Ten years ago, a group of researchers, led by Francisco Varela, were proposing an alternative vision of the immune system main behavior and function. I was part of this group. This new vision saw the immune system not as behaving distinctively with self and non-self or according to any dichotomy imposed a priori and from outside (the self-recognition vision), but rather as behaving in a unique way. From this indifferent behavior, any external impact would progressively been treated in two different ways, reactive and tolerant, but now, consequently and from inside the system (the self-assertion view). This paper will recall, through a very artificial simulation, the difference existing between these two visions. Also at that time, we believed that, from an engineering perspective, this new vision, emphasizing more the adaptability and the need for endogenous constraints than the recognition and the defensive ability, although less obvious to accept than the classical defensive one, should be more beneficial. These last ten years proved that we haven’t been convincing enough, and in this paper I resume the crusade.
[1]
Jerne Nk.
Towards a network theory of the immune system.
,
1974
.
[2]
J. Stewart,et al.
Cognition without Neurones: Adaptation, Learning and Memory in the Immune System
,
1993
.
[3]
Hugues Bersini,et al.
The Endogenous Double Plasticity of the Immune Network and the Inspiration to be drawn for Engineering Artifacts
,
1993
.
[4]
Hugues Bersini,et al.
The Immune Learning Mechanisms: Recruitment Reinforcement and their applications
,
1993
.
[5]
F. Varela,et al.
Development of an idiotypic network in shape space.
,
1994,
Journal of theoretical biology.
[6]
Hugues Bersini,et al.
Immune Idiotypic Network
,
1996
.
[7]
H. Bersini,et al.
Frustrated chaos in biological networks.
,
1997,
Journal of theoretical biology.
[8]
P. Matzinger.
The Danger Model: A Renewed Sense of Self
,
2002,
Science.