Sirs

I am grateful to Abraham Karpas for his insightful comments about my article describing the discovery of monoclonal antibodies1. In the first of these Landmark articles, my task was not to write a classical review but rather to shed light on events 'behind the curtain'. Using a limited number of words and only 15 references, I tried to inform the readers about the personalities of three remarkable men whose fruitful interactions made this discovery possible. Therefore, regrettably, the names of several researchers (including Bazin, Karpas, Cotton, Secher, Burke and Galfré) and their publications, as cited by Karpas, could only be alluded to indirectly2,3,4.

I am sorry that Karpas and his colleagues perceive that my article over-emphasizes Georges Köhler's role in this discovery. On the contrary, I have made a deliberate attempt to emphasize the role of César Milstein's research group and rightly so. The following are direct quotations from my article1:

...in this process Milstein's group had developed a technology and wealth of knowledge that later made the discovery possible

Köhler joined Milstein's lab as a postdoctoral fellow ... There, he used all of the important groundwork that had been put in place by Milstein and his group

The experiment worked well because the basics of the hybridoma technology and selective culture conditions that allowed growth of only the hybrid cells, for example, were available in the laboratory

The crucial role of Milstein in this discovery can not be overstated

I believe that these statements clearly show my deep appreciation for the contribution of the Milstein's group. However, I also recognized the importance of others by saying:

...without Jerne, there would have been no theories about antibody diversity, no Basel Institute for Immunology, no education of Köhler, no antibody-forming B-cell assay, no Milstein seminar. However, without Milstein there would have been no hybridoma technology, and no unconditional support of a talented, young scientist. Without Köhler, we might have had to wait decades to put all this together1.

Karpas disagrees with the last statement. I am also of the opinion that Milstein was moving in the right direction. However, we know that Köhler was the first to have the idea of fusing myeloma cells with B cells. (I was told this by him and by others). He was the first to obtain monoclonal antibodies. Now, how long might one have waited for monoclonal antibodies to be produced if Köhler was not there? This kind of retrospective point can be discussed for decades. The message that I wished to convey to the next generation was that, in research, you need both the establishment (for example, Milstein and the MRC) and the bold newcomer (Köhler and the Basel Institute for Immunology), as well as both collaboration and competition (in that order of importance).

Last, Karpas felt that the following statement implied that Milstein was to blame for the patent issue. I wrote, “It is interesting to note that Milstein and Köhler did not attempt to patent their findings”. First, I did not intend to blame anyone. I just found it interesting. Second, I did not know of Milstein's failed attempts to patent the method. I can only say that I got the sense from Köhler that he was proud that the method belonged not to a commercial organization but, instead, to humanity.