we

tested this theory using a closed flask with boiled broth. Although the flask was

contaminated eventually causing microbes to grow in the future, nothing at the time grew

in this flask. Boiling the broth killed all of the flasks’ microorganisms, leaving none to

grow anything, and the flask was closed which blocked the airway for anything entering

the flask. Pasteur also tested having nutrient broth flask in a boiled, sealed flask and also

had the result of no microbial growth. We also had a flask which was had boiled nutrient

broth but was open and it did have a result of microbial growth. The reason nothing grew

in the heated, sealed flasks was that when something is boiled the high temperatures kill

all of the bacteria and microorganisms living in that liquid, killing off all life forms. Also,

the sealed and bent glass cap both did not have vertical airways for any air to enter. If the

flask was just open a vertical airway would allow bacteria and other microorganisms to

enter the flask, while a bent glass cap is not vertical therefore only allowing air to enter.

There were no living organisms in the closed flask, therefore no living organisms grew,

but there were living organisms in the open flask resulting microbial growth. Therefore,

both flasks having no growth, or growth from preexisting life forms prove that

microorganisms cannot be formed through spontaneous generation but through

biogenesis.

C. Our team design had a good plan, but it was not completely thought out to the extent that

it should have been. We originally planned to have six flasks testing nonboiled and boiled
 Haddad 3

solutions but later decided to only test boiled flasks, which was a mistake. We should

have tested boiled and nonboiled solutions to see if manipulating the broths would

change anything. We had 3 flasks, one was closed with boiled broth, one was open with

boiled broth, and one had a bent glass cap with boiled broth. We should have had six

where we had all of the above and a nonboiled version of all of them. Also, our group had

a control, which was not even a control because of the boiled broth. For the control we

should have had it nonboiled to be able to see what the changes in the flasks really were.

Another thing we could have done to improve our experiment was sterilize everything.

Nothing was sterilized, which meant there were already microorganisms on them which

could cause growth when we didn’t want them to. If we sterilized everything it could

have made our closed flask results much better. Although our group had a plan and was

organized, the extra thought we could have put in would have made a huge difference.

D. Considering our experimental results, another thing we could investigate and learn next is

what the microorganisms entering or preexisting in the flasks. Since we did not sterilize

the flasks, microorganisms were left on them. We could create an experiment to see how

the microorganisms in the broth are affecting it, whether it be color, consistency or smell

and see how it happened. We could also test to see what types of microorganisms grew in

the broth and determine what they are and where they came from. We could put them on

an agar plate and see if they grow or not, and could also see how it reproduces with itself

and other organisms.