Self And Nonself

How do you discriminate yourself from other people? This question must sound odd to you since you easily recognize others at a glance and, without any effort, would not mistake them for yourself. However, it is not always easy for some people to discriminate themselves from others. For example, patients with schi- phrenia often talk with “others” living inside themselves. Thus it is likely that n- mally your brain actively recognizes and remembers the information belonging to yourself and discriminates it from the information provided by others, although you are not conscious of it. This brain function must have been particularly important for most animals to protect their lives from enemies and for species to survive through evolution. Similarly, higher organisms have also acquired their immune system through evolution that discriminates nonself pathogens and self-body to protect their lives from pathogens such as bacteria or viruses. The brain system may distinguish integrated images of self and nonself created from many inputs, such as vision, sound, smell, and others. The immune system recognizes and distinguishes a variety of structural features of self and nonself components. The latter actually include almost everything but self: for example, bacteria, viruses, toxins, pollens, chemicals, transplanted organs, and even tumor cells derived from self-tissue. To this end the immune system recruits different kinds of immune cells, such as B and T lymphocytes, natural killer (NK) cells, dendritic cells, and macrophages.

In 1960 Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet received the Noble Prize in Physiology and Medicine. He titled his Nobel Lecture “Immunological Recognition of Self” emphasizing the central argument of immunological tolerance in “How does the vertebrate organism recognize self from nonself in this the immunological sense—and how did the capacity evolve.” The concept of self is linked to the concept of biological self identity. All organisms, from bacteria to higher animals, possess recognition systems to defend themselves from nonself. Even in the context of the limited number of metazoan phyla that have been studied in detail, we can now describe many of the alternative mechanism of immune recognition that have emerged at varying points in phylogeny. Two different arms—the innate and adaptive immune system—have emerged at different moments in evolution, and they are conceptually different. The ultimate goals of immune biology include reconstructing the molecular networks underlying immune processes.

The Janeway's Immunobiology CD-ROM, Immunobiology Interactive, is included with each book, and can be purchased separately. It contains animations and videos with voiceover narration, as well as the figures from the text for presentation purposes.

Sinceits founding by Jacques Waardenburg in 1971, Religion and Reason has been a leading forum for contributions on theories, theoretical issues and agendas related to the phenomenon and the study of religion. Topics include (among others) category formation, comparison, ethnophilosophy, hermeneutics, methodology, myth, phenomenology, philosophy of science, scientific atheism, structuralism, and theories of religion. From time to time the series publishes volumes that map the state of the art and the history of the discipline.

Immunology asserts that an individual can be defined through self and nonself. Thomas Pradeu argues that this theory is inadequate, because immune responses to self constituents and immune tolerance of foreign entities are the rule, not the exception.

In this fascinating and inventive work, A. David Napier argues that the central assumption of immunology—that we survive through the recognition and elimination of non-self—has become a defining concept of the modern age. Tracing this immunological understanding of self and other through an incredibly diverse array of venues, from medical research to legal and military strategies and the electronic revolution, Napier shows how this defensive way of looking at the world not only destroys diversity but also eliminates the possibility of truly engaging difference, thereby impoverishing our culture and foreclosing tremendous opportunities for personal growth. To illustrate these destructive consequences, Napier likens the current craze for embracing diversity and the use of politically correct speech to a cultural potluck to which we each bring different dishes, but at which no one can eat unless they abide by the same rules. Similarly, loaning money to developing nations serves as a tool both to make the peoples in those nations more like us and to maintain them in the nonthreatening status of distant dependents. To break free of the resulting downward spiral of homogenization and self-focus, Napier suggests that we instead adopt a new defining concept based on embryology, in which development and self-growth take place through a process of incorporation and transformation. In this effort he suggests that we have much to learn from non-Western peoples, such as the Balinese, whose ritual practices require them to take on the considerable risk of injecting into their selves the potential dangers of otherness—and in so doing ultimately strengthen themselves as well as their society. The Age of Immunology, with its combination of philosophy, history, and cultural inquiry, will be seen as a manifesto for a new age and a new way of thinking about the world and our place in it.