Rachel Anthony

4th Hour

Journal Entry #5
A. The purpose of this experiment was to determine if living microorganisms could be
produced from non-living matter in nutrient broth through spontaneous generation.
Moreover, this lab provided knowledge on how to effectively create a procedure that
would produce valid evidence by taking precautions that ensured that the experiment was
controlled. The debate of whether living organisms arose through the process of
spontaneous generation was largely debated in the past, and several scientists tried to
develop experiments to test this theory. Francisco Redi was one of the first scientists to
test this theory, and he did so by placing meat in open jars and jars covered with fine net.
He found that maggots only appeared in the open jars because it was exposed to the
environment, and it support the theory of biogenesis. The next scientist who tested this
hypothesis was John Needham, and he boiled nutrient broth, poured it into flasks, and
covered it. There was microbial growth in the flasks which he thought indicated
spontaneous generation; however, Needham did not use sterile glassware, so there were
microorganisms present on the glassware surfaces which produced the microbes.
Lazzaro Spallanzani conducted an experiment similar to Needham’s, but he boiled the
broth in the flask that he would seal it in. He found that there was no microbial growth
present, but he did not have a control and therefore the results were inconclusive. Lastly,
Louis Pasteur was the scientist who ultimately disproved the theory of spontaneous
generation and demonstrated microorganisms are found in the air. The flask that had
nutrient broth boiled in it and then sealed had no microbial growth, but the flask that had
no seal on it with the boiled nutrient broth had microbial growth. Since the unsealed
flask was open to the environment, microorganisms could enter it and therefore the
microbes found in it were due to pre-existing cells, supporting biogenesis.

B. Spontaneous generation of living microorganism forming from non-living materials is not

possible because they are instead produced by the theory of biogenesis, which states
 living organisms arise from preexisting life. For example, when nutrient broth is boiled
and then left uncovered, microbes appear. This is due to the vertical column of air that is
allowed to enter the flask, which contains microorganisms. Thus, since microbes exist in
the air that came vertically down into the flasks, the microbes that are produced did not
come from nonliving material because there are preexisting cells that are the cause of
their growth. Furthermore, in a flask that has boiled broth and a stopper with bent glass
in it, no microbial growth occurs. No microbes are able to enter the flask since the bent
glass does not provide a vertical column of air in which they can come into the flask.
Since no microbes are moving into the flask, the fact that no microbes are produced
proves that spontaneous generation does not exist because there are no preexisting cells
from which microbes could arise. In a third flask, broth is boiled in it and then a stopper
with no holes is secured onto it; this flask experiences no microbial growth. The closed
stopper prevents any microbes from entering the flask since it cuts off the flask’s entire
exposure to the air. This flask supports the theory of biogenesis and hence disproves
spontaneous generation since there is no microbial growth present since they are no
microbes from which they could have arised. Therefore, living organisms cannot be
formed from nonliving matter through spontaneous generation as proved by the three
flasks that only experience microbial growth when they are exposed to other microbes.

C. A major aspect of the experiment my team conducted that I would improve on is the
contamination level. Although we rinsed the flasks with tap water, we did not use soap to
completely sterilized them, and they were the only supplies that we attempted to clean.
In addition, we placed the other materials in contact with dirty surfaces such as the
countertops and our hands. This allowed microbes to be present in all flasks, and
microbial growth would ultimately be present in all flasks given time for them to
develop. Our experiment could have produced more accurate results if the materials were
all sterile at all times of the lab. Another part of the lab that needs to be improved is the
addition of a control. We thought our flask with the stopper with no holes was our
control, but our control actually had to be a flask with unboiled broth to see how that
 affected the results. It is essential to have a control in order to have a baseline to compare
the other flasks to. The last aspect of our lab that I would change is the variations in the
flasks that were tested. In addition to the three flasks we tests (boiled broth in open flask,
boiled broth in flask with stopper with no hole, boiled broth in a flask with stopper and
bent glass), we should have also tested boiled broth in a flask with a stopper with a hole,
unboiled broth left uncovered, and boiled broth that was cooled and then had a stopper
with no hole placed on it. I also would have increased the duration the broth boiled
because it should have been boiled for at least five minutes to confirm that there were no
other microorganisms present in it that could alter the results. If these improvements
were implemented into our procedure, we would have produced Pasteur’s experiment and
had reliable data which disproved spontaneous generation.

D. Considering our flasks that had the stopper with bent glass and stopper with no hole
experienced no visible microbial growth, we could test how long it would take for
microbes to be produced in it based on the fact that the flasks and other materials that the
broths came into contact with were not sterile and thus had microorganisms in it. This
investigation would tell us the differing rates at which microorganisms can grow based
on the amount of them present. We could also investigate the different types of
microorganisms that are present in the broth and the concentrations of them. From this
we could learn the prominent microbes that are in broth and which are more common
than others. We could also predict the other microorganisms that would be in substances
similar to the broth because they could attract similar microbes. Hence, we could
investigate the rate of microbial growth, the amount and type of certain microbes present
in sample, and the different microbes that are present in certain substance samples.