David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 34 (3):399-423 (2003)
In 1910, Charles Richet suggested that studying individual variations in anaphylactic responses might both open a way to experimental investigation of the biological basis of individuality and help unify the immunological and physiological approaches to biological phenomena. The very opposite would happen however. In the next two decades, physiologists and immunologists interested in anaphylaxis and allergy experienced more and more difficulties in communicating. This divergence between the physiopathological and immunological approaches derived from discrepancies between the experimental systems used by each of these scientific communities. Trying to develop a point of view that took into account all bodily reactions to stimuli, physiologists thought that individual variations between the laboratory animals they used (mainly dogs and cats) constituted important experimental data. Seeking to develop reproducible studies of infection, immunity and 'sensitisation', bacteriologists and immunologists considered that individual variations between the laboratory animals they used (mainly small rodents) constituted 'noise' and not a 'signal'. Each group's loyalty to the experimental models used in their discipline widened the gap between immunological and physiological explanations of allergies and led to the abandonment of studies on the biological basis of individuality.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Warwick Anderson & Ian R. Mackay (2013). Fashioning the Immunological Self: The Biological Individuality of F. Macfarlane Burnet. [REVIEW] Journal of the History of Biology 47 (1):1-29.
Michelle Jamieson (2010). Imagining 'Reactivity': Allergy Within the History of Immunology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 41 (4):356-366.
Similar books and articles
Nigel Rapport (1997). Transcendent Individual: Towards a Literary and Liberal Anthropology. Routledge.
M. E. (2003). Henry Dale, Histamine and Anaphylaxis: Reflections on the Role of Chance in the History of Allergy. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 34 (3):455-472.
Stuart Spencer, Eddy Decuypere, Stefan Aerts & Johan De Tavernier (2006). History and Ethics of Keeping Pets: Comparison with Farm Animals. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19 (1):17-25.
Steindór J. Erlingsson (2009). The Plymouth Laboratory and the Institutionalization of Experimental Zoology in Britain in the 1920s. Journal of the History of Biology 42 (1):151 - 183.
Wilfried Allaerts (1999). The Biological Function Paradigm Applied to the Immunological Self-Non-Self Discrimination: Critique of Tauber's Phenomenological Analysis. [REVIEW] Journal for General Philosophy of Science 30 (1):155-171.
Jack Wilson (1999). Biological Individuality: The Identity and Persistence of Living Entities. Cambridge University Press.
Ellen Clarke (2011). The Problem of Biological Individuality. Biological Theory 5 (4):312-325.
Thomas Pradeu (2010). What is an Organism? An Immunological Answer. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 32:247--267.
G. Roberto Burgio (1990). The “Biological Ego”. From Garrod's “Chemical Individuality” to Burnet's “Self”. Acta Biotheoretica 38 (2):143-159.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads13 ( #133,326 of 1,413,326 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #94,221 of 1,413,326 )
How can I increase my downloads?