Previous
Chapter 34
Themes
Key
LitCharts assigns a color and icon to each theme in The Great Influenza, which you can use to track the themes throughout the work.
Leadership and Crisis
Truth, Free Press, and Propaganda
Science vs. Nature
Education, Research, and Institutions
Summary
Analysis
The big questions that remained after the pandemic were simple: what caused influenza? Was Pfeiffer right about B. influenzae, or was the killer something else?
Throughout the pandemic, investigators had mixed results when looking for B. influenzae, with some feeling pressure to find it and feeling like a lack of B. influenzae was simply evidence of bad science. But despite this pressure to conform, eventually enough evidence mounted to confirm that B. influenzae was not present in all cases. While it was definitely present in some cases, and it could cause disease and kill, a full explanation of the pandemic required more than just B. influenzae.
Research described earlier in the book seemed to strongly hint that B. influenzae was not in fact the main pathogen of the influenza pandemic. Nevertheless, many scientists acted under the assumption that it was. While this could be seen an example of bad science, the extraordinary pressure of the pandemic often forced scientists to abandon the usual procedures. Barry leaves open the question of whether the focus on B. influenzae was a mistake or whether it was just scientists doing their best with the resources available.
Themes
The frantic pace of research during the pandemic caused some investigators to compromise on the quality of their research, leaving questions afterwards about how to proceed with new research. After the pandemic, Park and Williams returned to their more deliberate approach. They reached a surprising conclusion: that perhaps B. influenzae wasn’t a single strain but dozens of them, which meant any serum might work against some strains but not others. The multiple strains also led them to conclude that B. influenzae was just a secondary invader, not what caused the pandemic itself.
The work of Park and Williams emphasizes how science changed during the pandemic and then again in the immediate aftermath. As this passage shows, having more time to proceed with research in a methodical way can lead to new and surprising discoveries that are much more difficult to make when facing down a pandemic. Again, this isn’t necessarily a condemnation of pandemic-era science, which tried to make the best of extraordinary circumstances.
Themes
Park and Williams, along with other investigators, began to wonder whether the pandemic was caused by a “filterable virus” (a technical term for a very small virus that can pass through filters that bacteria can’t). Its small size would make it difficult to observe with the equipment they used at the time. This wasn’t the first time someone suspected a filterable virus; the idea had been tested before without conclusive results. Many continued to believe Pfeiffer’s B. influenzae was the culprit simply because there wasn’t good evidence yet for any alternative.
The lack of pandemic-era pressure allowed Park and Williams to explore unconventional ideas, like filterable viruses, instead of following common wisdom. This shows how sometimes science requires creativity, and how this creativity can be stifled in a crisis situation. With filterable viruses, Park and Williams pushed the limit of what they could discover with the equipment they had at the time.
Themes
Get the entire The Great Influenza LitChart as a printable PDF.
Many investigators focused too narrowly on their own work: if they personally found B. influenzae, they assumed it was the culprit, and if they didn’t, they assumed it must be something else. The issue was heavily researched but remained unsettled throughout the 1920s and into the 1930s. In 1931, Pfeiffer himself still believed he’d found the most likely pathogen, although Welch believed the real culprit may have been an unknown virus.
During the pandemic, leaders who tried to go it alone often ended up causing devastating unintended consequences. Though the stakes are not as high after the pandemic, some scientists fell into a similar trap, mistaking their immediate circumstances for a wider trend. Puncturing false ideas about B. influenzae would take individual creativity, but it would also take an awareness of what was going on in the larger scientific community.
Themes
Avery continued to work obsessively, even after the pandemic. He spent years of his life investigating pneumococci, specifically the capsule (which protects the pneumococcus on the outside and is made of a type of sugar). But then, a 1928 report came out and proved that his entire line of investigation was flawed. Avery got sick and took some time off before resuming his work in a new direction.
This passage shows how even an eminent scientist like Avery can get bogged down in the wrong line of investigation. Because science is about investigating the unknown, this is always a danger that scientists face. This passage seems to suggest that Avery was so disappointed by his failure that it made him physically sick—but it didn’t make him give up.
Themes
Avery published fewer papers than before, partly because his advancing age prevented him from being as directly involved in experiments, but mostly because his work moved slowly and gave him little to report. He slogged on through 1943, continuing to publish little but excited that he may have been on the verge of a breakthrough. That year, he officially retired but continued to work as always.
Avery’s work during this period provides a sharp contrast with the frantic work that he and other scientists were doing at the height of the pandemic. In some ways, his more deliberate approach to work might reflect his advancing age and his status as a scientific veteran as opposed to someone at the start of his career.
Themes
Finally, in late 1943, Avery published his big discovery. He had proven that DNA carries genetic information and is responsible for changing the capsule on a pneumococcus, and that this change can then be inherited.
Avery’s big gamble—to slow down the pace of his work and not worry about racking up publications—paid off in a big way. His breakthrough on DNA showed that there was value to veteran investigators taking their time on an issue.
Themes
Before Avery’s discovery, scientists had isolated DNA but didn’t know its purpose. Avery’s proof that it carries genetic information was so revolutionary that it took time to gain general acceptance. Later, James Watson and Francis Crick would famously discover the double-helix structure of DNA molecules. They credited Avery’s experiments with influencing their own. Others also built off Avery’s work, with many of them winning Nobel Prizes, although Avery himself never would. He died in 1955, just a couple years after Watson and Crick’s discovery.
Though Avery’s name is not as widely known today as Watson’s or Crick’s, Barry makes the case that Avery’s work was in many ways just as valuable. By listing how many scientists achieved Nobel Prizes by expanding on Avery’s work, Barry suggests that Avery was a foundational figure. At the same time, however, Barry questions how accurate awards like Nobel Prizes are, if they fail to recognize pioneers like Avery in their lifetimes.
Themes
