Basic and Clinical Immunology by Names: From the Biblical Time Until the Present PDF
Preview Basic and Clinical Immunology by Names: From the Biblical Time Until the Present
Michael R. Shurin Galina V. Shurin Ken M. Shurin Basic and Clinical Immunology by Names From the Biblical Time Until the Present Basic and Clinical Immunology by Names Michael R. Shurin • Galina V. Shurin Ken M. Shurin Basic and Clinical Immunology by Names From the Biblical Time Until the Present Michael R. Shurin Galina V. Shurin University of Pittsburgh Medical Center University of Pittsburgh Departments of Pathology and Immunology Pittsburgh, PA, USA Division of Clinical Immunopathology Pittsburgh, PA, USA Ken M. Shurin University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, PA, USA ISBN 978-3-031-14528-5 ISBN 978-3-031-14529-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14529-2 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland “Rise before an elderly person and stand before a wise man.” Torah, Parshas Kedoshim, 19:32. “The memory of the righteous is a blessing, but the name of the wicked will rot.” Bible, Proverbs 10:7. “And do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge.” Quran, 17.36. v Preface We have been working on this book for almost 20 years and are happy to share what we have learned about people who deserved being remembered in the history of science, medicine, and immunology. We also realize that some important facts, events, biographies, dates, and subjects can be missed or inaccurate and, therefore, we very much appreciate correspondence and notes from all readers that allow us to improve the content of this book. We dedicate this book to our parents and grandparents who inspired our love of history and biology and taught us to celebrate life and remember our ancestors. We want to acknowledge our relatives, friends, and colleagues who support our life and work with love, friendship, and inspiration. Pittsburgh, PA, USA Michael R. Shurin Galina V. Shurin Ken M. Shurin vii Introduction What is an eponym? Why do we use it? Webster’s dictionary defines eponym as one for whom or which something is named. An eponym is the addition of a (person’s) name(s) to the description of an object, a phenomenon, a fact, or even a miracle, e.g., Bode’s Galaxy, Achilles heel, Luer lock, Petri dish or Gaucher cells. Eponyms are broadly used in our life and the tradition of eponyms in research fields and especially in medical terminology has a long history. It is estimated that about 15% of all medical terms are eponyms, and their number is suggested to range from a few thousands up to 30,000 (Kucharz 2015, 2017). Interestingly, many myths and legends have had a deep inspiration in modern medical language and terminol- ogy and this extends to all specialties as part of their culture and the history of medi- cine (Karenberg 2017; Donoso et al. 2019). The word “eponym” came from the Greek words “epi” meaning “upon” or “in addition” and “onyma,” meaning “name.” (In Greek, έπονομαζω means to name something after.) In the English language this is done in the form of the Anglo- Saxon genitive, in other languages in grammatically corresponding ways. Remarkably, in standard anatomical terminology, the use of eponyms in the macro- scopic anatomical terms is not allowed (Bujalkova 1999). However, in clinical ter- minology, the use of eponyms is rather common (Thomas 2016). Some people consider this practice inappropriate and confusing, because using the names of real or imaginary persons (eponyms) may reflect either inspiration or power instead of the real authorship of findings or invention, or when the same name is attached to different disorders (Cogan 1978; Karenberg 2017). On the other hand, others con- sider the use of eponyms functional because they are part of a scientific tradition used to name syndromes or diseases or tests/methods (Goic 2009). It is quite pos- sible that “Eponyms will remain a cornerstone in medical education and communi- cation moving forward” (Zheng and Gold 2020). Usefulness of eponyms is demonstrated by facts that they simplify interactions between peers, prove the sig- nificance or historical relevance of the discovery, and are also a tribute to the clinical intelligence and observational skills of their originators. Furthermore, the aware- ness of the biography and historical background of discoverers of signs, syndromes, ix x Introduction or diseases provides us with a historical perception of medicine and adds interest to the past and modern knowledge and practice of medicine (Goic 2009). Another point is that the eponymic approach in some cases is one of the most accurate ways of avoiding unnecessary synonyms and multiplicity of terms. From the teaching and remembering point of view, many signs and syndromes, although they fascinate residents, are difficult to remember, may complicate the pronunciations of diagno- sis, and often place residents in a confused state (Jindal et al. 2014, 2015). Finally, “in modern times, when social values are often exclusively centered on economical profit, eponyms are the least we can offer to those who altruistically committed their personal time and effort to medicine” (Fernandez-Flores 2012). At the same time, the use of eponyms, in rare cases, may be misleading. An inter- esting example is the utilization of “St. Anthony’s fire,” associated with St. Anthony of Egypt (251–356 AD), who was involved in a number of healings and exorcisms during his permanence in the desert (Cervellin et al. 2020). It was commonly believed that St. Anthony had cured people with numerous skin diseases using pork fat, which was helpful in alleviating inflammation and itching. The term “St. Anthony’s fire” became widespread and was applied to several different diseases that share the so-called “burning skin” sensation. At least three diseases – ergotism, erysipelas, and herpes zoster have been called, at different times and in different countries, the same eponym term “St. Anthony’s fire” (Cervellin et al. 2020). Understanding and familiarization with common and uncommon eponyms in clinical immunology also have several important and interesting aspects. First of all, a fascinating historical aspect is that eponyms bring a human aspect to a disease, molecule, or cell and in many instances an associated intriguing story behind the origin of the eponym. Second, an educational and scientific aspect, because new eponyms come into use these days that might have a strong, stimulating effect on young and new clinical scientists and researchers. Third, an ethical aspect is when discussions often arise, especially since the involvement of the protagonists in the National Socialist regime, which led to great controversies (e.g., Clara, Stieve, Reiter, Wegener). They are a component of cultural specialist memories and con- tribute to the conciseness of the nomenclature (Moll et al. 2015). For instance, Reiter’s name has been universally accepted as the eponym for the syndrome of reactive arthritis associated with urethritis and conjunctivitis. From 1977 onward, international appeals have been made to use the descriptive term “reactive arthritis” instead of the eponym “Reiter” in the medical literature. However, contrary to English-language publications the Dutch-language medical literature does not show any obvious decline in the use of this eponym (Harper 1996; Zegers 2014). Awareness of using this eponym is still lacking, even in Israel, where it is still used in most medical textbooks (Keynan and Rimar 2008). In 2000, Daniel J. Wallace and Michael Weisman from Cedar Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles undertook a review of Hans Reiter’s background (Wallace and Weisman 2000, 2003). The documents relating to charges against Reiter and their investigation during the Nuremberg Trials between 1945 and 1947 were obtained, translated from German, and published. During the Nazi era, physicians were responsible for over 200,000 cases of involuntary sterilization and 170,000 Introduction xi cases of euthanasia. Millions of prisoners died in the concentration camps under the supervision of physicians, where at least 60 different medical investigations were undertaken. Among the charges leveled at Reiter are active participation in experiments related to involuntary sterilization, euthanasia, and experimental vac- cination against typhus, resulting in hundreds of deaths in the Buchenwald Concentration Camp. Another important aspect of eponym use is related to the national pride and honor of a person or a group of clinicians and researchers. Numerous eponyms in clinical immunology originated in nineteenth and twentieth centuries in France and Germany, suggesting the high level of clinical practice and medical research in these countries. However, some areas in Germany at that time are today in Poland and some of the names behind the eponyms can be considered Polish names. Another concern raised is the common use of the term “an American” pathologist or physician or surgeon, which may lead to the overestimation or over-honoring of “the USA” eponyms. Many of those known as “American” doctors emigrated from various European or Asian countries and their native countries deserve to be men- tioned at least. The same is partly true for other countries, and a well-known exam- ple is a famous “French” immunologist, “Father of natural immunity,” and the Nobel laureate Elie Metchnikoff. A related issue is a non-intentional or purposeful omission of information related to the Jewish heritage of person(s) associated with an eponym. During the modern rise of antisemitism in certain countries, the lack of these facts does not support the equal and trustful evaluation of the input of various nations into modern medical knowledge and medical practice in different countries. This fact is quite visible when investigating stories behind many “American–German” and “German” physi- cians, who gave rise to several eponyms in the middle of the nineteenth century. There are many sad stories about the fate of Jewish physicians in Nazi Germany. In 1933, there were about 525,000 Jews living in Germany, accounting for about 0.75% of the population. Approximately 16% of physicians were Jewish. Because many larger medical disciplines, such as surgery, internal medicine, and gynecol- ogy, were almost closed to Jews, dermatology became a favored specialty, with more than 25% of the practitioners being Jewish (Burgdorf et al. 2014a). In 1933, there were 569 registered Jewish dermatologists. From the known life of many indi- viduals, almost 50% were forced to emigrate (to the USA, British Palestine, and other countries), 10% were killed in concentration camps, and 2% chose suicide (Scholz and Eppinger 1999). One must fear that many of those listed as unknown also perished, making the statistics even more depressing (Burgdorf et al. 2014b). Overall, approximately 9000 physicians were uprooted for so-called “racial” or “political” reasons by the Nazi regime and 6000 fled Germany. The last aspect that it is important to notice is an enormous, well-documented contribution of Jewish clinicians to medicine in the USA and European countries after the exodus during the Third Reich (Scholz and Burgdorf 2005), as well as at other times (Dubovsky 1989a, b, c). xii Introduction Commonly used or forgotten eponyms in clinical immunology reflect the devel- opment of the field during the last two to three centuries, but do not necessarily create a pantheon for pioneers of immunology, because chance had played a signifi- cant role in eponymy. Some persons whose names are well-known added only small contributions to understanding of a particular disease or syndrome, whereas those whose studies proved or supported a real breakthrough may be forgotten or under some circumstances, even unknown. One known example is Carl Wilhelm von Kupffer who, in his own estimation, made major contributions to embryology, espe- cially in the field of comparative neuroanatomy. For this well-regarded work, the noble “von” was conferred on his name, but not for the description of Kupffer cells in the liver. This is yet another example of the irony of history, wherein a name is perpetuated for what the author himself would have considered a mere footnote among his accomplishments. Knowing the history of eponymic discoveries will help us not only to better remember many diseases and satisfy our curiosity but may even help somebody to create or introduce a new eponym into the field.
The list of books you might like
