- Email: [email protected]
Self-Ia reactive T cells in autoimmunity
Immunology Today, vol, 5, No. 7, 1984
192 immunity to draw inferences about the basis for differences in scholastic performance between boys and girls. They imply that I object to these inferences because I dislike controversy, and they state that 'science is not a suitable activity for those who dislike controversy'. By so doing, they avoid the substance of m y criticism. I was expressing concern that the wide dissemination of unsubstantiated hypotheses concerning such sensitive social issues as the basis for scholastic aptitude might have harmful,
even if unintended, consequences. Therefore, particular restraint is required. Unwillingness to consider the implications of propagating elaborate hypotheses from preliminary data cannot be justified simply in the name of intellectual curiosity or scientific controversy. In regard to our differences of opinion concerning previous studies of hormonal influences on immunity, I will refrain from a point-by-point rebuttal to the letter from Geschwind and Behan. Suffice
Self-Ia reactive T cells in autoimmunity
the mouse or the h u m a n model is whether the disease is a disease of antigen-presenting cells or of the self-reactive T lymphocytes.
SIR, I very much enjoyed the article on the role for self Ia-reactive T-cells by Y. Rosenberg et al. (Immunol. Today, 1984, 4, 64). T h e suggestion that the autoi m m u n e disease in MRL-lpr/lpr mouse is an in-vivo autologous mixed lymphocyte reaction is extremely interesting and novel. I would like to point out on behalf of m y colleagues that we have also proposed such a hypothesis for rheumatoid arthritis 1. T h e original proposition has now been substantiated by further work ~'~. It should be noted that the M R L mouse displays features of rheumatoid arthritis. W h a t is not clear either from
A stylistically Shaw touch SIR, 'Bernard Shaw wrote a very good sentence MEDAWAR (1979) M e d a w a r 1 has suggested that authors o f scientific papers would benefit from reading the non-scientific works of technically skillful writers, such as Shaw, as models of literary style in expounding difficult subjects. T h e extent to which scientists read or emulate such writers is not known, but if literary modelling occurs one might expect it to affect the style of scientific papers. Most elements of literary style are difficult to measure objectively. T h e number of words contained in written sentences, however, is quantifiable and it has been suggested that the distribution of sentence length is a characteristic elem e n t of an author's style 2. T h e frequency distribution of sentence length in the works of a variety of authors has
G. S. PANAYI
Department of Medicine, Guy's Hospital Medical School, London, SE1 9RT, UK.
References 1 Janossy, G., Panayi G. S., Bofil, M., PouRer, L. W. and Goldstein, G. (1981) Lancet ii, 839-842 2 Duke, O., Panayi, G. S., Janossy, G. and Poulter, L. W. (1982) Clin. Exp. ImmunoL 49, 23-30 3 Poulter, L. W., Duke, O., Hobbs, S., Janossy, G. and Panayi, G. S. (1982) Clin. Exp. Immunol. 48, 391-388
been reported ~'~. In particular, detailed examination of Bernard Shaw's An Intelligent Woman's Guide To Socialism has shown that the n u m b e r of words in a Shavian sentence has a characteristic log-normal distribution ~. T o compare the writing style of practising immunologists with that o f Shaw, the n u m b e r of words in sentences of current immunological papers was assessed. A sample of 100 sentences was obtained by choosing the first and last sentences of 50 articles published in August and September 1983 in The Journal of Immunology and Immunology. T h e August issues were opened at random and the next following 25 full papers in each journal were evaluated: the central values of sentence length in the immunological papers were remarkably similar to those of Shaw (Table I). The close correspondence of sentence length in the work of Shaw and that of immunologists may be interpreted in a n u m b e r of ways. First, if sentence length
© 1984, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam 0167 - 4919/84/$02.00
it to say, this is still a complicated and confusing area for everyone. M y commentary and the letter of response above provide somewhat different interpretations of some of these studies, from which the readers of Immunology Today will draw their now conclusions. DAVID WOFSY
Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California 94121, USA is indeed a characteristic feature of style 2, it might be proposed that Shaw wrote the immunology papers. This appears to be unlikely because it has been reported repeatedly (see Ref. 4, for example) that Shaw is dead. Furthermore, if Shaw had left these manuscripts for posthumous publication one would not expect him to have chosen 161 pseudonyms. It is more probable, therefore, that immunologists have taken M e d a w a r ' s message. TABLE I. Characteristics of sentence length Words per sentence Arithmetic mean Geometric mean Median Mean log10 SD of mean logw
Shaw a
Immunologistsb
31.2
31.2
24.5
28.2
26 1.4 0.3
29 1.5 0.2
aValues reported by Williams3. bValues determined from a sample of 100 sentences in current immunology papers. With respect to sentence length, at least, immunologists appear to have taken Shaw as their model. It only remains to find ways to evaluate the clarity and wit of the content. C. A. OTTAWAY
Department of Medicine, St Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1.48.
References 1 2 3 4
Medawar, P. B. (1979) in Advice to a Young Scientist, p. 64, Harper and Row, Publishers, New York Yule,G. U. (1939) Biometrika30, 363-390 Williams,C. B. (1940) Biorr~trika31,356-361 Green, J. (1980) in FamousLast Words:The UItimoteDictionaryof Quotations,p. 214, Pan Books, London.
192 immunity to draw inferences about the basis for differences in scholastic performance between boys and girls. They imply that I object to these inferences because I dislike controversy, and they state that 'science is not a suitable activity for those who dislike controversy'. By so doing, they avoid the substance of m y criticism. I was expressing concern that the wide dissemination of unsubstantiated hypotheses concerning such sensitive social issues as the basis for scholastic aptitude might have harmful,
even if unintended, consequences. Therefore, particular restraint is required. Unwillingness to consider the implications of propagating elaborate hypotheses from preliminary data cannot be justified simply in the name of intellectual curiosity or scientific controversy. In regard to our differences of opinion concerning previous studies of hormonal influences on immunity, I will refrain from a point-by-point rebuttal to the letter from Geschwind and Behan. Suffice
Self-Ia reactive T cells in autoimmunity
the mouse or the h u m a n model is whether the disease is a disease of antigen-presenting cells or of the self-reactive T lymphocytes.
SIR, I very much enjoyed the article on the role for self Ia-reactive T-cells by Y. Rosenberg et al. (Immunol. Today, 1984, 4, 64). T h e suggestion that the autoi m m u n e disease in MRL-lpr/lpr mouse is an in-vivo autologous mixed lymphocyte reaction is extremely interesting and novel. I would like to point out on behalf of m y colleagues that we have also proposed such a hypothesis for rheumatoid arthritis 1. T h e original proposition has now been substantiated by further work ~'~. It should be noted that the M R L mouse displays features of rheumatoid arthritis. W h a t is not clear either from
A stylistically Shaw touch SIR, 'Bernard Shaw wrote a very good sentence MEDAWAR (1979) M e d a w a r 1 has suggested that authors o f scientific papers would benefit from reading the non-scientific works of technically skillful writers, such as Shaw, as models of literary style in expounding difficult subjects. T h e extent to which scientists read or emulate such writers is not known, but if literary modelling occurs one might expect it to affect the style of scientific papers. Most elements of literary style are difficult to measure objectively. T h e number of words contained in written sentences, however, is quantifiable and it has been suggested that the distribution of sentence length is a characteristic elem e n t of an author's style 2. T h e frequency distribution of sentence length in the works of a variety of authors has
G. S. PANAYI
Department of Medicine, Guy's Hospital Medical School, London, SE1 9RT, UK.
References 1 Janossy, G., Panayi G. S., Bofil, M., PouRer, L. W. and Goldstein, G. (1981) Lancet ii, 839-842 2 Duke, O., Panayi, G. S., Janossy, G. and Poulter, L. W. (1982) Clin. Exp. ImmunoL 49, 23-30 3 Poulter, L. W., Duke, O., Hobbs, S., Janossy, G. and Panayi, G. S. (1982) Clin. Exp. Immunol. 48, 391-388
been reported ~'~. In particular, detailed examination of Bernard Shaw's An Intelligent Woman's Guide To Socialism has shown that the n u m b e r of words in a Shavian sentence has a characteristic log-normal distribution ~. T o compare the writing style of practising immunologists with that o f Shaw, the n u m b e r of words in sentences of current immunological papers was assessed. A sample of 100 sentences was obtained by choosing the first and last sentences of 50 articles published in August and September 1983 in The Journal of Immunology and Immunology. T h e August issues were opened at random and the next following 25 full papers in each journal were evaluated: the central values of sentence length in the immunological papers were remarkably similar to those of Shaw (Table I). The close correspondence of sentence length in the work of Shaw and that of immunologists may be interpreted in a n u m b e r of ways. First, if sentence length
© 1984, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam 0167 - 4919/84/$02.00
it to say, this is still a complicated and confusing area for everyone. M y commentary and the letter of response above provide somewhat different interpretations of some of these studies, from which the readers of Immunology Today will draw their now conclusions. DAVID WOFSY
Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California 94121, USA is indeed a characteristic feature of style 2, it might be proposed that Shaw wrote the immunology papers. This appears to be unlikely because it has been reported repeatedly (see Ref. 4, for example) that Shaw is dead. Furthermore, if Shaw had left these manuscripts for posthumous publication one would not expect him to have chosen 161 pseudonyms. It is more probable, therefore, that immunologists have taken M e d a w a r ' s message. TABLE I. Characteristics of sentence length Words per sentence Arithmetic mean Geometric mean Median Mean log10 SD of mean logw
Shaw a
Immunologistsb
31.2
31.2
24.5
28.2
26 1.4 0.3
29 1.5 0.2
aValues reported by Williams3. bValues determined from a sample of 100 sentences in current immunology papers. With respect to sentence length, at least, immunologists appear to have taken Shaw as their model. It only remains to find ways to evaluate the clarity and wit of the content. C. A. OTTAWAY
Department of Medicine, St Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1.48.
References 1 2 3 4
Medawar, P. B. (1979) in Advice to a Young Scientist, p. 64, Harper and Row, Publishers, New York Yule,G. U. (1939) Biometrika30, 363-390 Williams,C. B. (1940) Biorr~trika31,356-361 Green, J. (1980) in FamousLast Words:The UItimoteDictionaryof Quotations,p. 214, Pan Books, London.