I was interested to read Donald Forsdyke’s
article on intracellular self/non-self
discrimination.
“Innovation is nothing but judicious imitation”
(Voltaire). So, if there is a fundamentally new
perspective in immunology, that will breach the
impasse that prevents us really understanding
what is going on, then it is inevitable that many
people will have developed ideas that almost make
the break over into a new “revelation”.
“Almost”, you will probably have noted. And, I
contest, that applies to Donald’s view of
intracellular self/non-self discrimination. I
wholeheartedly agree that the process begins
intracellularly. Similarly, I agree that its
roots are in dealing with internal
(intracellular) disorder. But, self/non-self
discrimination? No, I don’t accept that one.
Danger (Matzinger), integrity (Zembic), entropy
(Zembic and Forsdyke), intracellular surveillance
(Forsdyke), and a host of other ideas emanating
from many eminent immunologists (Janeway, Cohn,
Langman, Coutinho to name a few) and their many
predecessors can all be judiciously imitated
(parasitised?) to mould - I contend - a deeper
understanding.
Order is what the system is interested in. In a
colony of cells derived from one zygote cell, and
within each individual cell of that colony, order
is what is required of the goup of cells
totalling (in homo sapiens) some 10 to the power
of 13 in number. Disorder is actively monitored
and corrected where possible. The greater the
disorder, the greater the homeostatic
(morphostatic) response.
Further information can be found at the following
website
http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~greenprac/jamie/jamie%
20main.htm . This includes synospses of three
published articles, the full text of a fourth and
background arguments/comment.
So if you want to challenge your beliefs, try a
visit. Spread the word if it leads you to
question rigidly held dogmas. “What really makes
science grow is new ideas, including false
ideas.” (Karl Popper). Right or wrong, it should
make you think.
Jamie
In article <3753E2E0.34D5 at post.queensu.ca>,
forsdyke at post.queensu.ca wrote:
> Hello,
>> Of late, the word "Danger" has repeatedly
surfaced in the
> immunology literature as some entity that will
allow us to do without
> self/not-self discrimination. What is really
meant is that the
> conventionally accepted form of self/not-self
discrimination has not
> sufficed to explain immunological phenomena.
>> You are crossing a field when suddenly
you hear the sound of
> pounding hoofs. The adrenaline begins to raise.
You turn and see a bull
> in full charge. Quick! Over the fence. Now I
submit that both you and
> the bull acted in this way because you sensed
some threat (danger) and
> that the sensing required a certain
foreknowledge about what was "self"
> (or at least a member of your own species), and
what was "not-self".
>> "Danger" is pure intellectual
laziness. It explains nothing,
> but allows plausible handwaving which suffices,
it seems, to satisfy
> reviewers and (more importantly) the
immunologists who review the grant
> applications of other immunologists. While this
situation prevails, it
> is,... well,... dangerous for an immunologist
to become "not-self"
> (non-immunologist) and venture to contemplate
how "Danger" might be
> detected in our bodies (professional suicide in
the present peer-review
> environment).
>> But here in a Discussion Group, such
heresies might be tolerated.
> It is probable that the critical peers who
review your applications are
> too busy (or not sufficiently computer-
literate) to come to suspect that
> you might have strayed from the fold.
>> So where to start? Well, for some years
the notion of intracellular
> self/not-self discrimination has been lurking
in the shadows. Few
> immunologists have been prepared to do the
necessary homework to
> understand;(it involves learning about entropy
and the physico-chemical
> state of the cytosol). The URL below might be
worth a visit for those
> sufficiently unworldly to stray from the well-
beaten path.
>> Sincerely, Donald Forsdyke. Discussion Leader.
Bionet.immunology
>>http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/theorimm.htm>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
