Role models that shaped Scandinavian immunology

Abstract

Three of Scandinavian immunology's major influencers in the last century (to use modern terminology), Morten Harboe, Jakob B. Natvig and Eric Thorsby, died earlier this year. Three obituaries in this issue of the Scandinavian Journal of Immunology give appreciations of their achievements. The articles provide inspiring recollections of the scientific accomplishments​ of these immunologists, resulting from fascination of then unsolved and mysterious features of immune reactions of humoral and cellular nature. The immunology field has advanced tremendously in the last 50 years. This becomes clear when reading about the questions posed at the start of Harboe's, Natvig's and Thorsby's respective careers. The complexities of the immune system were only starting to be defined back then and in comparison with today, the questions that were asked were much more fundamental in dealing with the overall function of cells and soluble factors. A sense of nostalgia sneaks in, accompanied by a wish to have been part of these early days when we were less concerned by details and more with conceptual problems. However, nostalgia should not be overrated. It is easy to look at the questions asked then in the light of today's methodology and knowledge. In these days, we did not have FACS, we could not sequence and clone genes and the techniques to produce monoclonal antibodies had not been invented. Thus, while exciting conceptually, these time were also frustrating, encompassing complex cellular assays for immune function and indirect results that had to be interpreted cautiously. The complexity of cellular assays remains today, but the possibility and ease by which big unbiased data sets can be generated increases demands ​of definitive conclusions in seminars and in publications. Because of this, we are less inclined to ask, and even less to answer, big fundamental questions, and it is impossible to publish a papers attempting to attack a question broader than what your combination of molecular and cellular assay can manage. I am sure that in the long run, the advancement of science will benefit from all detail that are now provided, but with regard to being a scientist, we have to be careful not to lose the big picture in the ocean of available descriptive data. Major questions regarding the function of immunity as a whole remain, not the least in vivo. The next generation immunologists need to be stimulated by mentors that ask naïve questions, put things into perspective and stimulate creative thinking. This brings me back to the three giants in immunology who recently passed. They all took their roles as mentors very seriously, supervising younger scientists along their whole careers, stimulating them with broad questions that triggered curiosity. Equally important, they also took a broader responsibility for the development of the field, including founding and leading international societies, chairing departments, organizing conferences, and, not the least pivotal, founding and supporting scientific journals such as the Scandinavian Journal of Immunology.1 It is very important to recognize these legacies from our predecessors in times when the efforts, resources and engagements it takes by us as scientists to fulfil reviewer's and journal's demands for detail is overwhelming. We must not forget our roles as ambassadeurs for our discipline, a role that increases by increasing seniority. Harboe, Natvig and Thorsby were role models in this respect. By following suit, we take responsibility for future generations and for the development of our discipline.