During the period of 1895-1910, immunology was preoccupied with defining the cellular (Elie Metchnikoff's phagocytosis theory) as opposed to the humoral basis of bactericidal defense. Although initial discovery of immunopathologic phenomena had been made (e.g., relating to transplantation, autoimmunity, allergy), focus on microbicidal therapy and diagnosis of infectious diseases remained the major stimuli of inquiry. The debate concerning the relative roles of phagocytes, complement, amboceptors (sensibilizing factors, antibody, antitoxins), various lysins (e.g., bacteriolysins, spermatolysins, hemolysins), agglutinins, stimulines, and then Almoth Wright's opsonins reflects the ambiguity of a scientific language being created in an era still struggling with a poorly defined experimental system, for the language, both its vocabulary (newly studied phenomena) and grammar (operational mechanisms) was yet to be codified. The joint award of the Nobel Prize to Metchnikoff and Paul Ehrlich in 1908 for their respective contributions to the "theory of immunity" appeared to proclaim a consensus, but the secret Nobel Committee reports that evaluated Metchnikoff's contributions reveal only a grudging acceptance of his position, and the award was clearly made on the basis of an apparent complementarity between the theoretical views of the humoralists and those elements of the phagocytosis theory that fit the then current discussion of immunity. In this regard, opsonins played an especially important role as both an experimental and conceptual bridge between the competing schools. What was no longer under consideration (and in fact never was explicitly debated) concerned the intellectual foundation of Metchnikoff's original concept of immunity as those activities that defined organismal identity, (developed from Metchnikoff's research in developmental biology) and which regarded host defense mechanisms as only subordinate to this primary function. Immunology in the first half of the 20th century pursued issues pertinent to chemically characterizing immune specificity and only later returned to the Metchnikovian question of how the immune identity was established. This latter venture has achieved molecular sophistication, but even such a formulation may be an inadequate answer to the Metchnikovian postulate. The theoretical discussion between cellularists and humoralists continues in new guises, for the essential debate remains unresolved. © 1992.
