Fine Reading: The Biocentric View of the Microbial World
by Elio
Anthropocentric:
1. considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe.
2. interpreting or regarding the world in terms of human values and experiences.
How does anthropocentrism apply to microbiologists? In a current commentary in the new journal Gut Pathogens, Ramy Aziz reminds us that it shows up all over the place. Take the very term microbe, meaning small living thing. "Small," says who? Not the microbes. To them, other microbes would be of "normal" size and we humans Rabelaisian gargantuas. This wouldn't much matter if it stopped there, with our choice of words alone. Aziz points out that anthropocentrism in microbiology can have serious consequences. For instance, "pathogens" have been considered to be special group of microbes, separate from the rest. Nothing could be farther from the truth, and nothing could be more objectionable than to consider the human body to be anything but another habitat.
'The Vitruvian Man' by Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519). Source
In recent years, it has been increasingly realized that pathogenic microbiology is merely another branch of microbial ecology. However, a gentle reminder in Aziz' well-turned words is welcomed. A truly integrated view of the microbial world, or of the biological world in general, cannot be anthropocentric but can only be, as Aziz says, biocentric.
Comment by Nullatron, the Transport Robot
You biotes think you're so special. Water? It rusts my rims. I don't mind carrying you slimebags (no offense intended; I am just being descriptive) around, but please keep out of my way! I have a schedule to keep.
The more I read it, the more obscure my posting below looks. So, let me just join Prof. Aziz in encouraging less anthropocentrism, multicellulocentrism, and eukaryocentrism. That should be enough for now. There will be time in the future to work on eschewing protoplasmocentrism, nanomoleculocentrism, terracentrism, and several others we are still too unenlightened to realize that we are guilty of.
In the meantime, a view of myself as the well-conditioned habitat of, and provider for, trillions of individuals of hundreds of species of bacteria, a no-doubt terrifying fraction of which have found ways to steer my behavior in directions more to their liking, is starting to seep into my consciousness. I'm finding myself strangely complacent about it...
The words that we use prejudice the way we look at the subject (to borrow from my liberal arts colleagues).
Thus, "antibiotic" makes us think only of, well, anti-microbial effects.
Perceiving how the environment "appears" to a microbe could be very useful indeed. Especially from our eukaryocentric point of view.
The extreme form of anthropocentrism is the belief that mankind is not only the centrepiece of all life but is here on earth forever and ever. I remember my father, a dedicated microbiologist, saying "It is not the meek that shall inherit the earth but it will be the bacteria". I do not know the origin of the aphorism, likely that famed author "anon", yet it seems as likely as anything from the futurists.
Ah, how much we microbiology educators would love to take this approach to our beloved discipline but the realities of modern microbiology classes never allow it. Most people who take the introductory courses (which I teach at a community college) are motivated by a very anthropocentric goal (namely nursing or some other field of medicine/allied health) meaning they could care less about the broader nature of the field. I always start the semester with a quote by Steven Jay Gould to try and place them in the proper perspective.
"The most outstanding feature of life's history is that through 3.5 billion years this has remained, really, a bacterial planet. Most creatures are what they've always been: They're bacteria and they rule the world. And we need to be nice to them."
From: "Stephen Jay Gould" (Interview by Michael Krasny). Mother Jones (Jan.-Feb. 1997): 60–63. ©1997