What do you think?
Rate this book
The Network Collective: Rise and Fall of a Scientific Paradigm
The network paradigm dominated immunological research from the early 1970s to the late 1980s. The originator, Niels Jerne, hypothesized that the vast diversity of antibodies in each individual forms a network of mutual "idiotypic" recognition, thus regulating the immune system. In context of emerging concepts of systems biology such as cybernetics and autopoesis, the "Eigenbehavior" of the immune system fascinated an entire generation of young immunologists. But fascination led to experimental errors and overinterpretation, eventually magnifying the immune system from a mere infection-fighting device to a substrate of personality and individuality. As a result, what initially appeared as an exciting new perspective of the immune system is now viewed as a scientific vagary, and is largely abandoned. The author, himself a participant in the network vagary, begins with a description of the leading theoretical concepts on fact finding in science. This is followed by a historical account of the rise and fall of the network paradigm, complemented by personal interviews with some of the prominent protagonists. By comparing the network paradigm to other, more lasting concepts in life science, the author develops a general perspective on how solid knowledge is derived from error-prone scientific methodology, namely by exposure of scientific notions to the scrutiny of reality.
281 pages, Hardcover
First published November 7, 2008
2 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
August 13, 2020
This is a very interesting book overall. It is written by Klaus Eichmann, a German Immunologist who spent half of his scientific career working on experiments addressing Network Theory proposed by Niels Jerne in the 1970s.
Network theory dominated immunology for 15 years. Hundreds of immunologists were working on it. But by the early 1990s, it disappeared from publications as if it never existed.
What drove the author to write this book was his desire to understand why so many scientists, including himself, suddenly decided to work on a new model, generated tons of data in support of it, and then again suddenly abandoned it.
He divides this book into 3 parts. The first part is focused on the analysis of how science is done. The second part is about Network theory itself, its development, its rise and fall, and the third part is his conversations with fellow scientists of his generation who has done some work on Network theory.
The main point is that Network theory was a mere concept that never developed into a coherent model that could explain mechanistically the immune system and still a big part of immunology society was directly or indirectly involved in perpetuating its validity for 15 years. How was it possible for so many scientists to produce so much data in support of a model that no one could work out from A to Z even at the theoretical level? What was it? Scientific fraud? Poor experimentation? Conformism among scientists? lack of necessary reagents as many scientists appear to suggest?
posted by David Usharauli
Network theory dominated immunology for 15 years. Hundreds of immunologists were working on it. But by the early 1990s, it disappeared from publications as if it never existed.
What drove the author to write this book was his desire to understand why so many scientists, including himself, suddenly decided to work on a new model, generated tons of data in support of it, and then again suddenly abandoned it.
He divides this book into 3 parts. The first part is focused on the analysis of how science is done. The second part is about Network theory itself, its development, its rise and fall, and the third part is his conversations with fellow scientists of his generation who has done some work on Network theory.
The main point is that Network theory was a mere concept that never developed into a coherent model that could explain mechanistically the immune system and still a big part of immunology society was directly or indirectly involved in perpetuating its validity for 15 years. How was it possible for so many scientists to produce so much data in support of a model that no one could work out from A to Z even at the theoretical level? What was it? Scientific fraud? Poor experimentation? Conformism among scientists? lack of necessary reagents as many scientists appear to suggest?
posted by David Usharauli
Displaying 1 of 1 review