Abstract
Several review articles in immunology indicate that while we have an increasing body of knowledge about the immunology of the mouse, this is translating very poorly into clinical outcomes for humans. This raises several issues for the scientific community, including some related to the apparent inadequacy of the mouse as a model for understanding and predicting human immunity. This paper has two purposes. First, we offer an explanation for why the typical approach to animal model research will most likely fail to produce satisfying clinical outcomes for human immunology. The standard approach to this problem focuses on the lack of similarity between the genes and molecular pathways of model and target systems. Our analysis focuses instead on differences in the ways in which model and target organisms interact with and adapt to their respective environments. We argue that in order to find a proper model organism for studying human immunity we need to think outside the mouse. Second, we advocate abandoning purely reductionist, gene-centered research, giving greater importance to observational studies of humans, and using new emerging technologies for information-processing for in vivo observation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This section deals with model systems and with inference from these to target systems. As such, it could apply to a wide range of physical systems. But our focus is on biomedical research, more specifically on inference from research on animal models to conclusions about humans, in the area of immunology. Unless otherwise specified, you can assume that the expressions āmodelā and ātarget systemā refer respectively to āanimal modelā and āhuman.ā
- 2.
Please note that there is a vast and active literature trying to figure out how the inference from animal models to other target systems really worksāe.g., Overmier and CarrollĀ (2001), GachelinĀ (2006), and Volume 26, Number 2 (1993) of the Journal of the History of Biology. But the main idea we are drawing on here is quite uncontroversial.
- 3.
Lymphocytes are small white blood cells. There are two main types of lymphocytes, T and B cells. Both are involved in the production of antibodies (immunoglobulins)āB cells by making them and T cells by regulating their production by B cells. Neutrophils are white blood cells that ingest and destroy bacteria. (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/immunesystem/Pages/default.aspx)
- 4.
Biodefense Workshop Summary: Humanized Mice, 2005, Clarion Bethesda Park Bethesda, Maryland Abstract; http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/immuneSystem/Pages/frontiers.aspx
- 5.
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/immunesystem/Pages/default.aspx
- 6.
The rate of mutation in somatic hypermutation is approximately 10āāā3 /bp/cell division, which is 106 fold higher than the average mutation rate of structural genes (Odegard and SchatzĀ 2006).
- 7.
Parham is not the only one to bring this critique to immunology. Shanks and Greek (2009) is another, much more articulated example of this claim. But it is also interesting to note that the clonal selection theory discussed by Parham has been interpreted in Darwinian terms since its early articulation in the late 1950s by Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet (1899ā1985). Before that point, immunologists believed that lymphocytes, the antibody producing cells, were instructed what antibodies to produce from the antigen exposure. Burnet, inspired by Jernās 1955 hypothesis, suggested that lymphocytes were not instructed, but rather selected by the organism on the basis of a positive reaction between the antibody that they were carrying on their surface and the antigen presented to them. This somatic selection produces more cells of the same type, i.e., clones, and thus results in an increased capacity of the organisms to fight the pathogen. In the extended version of his theory, BurnetĀ (1959) explicitly characterizes this process as a form of Darwinian selection.
- 8.
Another well-known example of reductionism is the attempt to explain consciousness in terms of the capacities of neurons.
- 9.
This idea of the fixity of the internal milieu was a precursor of the notion of homeostasis still accepted today.
- 10.
We are not implying here that experimental research should be left aside. In an ideal world, one could simply bring more resources towards clinical research. But resources are limited, so furthering observational studies would most likely mean a change in the resources allocated to lab research.
References
Adrian, C. Hayday, and Mark Peakman. 2008. The habitual, diverse and surmountable obstacles to human immunology research. Nature ImmunologyĀ 9(6): 575ā580.
Arthur, W. Brian. 1994. Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Bernard, Claude. 1949. An introduction to the study of experimental medicine. New York: Henry Schuman.
Burnet, F. Macfarlane. 1962. The integrity of the body: A discussion of modern immunological ideas, vol.Ā 3 in Harvard books in biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burnet, F. Macfarlane. 1971. Genes, dreams, and realities. New York: Basic Books.
Burnet, F. Macfarlane. 1959. The clonal selection theory of acquired immunity. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
Casanova, Jean-Laurent, and Laurent Abel. 2004. The human model: A genetic dissection of immunity to infection in natural conditions. Nature Reviews ImmunologyĀ 4(1): 55ā66.
Clough, Sharyn. 2011. Gender and the hygiene hypothesis. Social Science & MedicineĀ 72(4): 486ā493.
Darwin, Charles. 1859. On the origin of species by Charles Darwin: A facsimile of the first edition with an introduction by Ernst Mayr. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
David, Paul A. 2001. Path dependence, its critics and the quest for āhistorical economics.ā In Evolution and path dependence in economic ideas: Past and present, ed. Pierre Garrouste and Stavros Ioannides, 15ā40. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Desjardins, Eric. 2011. Historicity and experimental evolution. Biology & philosophyĀ 26(3): 339ā364.
Gachelin, Gabriel. 2006. Les organismes modĆØles dans la recherche mĆ©dicale. Science, histoire et sociĆ©tĆ©. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
Ronald, N. Germain, and Pamela L. Schwartzberg. 2011. The human condition: An immunological perspective. Nature ImmunologyĀ 12(5): 369ā372.
Kilpelainen, M., E.O. Terho, H. Helenius, and M. Koskenvuo. 2000. Farm environment in childhood prevents the development of allergies. Clinical and Experimental AllergyĀ 30(2): 201ā208.
LaFollette Hugh, and Niall Shanks. 1994. Animal experimentation: The Legacy of Claude Bernard. International Studies in the Philosophy of ScienceĀ 8(3): 195ā210.
Lage, Austin. 2008. Connecting immunology research to public health: Cuban biotechnology. Nature ImmunologyĀ 9(2): 109ā112.
Leslie, Mitch. 2010. Immunology uncaged. ScienceĀ 327(5973): 1573.
Mestas, Javier, and Christopher C. W. Hughes. 2004. Of mice and not men: Differences between mouse and human immunology. The Journal of ImmunologyĀ 172(5): 2731ā2738.
Odegard, Valerie H., and David G. Schatz. 2006. Targeting of somatic hypermutation. Nature Reviews ImmunologyĀ 6(8): 573ā583.
Overmier, J. Bruce, and Carroll, Marilyn E. 2001. Basic issues in the use of animals in health research. In Animal research and human health: Advancing human welfare through behavioral science, ed. M.E. Carroll and J.B. Overmier. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Parham, Peter. 1994. The rise and fall of great class I genes. Seminars in Immunology Ā 6(6): 373ā382.
Pierson, Paul. 2004. Politics in time: History, institutions, and social analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Pradeu, Thomas. 2009. Darwinisme, Ć©volution et immunologie. In Les mondes darwiniens,Ā ed. T. Heams, P. Huneman, G. Lecointre, and M. Silberstein, 759ā788. Paris: Syllepses.
Rosenblueth, Arturo, and Norbert Wiener. 1945. The role of models in science. Philosophy of ScienceĀ 12(4): 316ā321.
Shanks, Nail. 2004. God, the devil, and Darwin: A critique of intelligent design theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shanks, Nial, and Ray C. Greek. 2009. Animal models in light of evolution. Boca Raton: Brown Walker.
Wilson, David. 1984. Rutherford: Simple genius. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
Ā© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Desjardins, E., Barker, G., Madrenas, J. (2014). Thinking Outside the Mouse: Organism-Environment Interaction and Human Immunology. In: Barker, G., Desjardins, E., Pearce, T. (eds) Entangled Life. History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences, vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7067-6_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7067-6_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7066-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7067-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)