>I'm gonna re-read polly matzingers danger hypothesis and maybe some
>answers will come out--but...
I tried that before I posted the original question! I heard that she(*) is
no longer calling her theory "Danger", but something else. Either way,
whether she is right (she proved everyone wrong once before) or not (right
once doesn't mean right twice), I think she has a point in that we take our
current theories as fact, too easily.
I also believe that it is important to discuss immunology, as by
asking/answering even foolish questions, we can help to invite serendipity
to each others work (a discussion may trigger a lightbulb with new ideas,
interpretations etc.).
I am often dissapointed by how little _discussion_ there is in
bionet.immunology. There is a great deal of potential for lively academic
discussions of the basics of immunology between the expanse of expertise
available.
Andrew
* - John Ladasky wrote: I'm pretty sure that "her" is Dr. Polly Matzinger...
Oh come on... When Mark Haynes wrote "Hey good for her!", he was being
supportive! Respect isn't only a question of addressing someone correctly -
not in the 1990's.
