Advertisement

Some Comments on Fleck’s Interpretation of the Bordet-Wassermann Reaction in View of Present Biochemical Knowledge

  • Bernard Zalc
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 87)

Abstract

The core example chosen by Fleck to develop his concepts of the “genesis and development of scientific facts” is the serodiagnosis of syphilis known as the Wessermann reaction (in France and Belgium, this serological test is called the Bordet-Wassermann reaction to make the fact that Wassermann ’s contribution to this serodiagnosis was to apply to syphilis the experimental procedure of complement deviation set-up a few years earlier by Bordet and Gengou) [1, 2]. This immunological reaction, which is quite simple in its principles, turned out, when applied to the serodiagnosis of syphilis, to be extremely complex from the point of view of both its practical realization and its theoretical interpretation. Due to the socio-medical importance of the subject, this complexity had led to a tremendous volume of literature, which following Fleck’s own estimation amounted in 1934 to about ten thousand papers. Fleck concluded rightly: “There certainly cannot be many similar specialized problems which have had so many papers devoted to them” [3].

Keywords

Mixed Micelle Complement Fixation Scientific Fact Complement Fixation Test Lipidic Antigen 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bordet, J. and Gengou, O.: 1901, Ann. Inst. Pasteur 15, 289.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wassermann, A., Neisser, A. and Biuck, C: 1906, Deutsche Med. Woch. 39, 745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fleck, L.: 1979, Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago and London), p. 81.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Citron, J.: The Method of Immunodiagnosties and Immunotherapy (Leipzig 1910) quoted by Fleck (ibid.), pp. 58–59.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fleck, L.: (ibid.), p. 63.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Marie, A. and Levaditi, C.: 1907, Ann. Inst. Pasteur 21, 238.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Levaditi, C: La syphilis, J. Roche, Paris, 1909, p. 131.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Landsteiner, K., Müller and Pötzel: 1907, Wiener Klin. Woch. 46,50.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Porges and Maier: 1907, Berlin Klin. Woch. 44,1599.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Levaditi, C. and Yamanouchi: 1907, C. R. Soc. Biol. 63, 740.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Levaditi, C. and Yamanouchi: 1908, C. R. Soc. Biol. 64, 349.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pangborn, M. C: 1942,. J. Biol. Chem. 143, 247.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cullis, P. R. and de Kruijff, B.: 1979, Biochim. Biophys. Acta 559, 399.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maltaner, E. and Maltaner, F.: 1945, J. Immunol. 51,195.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Inoue, K. and Nojima, S.: 1967, Biochim. Biophys. Acta 144, 409.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Forssman, J.: 1911, Biochem. Zeitschrift 37, 78.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brandt, R., Guth, H. and Müller, R.: 1926, Klin. Woch. 5, 655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Joffe, S., Rapport, M. M. and Graf, L.: 1961,Nature 197, 60.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Levaditi, C. and Mutermilch: 1908, C. R. Soc. Biol. 64, 406.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bordet, J.: Infection et Immunité. Masson, Paris, 1939, pp. 162–163.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weil, E.: 1921, Berlin Klin. Woch. 58, 966.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fleck, L.: (ibid. ), p. 76.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernard Zalc
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire de NeurochimieHôpital de la SalpôtrièreParisFrance

Personalised recommendations