The definition of immunology as the science of the immune system that emerged in the 1960s provides a sound basis for both reconstructing its past and constructing its future. The choice of this point in time of course involves important consequences, on the one hand, sociological and institutional, epistemological and conceptual on the other. I will attempt to demonstrate that this perspective allows us to assess the history of immunology in an innovative way1 while elucidating in the process some of (...) its theoretical paradoxes. (shrink)

The sociological dimension of science is studied using the discovery of the Wasserman reaction and its accidental application as a test for syphilis as a basis, ...

In 1936, Frank Macfarlane Burnet published a paper entitled "Induced lysogenicity and the mutation of bacteriophage within lysogenic bacteria," in which he demonstrated that the introduction of a specific bacteriophage into a bacterial strain consistently and repeatedly imparted a specific property – namely the resistance to a different phage – to the bacterial strain that was originally susceptible to lysis by that second phage. Burnet's explanation for this change was that the first phage was causing a mutation in the bacterium (...) which rendered it and its successive generations of offspring resistant to lysogenicity. At the time, this idea was a novel one that needed compelling evidence to be accepted. While it is difficult for us today to conceive of mutations and genes outside the context of DNA as the physico-chemical basis of genes, in the mid 1930s, when this paper was published, DNA's role as the carrier of hereditary information had not yet been discovered and genes and mutations were yet to acquire physical and chemical forms. Also, during that time genes were considered to exist only in organisms capable of sexual modes of replication and the status of bacteria and viruses as organisms capable of containing genes and manifesting mutations was still in question. Burnet's paper counts among those pieces of work that helped dispel the notion that genes, inheritance and mutations were tied to an organism's sexual status. In this paper, I analyze the implications of Burnet's paper for the understanding of various concepts – such as "mutation," and "gene," – at the time it was published, and how those understandings shaped the development of the meanings of these terms and our modern conceptions thereof. (shrink)

This paper focuses on the consolidation of Molecular Evolution, a field originating in the 1960s at the interface of molecular biology, biochemistry, evolutionary biology, biophysics and studies on the origin of life and exobiology. The claim is made that Molecular Evolution became a discipline by integrating different sorts of scientific traditions: experimental, theoretical and comparative. The author critically incorporates Timothy Lenoir’s treatment of disciplines , as well as ideas developed by Stephen Toulmin on the same subject. On their account disciplines (...) are spaces where the social and epistemic dimensions of science are deeply and complexly interwoven. However, a more detailed account of discipline formation and the dynamics of an emerging disciplinary field is lacking in their analysis. The present essay suggests focusing on the role of scientific concepts in the double configuration of disciplines: the social/political and the epistemic order. In the case of Molecular Evolution the concepts of molecular clock and informational molecules played a central role, both in differentiating molecular from classical evolutionists, and in promoting communication between the different sorts of traditions integrated in Molecular Evolution. The paper finishes with a reflection on the historicity of disciplines, and the historicity of our concepts of disciplines. (shrink)

The language of self and nonself has had a prominent place inimmunology. This paper examines Frank Macfarlane Burnet's introductionof the language of selfhood into the science. The distinction betweenself and nonself was an integral part of Burnet's biological outlook– of his interest in the living organism in its totality, itsactivities, and interactions. We show the empirical and conceptualwork of the language of selfhood in the science. The relation betweenself and nonself tied into Burnet's ecological vision of host-parasiteinteraction. The idiom of (...) selfhood also enabled Burnet to organizeand unify a diversity of immune phenomena. Rather than approach thelanguage of self and nonself as a bluntly imposed metaphor, we focuson its endogenous origins and immanent uses in immunology. (shrink)

'Lysogeny is the hereditary power to produce bacteriophage'. This definition, coined by André Lwoff in 1953, seems simple enough. However, it summarizes a very complex history, which began with the discovery of bacteriophages. How was the novel relationship between a virus and a bacterial cell conceived? In what way did this relationship renew the question of the nature of viruses? How did it generate a theory of hereditary factors? It was soon shown that bacteria can produce a lysogenic agent without (...) exogenic phages. That was in 1925 with the discovery of lysogeny. In an attempt to throw light on the history of lysogeny, I have traced the work of Eugène Wollman from 1919 to 1943, and have examined the work of J. Bordet, O. Bail and F.M. Burnet. The second part of this paper is devoted to the experiments that led to the elucidation of lysogeny. Of particular importance was the shaping of the concept of 'prophage'. Lysogeny was studied anew and clarified at the Institut Pasteur in Paris under the guidance of André Lwoff. How was genetic determinism of lysogeny brought to light? What new models and new concepts then formed the basis of genetic analysis of the relationship between the virus and its bacterial host? These aspects are seen in the light of the work of André Lwoff, François Jacob, Joshua Lederberg and Elie Wollman. (shrink)