Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 29, Issue 6, pp 885–895 | Cite as

In defense of the organism

Thomas Pradeu (Elizabeth Vitanza, trans.): The limits of the self: immunology and biological identity. Oxford University Press, New York, 2012, ix+302 pp, $65 HB, ISBN: 978-0-19-977528-6
Book Review
  • 407 Downloads

Abstract

Thomas Pradeu’s The Limits of the Self provides a precise account of biological identity developed from the central concepts of immunology. Yet the central concepts most relevant to this task (self and nonself) are themselves deemed inadequate, suffering from ambiguity and imprecision. Pradeu seeks to remedy this by proposing a new guiding theory for immunology, the continuity theory. From this, an account of biological identity is provided in terms of uniqueness and individuality, ultimately leading to a defense of the heterogeneous organism as expressing the highest degree of individuality.

Keywords

Immunology Organism Development Physiology Identity Self-nonself 

References

  1. Blankenstein T, Coulie PG, Gilboa E, Jaffee EM (2012) The determinants of tumour immunogenicity. Nat Rev Cancer 12(4):307–313. doi:10.1038/nrc3246 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chamy LE, Leclerc V, Caldelari I, Reichhart JM (2008) Sensing of ‘danger signals’ and pathogen-associated molecular patterns defines binary signaling pathways ‘upstream’ of Toll. Nat Immunol 9(10):1165–1170. doi:10.1038/ni.1643 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ereshefsky M (1992) Eliminative pluralism. Philos Sci 59(4):671–690. doi:10.1086/289701 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fagan M (2013) Philosophy of stem cell biology. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Godfrey-Smith P (2009) Darwinian populations and natural selection. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Grignolio A, Mishto M, Faria AMC, Garagnani P, Franceschi C, Tieri P (2014) Towards a liquid self: how time, geography and life experiences reshape the biological identity. Front Immunol 5(153):1–17. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2014.00153 Google Scholar
  7. Gringras P, Chen W (2001) Mechanisms for differences in monozygous twins. Early Hum Dev 64(2):105–117. doi:10.1016/S0378-3782(01)00171-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Haber MH (2012) Multilevel lineages and multidimensional trees: the levels of lineage and phylogeny reconstruction. Philos Sci 79(5):609–623. doi:10.1086/667849 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haber MH (2013) Colonies are individuals: revisiting the superorganism revival. In: Bouchard F, Huneman P (eds) From groups to individuals: evolution and emerging individuality. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 195–217Google Scholar
  10. Hodge JW, Garnett CT, Farsaci B, Palena C, Tsang KY, Ferrone S, Gameiro SR (2013) Chemotherapy-induced immunogenic modulation of tumor cells enhances killing by cytotoxic T lymphocytes and is distinct from immunogenic cell death. Int J Cancer 133(3):624–636. doi:10.1002/ijc.28070 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kaczmarek A, Vandenabeele P, Krysko DV (2013) Necroptosis: the release of damage-associated molecular patterns and its physiological relevance. Immunity 38(2):209–223. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2013.02.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kono H, Rock KL (2008) How dying cells alert the immune system to danger. Nat Rev Immunol 8(4):279–289. doi:10.1038/nri2215 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ladyman J, Ross D (2007) Every thing must go: metaphysics naturalized. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lloyd EA (2001) Science gone astray: evolution and rape. Mich Law Rev 99(6):1536–1559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Matzinger P (1994) Tolerance, danger, and the extended family. Annu Rev Immunol 12(1):991–1045. doi:10.1146/annurev.iy.12.040194.005015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mishler BD (1999) Getting rid of species. In: Wilson RA (ed) Species: new interdisciplinary essays. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 141–185Google Scholar
  17. Mishler BD, Brandon RN (1987) Individuality, pluralism, and the phylogenetic species concept. Biol Philos 2:397–414. doi:10.1007/BF00127698 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Okasha S (2006) Evolution and the levels of selection. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Okasha S (2011) Biological ontology and hierarchical organization: a defense of rank freedom. In: Calcott B, Sterelny K (eds) The major transitions in evolution revisited chap 3. MIT Press, UK, pp 53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. O’Malley M, Dupré J (2007) Size doesn’t matter: towards a more inclusive philosophy of biology. Biol Philos 22:155–191. doi:10.1007/s10539-006-9031-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pradeu T (2012) The limits of the self: immunology and biological identity. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Pradeu T, Carosella ED (2006a) On the definition of a criterion of immunogenicity. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103(47):17,858–17,861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pradeu T, Carosella ED (2006b) The self model and the conception of biological identity in immunology. Biol Philos 21(2):235–252. doi:10.1007/s10539-005-8621-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pradeu T, Cooper EL (2012) The danger theory: twenty years later. Front Immunol 3(287):1–9. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2012.00287 Google Scholar
  25. Pradeu T, Jaeger S, Vivier E (2013) The speed of change: towards a discontinuity theory of immunity? Nat Rev Immunol 13(10):764–769. doi:10.1038/nri3521 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Richardson SS (2010) Sexes, species, and genomes: why males and females are not like humans and chimpanzees. Biol Philos 25(5):823–841. doi:10.1007/s10539-010-9207-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rubartelli A, Lotze MT (2007) Inside, outside, upside down: damage-associated molecular-pattern molecules (DAMPs) and redox. Trends Immunol 28(10):429–436. doi:10.1016/j.it.2007.08.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Turnbaugh PJ, Quince C, Faith JJ, McHardy AC, Yatsunenko T, Niazi F, Affourtit J, Egholm M, Henrissat B, Knight R, Gordon JI (2010) Organismal, genetic, and transcriptional variation in the deeply sequenced gut microbiomes of identical twins. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(16):7503–7508. doi:10.1073/pnas.1002355107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wilson DS, Sober E (1989) Reviving the superorganism. J Theor Biol 136(3):337–356. doi:10.1016/S0022-5193(89)80169-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and Center for Quantitative BiologyUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations