Hewitt H B
J Biol Response Mod. 1983;2(3):210-6.
Under the title given to these exchanges, we have been required to explore immunological analogies between clinical cancer and the animal models available for investigation. My article focused attention on a class of model (naturally arising tumors) that has been relatively neglected for reasons that have nothing to do with scientific strategy. Yet it is this class of tumor for which the analogy most relevant to our underlying concern is most solidly sustained: their unresponsiveness to preventive or therapeutic immunological measures. I am dismayed that Herberman is not inclined to embrace this cogent analogy but seems more concerned with vindicating the use of those classes of model by which, as is now widely acknowledged, we have been so long misled. The question arises as to why any discussion of the clinical prospects of applied tumor immunology should polarize the discussants in the way exploited by editorial encouragement of these "ping-pong" contributions. There can be few paramedical topics that are so subject to bipartite discussion--between believers, defenders, and optimists on one side, and critics or skeptics on the other. My conviction is that this proclivity for confrontation betrays a conflict between emotional disposition and scientific judgment. The concept of natural or induced host control of malignant disease has persisted for over 180 years (11) and has survived the many transformations that have occurred over that time of the experimental facilities available for its examination.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
在赋予这些交流活动的主题之下，我们被要求探究临床癌症与可供研究的动物模型之间的免疫学相似性。我的文章重点关注了一类相对被忽视的模型（自然发生的肿瘤），其被忽视的原因与科学策略毫无关系。然而，正是这类肿瘤，与我们潜在关注点最为相关的相似性得到了最有力的支持：它们对预防性或治疗性免疫措施无反应。我感到沮丧的是，赫伯曼并不倾向于接受这种有说服力的相似性，而是似乎更关心为那些现在已被广泛承认长期误导我们的模型类别进行辩护。问题在于，为何关于应用肿瘤免疫学临床前景的任何讨论都会以编辑鼓励这些“乒乓球式”稿件所利用的方式使讨论者两极分化。很少有辅助医疗话题会如此受到两极化讨论——一方是信徒、捍卫者和乐观主义者，另一方是批评者或怀疑论者。我的信念是，这种对抗倾向暴露了情感倾向与科学判断之间的冲突。恶性疾病的自然或诱导宿主控制概念已经存在了180多年（11），并且在那段时间里用于检验它的实验设施发生的许多变革中幸存了下来。（摘要截选至250词）
