↓ Skip to main content

Fashioning the Immunological Self: The Biological Individuality of F. Macfarlane Burnet

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the History of Biology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
Fashioning the Immunological Self: The Biological Individuality of F. Macfarlane Burnet
Published in
Journal of the History of Biology, January 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10739-013-9352-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Warwick Anderson, Ian R. Mackay

Abstract

During the 1940s and 1950s, the Australian microbiologist F. Macfarlane Burnet sought a biologically plausible explanation of antibody production. In this essay, we seek to recover the conceptual pathways that Burnet followed in his immunological theorizing. In so doing, we emphasize the influence of speculations on individuality, especially those of philosopher Alfred North Whitehead; the impact of cybernetics and information theory; and the contributions of clinical research into autoimmune disease that took place in Melbourne. We point to the influence of local experimental and intellectual currents on Burnet's work. Accordingly, this essay describes an arc distinct from most other tracings of Burnet's conceptual development, which focus on his early bacteriophage research, his fascination with the work of Julian Huxley and other biologists in the 1920s, and his interest in North Atlantic experimental investigations in the life sciences. No doubt these too were potent influences, but they seem insufficient to explain, for example, Burnet's sudden enthusiasm in the 1940s for immunological definitions of self and not-self. We want to demonstrate here how Burnet's deep involvement in philosophical biology - along with attention to local clinical research - provided him with additional theoretic tools and conceptual equipment, with which to explain immune function.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 5 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 12%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 4 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Philosophy 3 18%
Social Sciences 3 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 5 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 April 2014.
All research outputs
#14,190,698
of 22,745,803 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the History of Biology
#389
of 483 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,572
of 280,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the History of Biology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,745,803 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 483 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,641 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them