PASTEURS ANNOUNCEMENT OF MOLECULAR CHIRALITY:A DISCREPANCY 1081 been ap a po eur's ab day 0 that rance before the Academie in Pa on the follow is CONCLUSIONS ee od atcnonhc ond ent o the nts of Ma .1848.i diefnn ab eir works on Pa o the d ab sumably for fear of an rave family medical eme Rency.Suc creatorsand fervent pro ctors of the hagiographic imag cle raise 轻荒音正盘院成细 is illustrative this context "Your father al he paucity of nformation entury of hagiograph d inte ble in Pasteur has damp for the continuing re the date in today, the 1848 issues of the Cmp teur remains in maythink that he most impo in science matt ha includin witl unts ofits noun nfide e have n getting the concepts right?Mo ce cal ns uracy,but a use such investigations can p justify himself in reaction to his own feelings of remo and their chroniclers In this case,for exam Chirality DOI 10.1002/chinis illustrative in this context: ‘‘Your father, always very busy, speaks little to me, sleeps little, and gets up at dawn; in a word, he continues the life I started with him 35 yr ago today.’’111 Also relevant in this context is the death of Ce´cile, one of the Pasteurs’ four daughters. In May, 1866, at age 12, she is stricken with typhoid fever in Chambe´ ry. Pasteur is in Ale` s, engaged in studies on diseases of silkworms, stud￾ies which he had been asked to undertake by Dumas, and which were eventually credited with saving the French silk industry. Despite the alarming news about Ce´cile, Pas￾teur remains in Ale` s. His wife Marie writes him pressing letters urging him to join her at Ce´cile’s bedside, and he finally leaves for Chambe´ ry. He finds his daughter feeling somewhat better and remains with her only 3 days, return￾ing thereafter to Ale` s, apparently not trusting his collabo￾rators’ work in his absence. Ce´cile dies on May 23rd with￾out having seen her father again.112 Jeanne, another of Pasteur’s daughters, died at age 9 in Arbois 7 yr earlier, in September, 1859, also of typhoid fever; Pasteur arrived from Paris too late to see her alive.113 Debre´, a biographer of Pasteur highly sympathetic to his subject, writes that af￾ter the death of his father in 1865 Pasteur often sought to justify himself in reaction to his own feelings of remorse about putting his passion for science ahead of love for his family.114 Given all of the above, then, it does not appear unrea￾sonable to suggest that RVR and LPVR may have been ap￾prehensive of a potentially negative judgment that would be created by Pasteur’s absence from Arbois on the day of his mother’s death, when that absence is coupled with his appearance before the Acade´mie in Paris on the follow￾ing day. Does this mean that they did falsify the record? We can only conjecture, but the evidence, in its totality, is strongly suggestive of an affirmative answer to the question. CONCLUSIONS RVR’s and LPVR’s hagiographic treatment of Pasteur’s life and work is a matter of public record, and an inexplica￾bly terse or silent treatment of the events of May, 1848, is also unmistakable in their works on Pasteur. Nonetheless, definite answers to the questions raised above cannot be given in the absence of additional, specific, information. Yet the available evidence strongly suggests an alteration and manipulation of the record, presumably for fear of an adverse public judgment of Pasteur for a real or perceived insensitivity at a time of a grave family medical emer￾gency. Such concerns for Pasteur’s reputation would have been expected from RVR and LPVR, who were the early creators and fervent protectors of the hagiographic image of Pasteur as a ‘‘demigod.’’ Thus, the findings of this arti￾cle raise new questions concerning the state of mind of Pasteur’s closest biographers and the extent and limit of their zeal in protecting the exalted image they constructed of him. Why has the discrepancy in the date of Pasteur’s his￾toric presentation escaped attention until now? A part of the answer is undoubtedly the paucity of information on the facts of the case. In addition, one wonders whether a century of hagiography on Pasteur has dampened interest in potentially unfavorable information about the ‘‘lay saint.’’ As for the continuing recurrence of the erroneous date in the literature today, the explanation may lie in the consid￾erably greater worldwide availability of the Œuvres than the 1848 issues of the Comptes rendus (personal communi￾cation from Clark Driese of Denison Memorial Library, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center). In chronicling the history of science, it is obviously essential to be accurate about the chronology. Some, how￾ever, may think that a (‘‘small’’) 1-wk error perpetuated in the literature concerning the date of the announcement of one of the most important discoveries in science matters little. This author (probably as many others) believes, on the other hand, that accuracy in science, including in accounts of its history, is of paramount importance. If we cannot get a simple date right, how much confidence can we have in getting the concepts right? Moreover, research￾ing the origins and causes of errors in historical accounts and correcting them is essential not only for historical ac￾curacy, but also because such investigations can produce additional insights into the history of science, scientists, and their chroniclers. In this case, for example, tracking down the conflict in the dates has revealed that Pasteur’s closest biographers most likely falsified the date and dis￾Fig. 7. Marie Pasteur, 8 yr after marrying Pasteur. (Reprinted from ‘‘IMAGES DE LA VIE ET DE LŒUVRE DE PASTEUR,’’ by L. Pasteur Vallery-Radot, Flammarion, 1956). PASTEUR’S ANNOUNCEMENT OF MOLECULAR CHIRALITY: A DISCREPANCY 1081 Chirality DOI 10.1002/chir