CLJF?F4EENTCOMMENTS

Sir Peter B. Medawar: Consummate Scientific Professional, Accomplished Literary Amateur

!%%%%/%%/%%/%%//////////////////////////////////&Numbr 46, November 14, 1977

I am often embarrassed by the People like Medawar, Thomas, relative poverty of my education in and Bronowski provide the bridge the classics, literature and the arts. between science and the public Nevertheless, many people, es- which is so important to a popular pecially foreigners, assume that 1 appreciation of science. We cannot am able to converse on the arts and encourage such persons enough in sciences with equal facility. I con- the pursuit of their work. Those of fess that a poem, a piece of music or us who believe that basic research a painting can bring tears to my deserves public support should re- eyes. But more often 1 am deeply member that one great literary or moved by the beauty I find in the journalistic work by a scientist can clear expression of scientific ideas, do more to enhance the image of perhaps because I know how hard it science than one hundred research is to achieve such clarity. So when projects designed to prove that remarkable lucidity and beauty of basic research makes technology expression are combined, I am both possible. emotionally and professionally im- Medawar himself is a uniquely pressed. 1 had this rare feeling re- talented person. In 1960 he received cently while reading a book review the Nobel Prize for research on ac- by Sir Peter B. Medawar, the Brit- quired immunological tolerance. ish biologist and philosopher. 1 This But his interests are certainly not is not the first time I’ve experienced limited to medicine or biology. An such a profound sensation while examination of the select bibliogra- reading Medawar’s work. Like phy of Medawar’s publications pre- Lewis Thomas,2 the late Jacob sented on the following pages in- Bronowski,3 and a few others, dicates that his interests and exper- Medawar combines the acumen of a tise range from medicine to phi- scientist with the literary talent of a losophy, from biology to psychology great writer. And lest you suspect and sociology, and from the most 1’m promoting a friend, I regret to narrow, highly specific research report that I’ve never had the plea- questions to the widest, most basic, sure of meeting or even correspond- and most urgent questions facing ing with Sir Peter. science.

299 Of course, years of research by a the war. surgeons tound that most scientist like Peter Medawar don’t skin grafts were promptly rejected go unnoticed. He has written over by the recipient. But why? And how 150 articles and six books; seven of could the rejection mechanism be his articles and one of his books neutralized or broken down? The have been cited over one hundred British Medical Research Council times each. According to data from supported Medawar’s research on both the Science Citation Indexm graft rejection. and the Social Sciences Citation In experimentation on rabbits Index ‘M, Medawar has been cited Medawar found that the chief factor more than 2,700 times from 1961 to controlling acceptance or rejection 1976. On our highly-cited author of skin grafts was the genetic re- list. based on total citations re- lationship between donor and re- ceived by primary authors from cipient. Medawar and his research 1961 to 1975, only about 800 names team also demonstrated that inocu- rank above Medawar’s, while more lation of fetal mice with living cells than 56,000 rank below him. This from a future donor made them tol- does not prove the importance of his erant of grafts from that donor later work, but surely illustrates its im- in life. These discoveries held enor- pact. h will be interesting to see mous implications for solving the how Medawar’s citation record is problem of tissue rejection in hu- affected when we complete our first man beings, all-author ranking, which will be Through the discovery of ac- based on citations not just to pri- quired tolerance, transplantation mary authors but to all co-authors. immunology became a major branch However, as Medawar himself ar- of experimental and clinical biology. gues in The Uniqueness of the ln- Many people are alive today be- di~’idual, 4 no single measurement cause of skin and organ transplants. or indicator can properly illuminate As a result of his research in the whole of an individual’s per- tissue rejection, Medawar’s scien- sonality or achievements. So I will tific reputation grew rapidly. At the discuss some of Medawar”s accom- age of 34, the Royal Society elected plishments and try to give readers him a Fellow, He became a pro- an idea of his personality by pre- fessor of zoology, first at the Uni- senting a few brief excerpts from versit y of Birmingham, and then at his writings. University College, London. In 1962 As an Oxford University under- he was appointed Director of graduate in zoology, Medawar did Britain’s National Institute for research on factors controlling Medical Research. In spite of a growth in tissue cultures. After serious stroke in 1969, Medawar graduation in 1939, the outbreak of continued as Director until 1971. He World War 11 caused him to focus has since made an excellent re- his research on the replacement of covery, and says that his life has skin lost because of severe burns, a “picked up and has started getting pressing medical problem during good again,“5 Med~war Sti]]works for the Medical Research Council, to, imaginative activity in all its and now has become well known as forms6 (p. 2). a philosopher of science, and as a Medawar reconciled these two student of the behavior of scientists. views by noting that For example, in 1968 Medawar an imaginative or inspirational addressed the American Philosoph- process enters into all scientific ical Society on the subject of what reasoning at every level: it is scientists really do. He said in part, not confined to ‘‘great” dis- We all know in rough outline coveries, as the more simple- what lawyers do, or clergymen, minded inductivists have sup- physicians, accountants, and posed. civil servants; we have a vague Scientists are usually too idea of the codes of practice proud or too shy to speak about they must abide by if they are to creativity and “creative imagi- succeed in their professional nation”; they feel it to be in- duties, and if we were to learn compatible with their concep- more about them we should be tion of themselves as “men of edified, no doubt, but not sur- facts” and rigorous inductive prised. But what are scientists judgments. The role of creativ- like as professional men, and ity has always been acknowl- how do they set about to en- edged by inventors, because in- large our understanding of the ventors are often simple un- world around us? There seems pretentious people who do not to be no one answer. The lay- give themselves airs, whose man’s interpretation of scien- education has not been digni- tific practice contains two ele- fied by courses on scientific ments which seem to be un- method. Innovators speak un- related and all but impossible to affectedly about brain waves reconcile. In the one conception and inspirations: and what, af- the scientist is a discoverer, an ter all, is a mechanical inven- innovator, an adventurer into tion if not a solid hypothesis, the domain of what is not yet the literal embodiment of a known or not yet understood. belief or opinion of which me- Such a man must be specula- chanical working is the test?6 tive, surely, at least in the (p. 55). sense of being able to envisage He concluded, what might happen or what lmaginativeness and a critical could be true. In the other con- temper are both necessary at all ception the scientist is a critical times, but neither is sufficient. man, a skeptic, hard to satisfy; The most imaginative scientists a questioner of received beliefs, are by no means the most ef- Scientists (in this second view) fective; at their worst, uncen- are men of facts and not of sored, they are cranks. Nor are fancies, and science is antitheti- the most critically minded. The cal to, perhaps even an antidote man notorious for his dismis- sivc criticisms, strenuous in the when processed 13y a com- pursuit of error, is often un- puter—the use of which is in productive, as if he had scared itself interpreted as a mark of himself out of his own wits— scientific manhood. 1 unless indeed his critical cast of The tendency to quantify for the mind was the consequence sake of quantification sometimes rather than the cause of his occurs in my own field of informa- infertility.6 (p, 58). tion science, and particularly in cita- Mcdawar displayed his own criti- tion analysis, One needs a degree in cal temper—and a bit of biting sar- mathematics to understand half the casm as well-by distinguishing be- papers published in certain journals tween the natural sciences and what of information science. That is why ne calm1,. tne,,, unnarural– ..-, sc]ences.–, --- –., one of the sensible terms associated He wrote, with the quantification work going If a broad line of demarcation on in scientometrics these days is is drawn between the natural “indicators.”7 What I and others sciences and what can only bc have been trying to stress is that dcscribcd as the unnuturul sci- citation data should not be viewed ences, itwill at once be recog- in isolation. lt is useful and mean- nized as a distinguishing mark ingful when its limitations arc prop- of the latter that their prac- erly understood, and when it is titioners try most painstakingly viewed in the context of other in- to imitate what they believe— dicators. As Medawar says, the quite wrongly, alas for thcm— evaluation of the individual is a to be the distinctive man- complex process. And it is partic- ners and observances of the ularly when evaluating individual natural scicnccs. Among these scientists that I have urged the ut- are: (a) the belief that mea- most caution in using citation duta. surement and numeration are Mcdawar’s writings have also tid- intrinsically praiseworthy ac- drcssed the topic of scicncc’s im- tivities (the worship, indeed, of pact on society. Recently, in collab- \vhat Ernst Gombrich calls idofu oration with his wife, a botanist, quantitutis); (b) the whole dis- hc has produced a remarkable sur- credited farrago of induct iv- vey of modern biology and it> social isrm—especially the belief that implications. The LI~e Science F+isa jiicrs are prior to ideas and that concise and lucid look at current a sufflcient]y voluminous com- biological thought, in u hich the pilation of facts can be process- Mcda\vtirs make some thought- ed by a calculus of discovery in provoking points about the human such a way as to yield general race. principles and natural-seeming In the following cxccrpt the Ia\vs; (c) another distinguishing Medu\vars rccornmcnd a balance mark of unnatural scientists is bct~vcco professionalism and ama- their faith in the efficacy of sta- teurism. No one better cxcn]plitics tistical formulas. particularly (his typr of’ balance than Sir Peter Caroline Gadend Sir Peter and Lady Medawar

Medawar himself, the consummate fully exploited; they have no ex- scientific professional, the accom- treme specialization such as the plished literary amateur, and the anteater’s snout or the fly trap perennial optimist. of an insectivorous plant—no People often wonder whether specializations that commit human beings are capable of them to one particular kind of further evolution. Leaving open life. Indeed, from an evolution- the question of whether any ary point of view man is the such evolution will occur or not, great amateur among animals. the answer is assuredly ‘Yes’. A merely professional animal Human beings have a vast res- would probably have committed ervoir of inborn diversity and an itself by structure or function to open or ‘wild type’ breeding a bondage it could not now system which would make it escape. possible for that diversity to be It is, however, very unlikely

303 that any major evolutionary three new books on the subJect change will come about during contains incisive, cutting observa- the future life of man on tions on the public appreciation of earth . . . . science and scientists. For instance, Our reasons for thinking that he comments, no major evolutionary change For their excess of fearful- will occur are twofold. In the ness, laymen have only them- first place the exercise of any selves to blame and their night- artificial selection over vsry mares are a judgment upon many generations would re- them for a deep-seated scien- quire acquiescence in the rule tific illiteracy which manifests of a long dynasty of tyrants, and itself in two ways. although such a tyranny is not In the first place the public inconceivable, such consistency deserve nothing but contempt of policy assuredly is. In the for allowing themselves to be second place ordinary or endo- ‘ dupes of that form of science somatic evolution is no longer a fiction which is our modern principal agency for securing equivalent of the Gothic ro- fitness in human populations . . . . mances of Mary Shelley and Another way in which human Mrs. Ann Radcliffe; for being beings are amateurs in a pro- taken in, that is to say, by that fessional world is that not all trusty serio-comic character, human activities have survival the mad scientist, who to the as their principal purpose. Even accompaniment of peals of though our extra curricular ac- maniacal laughter cries out with tivities are those that make life a strong Central European ac- \vorth living—Mozart’s piano cent, “Soon ze whole vorld vill sonatas and the paintings in the be in my power. ” Uilizi Ga]lcry amplify the hu- The second reason for their man spirit and not human excess of fearfulness is this: DNA—nothing will rcconvcrt That because imaginative writ- human beings from amateurs ing is the only form of creative into pros more quickly than the activity most people know, even imminence of mortal danger. In educated laymen have no idea this context, being professional of the width of the gap between may imply submitting again to conception and execution in sci- the tyrannical philosophy of re- ence. A writer who hits on a productive advantage that has good idea—or even a composer brought us this long way al- who thinks of or, like Sullivan, ready. Clearly some compro- overhears a good tune—can mise between the amateur and take up pencil and paper and the professional is called for. write it down; he does not have Recently, Medawar commented to sue for bench space in a on the controversy surrounding laboratory or send in five copies genetic engineering.9 His review of of an application explaining

304 what his poem is going to be in the scientific profession, about, how many sheets of pa- among whom sanity is much per it will occupy, what imagery more widely diffused than it is going to be clothed in, or seems to be generally realized. how mankind will benefit by its Scientists want to do good—and completion. very often do. Short of abolish- Like the rest of his writing, ing the profession altogether no Medawar’s final comment on the legislation can ever effectively genetic engineering controversy is be enforced that will seriously clear, direct, and compelling: impede the scientists’ deter- 1find it difficult to excuse the mination to come to a deeper lack of confidence that other- understanding of the material wise quite sensible people have world. 9

REFERENCES 1. Medawar P B. Unnatural science. New York Review of Books 24:13-8, 3 February 1977. 2, Thomas L. The lives of a cell: notes of a biology watcher. New York: Viking Press, 1974, 180 pp. 3, Garfield E. Audience of one –Jacob Bronowski. Current Content# No. 41, 13 October 1975, p, 5.7. (Reprinted in Garfield E. Emays OJ an irrjomnation scientist. Philadelphia: IS1@ Press, 1977. Vol. 2, p. 351 -3. ) 4. Medawar P B. The uniqueness of the individual, New York: Basic Books, 1957, 191 pp. 5. Gould D. The Medawars. New York Times Book Rer.n”ero, 10 July 1977, p. 3, 32. 6. Medawar P B. Induction and intuition in $cientt~ic thought; Jayne Lectures for 1968. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1969, 62 pp. 7. Garfield E, Malin M & Small H. Citation data as indicators of scientific activity. The metric of $cience. (Elkana Y et al., eds. ) New York: Wiley [in press ]. 8. Medawar P B & Medawar J S. The lzje science: current ideas oj biology, New York: Harper & Row, 1977, p. 170-3. 9. -. Fear and DNA. New York Review of Books 24:15-20, 27 October 1977. Peter Brian Medawar: A Select Bibliography Books: The uniqueness of the individual. New York: Basic Books, 1957, 191 pp. The future of man: The BBC Reith Lectures 1959. London: Methuen, 1959, 128 pp. The art of the soluble. London: Methuen, 1967, 160 pp. Induction and intuition in scientl~c thought: Jayne Lectures for 1968. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1969, 62 pp. The hope of progress. London: Methuen, 1972, 141 pp. The Ife science: current ideas of biology. (with Medawar J S) New York: Harper & Row, 1977, 196 pp. Articles: Sheets of pure epidermal epitheliums from human skin. Nature 148:783, 1941.

305 Peter Brian Medawar: A Select Bibliography (continued)

The behaviour and fate of skin autografts and skin homografts in rabbits. Journal of Anatomy 78:176-199, 1944. A second study of the behaviour and fate of skin homografts in rabbits. Journal of Anatomy 79:157-176, 1945. Size, shape, and age. Essays on growth and form presented to D ‘Arty Wentworrh Thompson. (LeGros Clark W E & Medawar P B, eds.) Ox- ford: Clarendon Press, 1945, p. 157-187. Immunity to homologous grafted skin. 1. The suppression of cell division in grafts transplanted to immunized animals. British Journal oj_Experi- mentai Pathology 27:9-14, 1946. Immunity to homologous grafted skin. Il. The immunity relationship be- tween the antigens of blood and skin. British Journal of Experimental Pathology 27:15-24, 1946. Immunity to homologous grafted skin. 111. The fate of skin homo- grafts transplanted to the brain, to subcutaneous tissue, and to the an- terior chamber of the eye. British Journal of Experimental Pathology 29:58-59, 1948. The effects of adrenocortical hormones, adrenocorticotrophic hormone and pregnancy on skin transplantation immunity in mice. (with Sparrow E M) Journal of Endocrinology 14:240-256.1956. The Croonian Lecture. The homograft reaction. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. B. 149:145-166, 1958. The use of antigenic tissue extracts to weaken the immunological reac- t ion against skin homografts in mice. Transplantation 1:21-38, 1963. Biological effects of heterologous antilymphocyte sera. Human Transplan- tation. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1968, p. 501-509. The future of transplantation biology and medicine. Transplantation Proceedings 1:666-669, March 1969. Review Lecture. Immunosuppressive agents, with special reference to antilymphocytic serum. Proceedings of the Royal Socie~ of London. B. 174:155-172, 1969. Implications of fetal antigen theory for fetal transplantation. (with Castro J E, Hunt R & Lance E M) Cancer Research 34:2055-2060, 1974. Thymus-dependent lymphocytes. (with Simpson E) Nature 258:106-108, 1975. Unnatural science. New York Review of Books 24:13-18, 3 February 1977. Fear and DNA. New York Review of Books 24:15-20, 27 October 1977.

306