Further notes about the morphostasis concept – split files

(02) General email letter to various immunologists, 18th May 1997

I am not sure why no one wishes to speak to me on this subject. All communication so far has been one way. As far as I can tell I must live on a different planet to you. Nevertheless, I am not so daft that I am missing the importance of these concepts and I'm certain some of you know this too. Peer review seems to be being a total "ass" as far as I can see. My approach might be unconventional; it might be cavalier; it might offend those who think of themselves as professional scientists. But science has got itself into the rut of believing that speculation is an inadmissible act – only to be done in private, behind closed doors and amongst consenting adults in case someone finds you out. I heartily agree that Scientists should, and must, accept nothing (as gospel truth) that has not been rigorously proven. However, the problem with broad paradigms is that they are, at best, only guesses. They are a necessary evil and they should only be held so long as a better one doesn't turn up. Show me a major conceptual advance in science that was easily testable when it first appeared! These three quotes are from Thomas Kuhn.

• "In science, ....... , novelty emerges only with difficulty, manifested by resistance, against a background provided by expectation."
• "Philosophers of science have repeatedly demonstrated that more than one theoretical construction can always be placed upon a given collection of data."
• "Probably, the single most prevalent claim advanced by the proponents of a new paradigm is that they can solve the problems that led the old one to a crisis."

Let me point out that any statement saying that the morphostasis hypothesis (or paradigm) is untestable (like the current criticisms of the "danger" hypothesis) apply with equal force to the currently accepted paradigm that self/non–self discrimination is learned in utero. Perspective depends on the position from which you view an object. While the current paradigm does have appeal and has been a useful framework to date, it is now creating more problems than it resolves. A change is overdue. Like Newton's Principia, it was great in its day, still works for many situations but it is now holding up the advance of the subject.

Two journals have now rejected "From terra firma to terra plana (I must add it has matured since the first submission but not since the last – rejected 15th May).

I will accept that rejection is justifiable on grounds other than: (a) it is not a thoroughly more predictive paradigm –– and (b) it is not the most important thing to happen to biology and medicine for years.

I am sick of peddling this round and being told it is worthless when it clearly is not. You could now line up a million professional immunologists to tell me my amateur contributions are worthless and I would know they are deluded.

I have attached the article as a file. If you cannot read this, I will send it as a plain text e–mail should you request this.