Precedence
(This was written before the SJI published my article in Sep 2006)
The only justification for claiming precedence of conception (ie, of imagining it before being told of it or reading of it through another author) is that it could lend support to the other proposed elements of the hypothesis. When something unknown is predicted and found to be supported by the evidence, this is strong support for the hypothesis. I believe that this set of ideas around Morphostasis and the structure that it accords the immune (or morphostatic) system is immensely important. Until the central tenets are understood and accepted by a majority of immunologists, the discipline will continue to fumble around, captive in the vaults of a blind alley. There appears to be continuing, sulking(?) resistance to allowing these ideas to receive an open airing. Many articles are published where citation of the morphostasis articles would be appropriate. It is unlikely that the authors are unaware of the work. Perhaps this cold shouldering is because I have done no original research; but that would be a churlish, clubby response. Perhaps it is because they think that I am trying to muscle in on a bandwagon; but that ignores the difficulty I have had getting into print - and when. Perhaps it is because they still see it as far too speculative to be "good science"; but, down the "retrospectoscope", it is becoming increasingly clear that - in broad principle - it was prescient. Since very few authors (or journals) will cite the work, it is left to me to emphasise here how it has regularly predicted the way things will go. Then, using this historical precedent to extrapolate into the future, much that is still regarded as "sheer speculation" will also probably follow this historical precedent. I predict that much of it is destined to become the respectable "normal science" of the future. Of course, it is important to be cautious and accept nothing without great scepticism (this scepticism is a strength in science). But, it is misguided to believe that mention of it needs to be swept under the carpet to prevent it "corrupting the youth of this land". Its track record is now far too good.
So what points of precedence are there
and what do I parade to support them?
 | Elective cell suicide being used as a mechanism for defence. |
| The primacy of innate immunity (M&I 1985) |
| The inversion of NK function to Tc function in the vertebrates - linking innate and anamnestic immune systems. There was literature out there to suggest that NK cells attack cells not expressing a self Mhc signature but I did not discover this until this part of the hypothesis had been established. |
| The seamless integration of the innate and the anamnestic immune systems (1985 and 1992) |
| A danger like hypothesis (M&I 1985). |
|
||||||
| Intracellular surveillance is at the core of the surveillance system (at least as far back as 1994) |
| Plants share the same core defence (morphostatic) mechanism. |
| The resurrection of the immune surveillance concept for averting cancer (now creating great excitement). |
| The polarisation of lymphocyte commitment according to the style of cell death (reproduced from a file I created on 18th July 1993) |
| Gap junctions are important in immune cell interactions. |
| And some more - the list is fairly extensive. |
The elements that are still "cinderellas" that warrant investigative dissection:
| The involvement of gap junctions. |
| The points raised in "Clinical Morphostasis". |
| The points raised in "The neurology of Behçet's syndrome". |
| The probability that "bug hunting and killing" are, at least partly, illusions and a consequence of the primary function, "morphostasis". |
| The shell like system of morphostatic defences. |
| The synthesis outlined in the phlogiston article. |
| And some more. As time goes by, the "retrospectroscope" is lending increasing support to more and more - even if the detail has proven wide of the mark, the principles were usually sound. |
This page was last updated on 30/08/06