Quantitative modeling of immune responses

Abstract

We were impelled to put together this volume on ‘Quantitative Modeling of Immune Responses’ to confront the fact that such studies have had little or no impact on the experimental development of the field. Yet, we remain convinced of the growing importance of such studies. We hope that the presentation of a collection of theoretical investigations in a variety of immunological areas would give the experimentalist a chance to appraise their value. In a previous volume of Immunological Reviews (1) a different tack was used, namely, to present one comprehensive theory of immune function and ask experimentalists to comment. While this engendered enthusiastic criticism, the most striking result was that no one felt that the effort to generalize was of value to them. Fifteen years have passed since that volume has appeared, so it is time to see whether and/or how thinking has changed. The central role of theoretical studies in genetics and evolutionary biology is well recognized. By contrast, in immunology, we remain crassly empirical. Even the theoretician has become a victim of this view, often equating theory to a tool to store or catalogue the vast amount of complex data being generated. Simulation, the extrapolation of which is called a prediction, is viewed as understanding. As theoreticians, we must face the fact that building a mathematical web around a random collection of observations does not in and of itself increase understanding. Theoreticians in this field believe that today’s experimentalists are not sufficiently adroit in the use of mathematics and computer modeling and, therefore, are not prepared to deal with immunology as it increases in complexity. Experimentalists believe that most theoretical studies are sterile meanderings into Neverland, either because they are too general to be useful or so specific that they become another way of describing what we know already. Clearly, interactive discussion is needed. The theorist conjures up the various ways that the system might work; the experimentalist determines which of those