CHAPTER III 

 MALADIE ET SYMBIOSE 



The great lines of medical progress, being indeed but of yesterday, 

 are scarcely reaching beyond the anthropocentric orbit ; they must be 

 enlarged and blended with other lines of pathological research on a 

 Copernican conception. - ... But this unity, if we are to grip 

 principles at their beginnings, means not merely the beginnings of disease 

 in man, but also in all animals, as they are alike for all ; and not of animals 

 only, but also of plants ; in a word, of all life. . . . And yet in respect 

 of a plan or system, comparative medicine is still without even a sketch, 

 almost without a thought. SIR CLIFFORD ALLBUTT, Times, 8/12/19. 



NE peut-on pas esperer que 1'etude de la Symbiose entre 

 des organismes arrives aux limites de la tolerance mutuelle 

 donnerait des ressources nouvelles pour comprendre les lois de 

 rimmunite ou de la maladie ? 



This passage occurs in a brilliant and, according to Nature, 

 " important " paper entitled L'Evolution dans la Symbiose, 

 by Prof. Noel Bernard (Annales des sciences naturelles, 1909). 



At first glance one might be led to suppose that the author 

 of the passage had in mind something radically new concerning 

 the problem of disease and of immunity. Such expectation, 

 however, is not fulfilled, although the paper is suggestive in many 

 ways. 



Firstly, what kind of " tolerance " and of " immunity " is 

 it that Prof. Bernard has in view ? Certainly not a very sub- 

 stantial, but rather an attenuated form in either case. He thinks 

 of a " tolerance " greatly inferior to that exhibited by advanced 

 and cross-feeding symbiotic partners, of one in fact closely 

 approximating " intolerance," i.e., mutual depredation between 

 organisms ; whilst the " immunity " contemplated by him, is 

 scant, unreliable and suspect far removed from that engendered 

 by genuine symbiotic relations. 



Unfortunately, Prof. Bernard is committed to the narrow view 

 which confines Symbiosis to physical attachment of the partners 

 a view baldly expressed in the Encyclopedia Britannica. 



The naivete of this view may be gleaned from the fact that 

 the writer in that publication argues as though dependence of 

 organism upon organism with regard to food constituted the 



