I am concerned about the use of the police and war metaphor in immunology; you can have a look at my previous post. I find it very difficult to think outside of this specific box. We are taught immunology with this metaphor. We told to communicate about immunology with this metaphor. I have the feeling that I face a wall when I try to think differently.
When you try to avoid the political extremism of this metaphor, it is difficult not to go into an other extreme, into a caricature of the opposite position. Indeed, we could be tempted by a peace and love metaphor (ref 1), but this would be such a caricature.
I chose here to take a political direction to give an example of a way to rethink the metaphor. I agree that science should avoid politics. But today for the sake of thinking outside of the…
View original post 203 more words
Many good articles have been published on the use of metaphor in science and in particular in biology (ref 1&2).
I will try to sum up a few questions about the metaphors used in immunology following the discussion of the conference given by Michel Morange at IHPST.
First, what are the metaphors used?
– The metaphor of the immune system being endowed with the mission of a police, or to make war : Indeed words such as “defence”, “attack”, etc…. are very frequently used. Even if immunologist will answer that they are aware that it is a metaphor, I am worried about the effect of such large use. Even if the metaphor may be discussed by the community, this does not appear to the general public that is only exposed to this war or police metaphor. One example shows that it is even the way of presenting immunology that is…
View original post 338 more words
Just a welcoming sentiment from Robert M. Sapolsky in his collection of science essays, Monkeyluv. Sapolsky is a professor of biology and neurology at Stanford, and his essays, often humorous, delve into neuroscience, hormones, and human behavior. Oliver Sacks has called him “one of the best scientist-writers of our time,” and while I wouldn’t put Sapolsky on the same pedestal as I do Gould, or Levi, or Thomas when it comes to prose and insight, the man certainly has his moments, which manifest in me dog-earring a corner of a page. This one stood out to me this morning on the 3 train to work while reading an essay titled ” Bugs on the Brain.” As someone who gets excited over pathogenic protozoa and animal behavior, I muttered “Toxoplasma gondii” upon seeing the heading.
Like most people who come across any mention of Toxoplasma (it gets a fair amount of press; e.g., via Carl Zimmer), Sapolsky is interested in the precision of how the protozoa can manipulate behavior. The organism relies on a simple and common two-host system to complete its life cycle: the predator-prey interaction of rodent and cat. Rodents ingest the protozoa, which encysts in the mammal, with particular affinity for denning in the brain. When rodents are consumed by felines, Toxoplasma can reproduce, new organisms are shed through feces, which happen to be a food source for rodents and thus how the life cycle comes full circle. Many pathogens that rely on multiple hosts influence behavior, and there is a bevy of literature that describes just this, particularly with tapeworms. In the case of Toxoplasma, the protozoa interferes with a rodent’s natural aversion to feline pheromones; interferes is a weak term–the organism makes the rodent attracted to feline odor, increasing the probability that it becomes successful prey.
What interests Sapolsky so about this host-parasite interaction is that a rodent infected with Toxoplasma gondii otherwise behaves normally. As he notes, infected rodents maintain their social status within the system’s hierarchy, they continue to mate and thus sense pheromones of the opposite sex, and their recognition of other vertebrate odors isn’t tampered with in the least. The protzoa is simply able to manipulate the recognition of and reaction to the pheromones of one predator, that of the definitive host. To Sapolsky (and most of us interested in the long-term interplay between parasites and their host), this is evidence of how counter-intuitive and beautiful evolutionary process can be. Sapolsky takes the opportunity to highlight Toxoplasma gondii as a correction to teleological interpretations of evolution: its processes aren’t directional, aren’t progressive. As he notes, “We are certainly not the most evolved species around, nor the least vulnerable. Nor the cleverest.” But the punctum of his message, to borrow a term from Roland Barthes (that which “pierces” the viewer/reader), is the statement, “we need phylogenetic humility.”