The dynamics of conceptual change in twentieth century immunology

I have attempted here to define three distinct eras in the 110-year history of the discipline of immunology. The first, extending from 1880 to about the First World War, centered around the new bacteriology and infectious diseases, and had a distinctly medical orientation. Several of the components of the original research program in immunology failed to maintain their original momentum or to fulfill their initial high promise, and went into decline. These include the development of new vaccines, serotherapeutic approaches, the study of cellular immunity, and the study of diseases that might be mediated by cytotoxic antibodies. Two other subprograms followed a somewhat different course; the study of anaphylaxis and related diseases passed primarily into the hands of clinical allergists, while the development and adaptation of serodiagnostic techniques passed into the hands of the new discipline of serology, both fields out of the mainstream of post-World War I immunology. As interest in the components of the old program was falling away, there developed a new area of interest in immunology. Leadership in the field devolved upon a new group of individuals with a predominantly chemical orientation to the study of antigens and antibodies, who pursued a research program and developed a theoretical base that reflected this orientation well. It may be interesting to examine more closely the forces responsible for this shift in emphasis. When interest in the old areas waned, the medically oriented practitioners did not switch to more immunochemical lines, but went in other directions. Karl Landsteiner was the only prominent "old-timer" who contributed significantly to the newer immunology, and it was his work that set the tone and attracted the new generation of immunochemists who became the reigning Denkkollektiv. A science does not change its precepts and approaches spontaneously; it is moved to the new position by those who explore fertile new areas. This is not to say, however, that there was no longer interesting and important work to be done along the old lines--it was just that such work was no longer "fashionable", as the reception of the work of Dienes, of Rich, of Rivers, and of the early Medawar illustrates. Whereas the earlier immunological program had interacted extensively with many different fields of biology and medicine, the immunochemical era was characterized by a relative introversion, as compared with the broad influence exerted by the earlier immunological program (92). We can date this second era from about the First World War until the late 1950s and early 1960s.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)