Development of the concept of immunologic specificity: IV

We have attempted, in this series of essays on the development of the concept of immunologic specificity, to trace the history of one of the most central ideas in immunology (and indeed in biology in general). The result must be viewed as preliminary and incomplete and as an invitation to others to add, to amend, and even to disprove. Nevertheless, several interesting conclusions may be drawn, which reveal much about the workings of immunology in particular, and perhaps science in general. First, the roots of any important scientific concept (such as that of immunologic specificity) do not grow in isolation; they draw nourishment from many other disciplines. Similarly, the growth of an important concept within a given discipline will have far-reaching implications and fruits for other fields of science. Second, we may note a marked change in the manner in which immunology is currently practiced, compared with that of the end of the last century. The quantum leaps forward in funding, in numbers of scientists, and in masses of crucial data have not been without a certain cost--the substantial reduction in elegant personal style that characterized so many of our scientific forebears, and that makes so pleasant the reading of their reports. Finally, we see again and again how much his philosophical bases and disciplinary upbringing determine a scientist's approach, the questions that he asks, and the type of answers he will accept. Throughout much of immunology's history, as Jerne put it so well (44), cis- and trans-immunologists hardly spoke to one another. Or rather, a cis-immunologist sometimes spoke to a trans-immunologist, but the latter rarely answered! Fortunately, one of the attributes of scientific progress is a merging of these disparate languages, and eventual mutual comprehension.