| dc.description.abstract | This paper is divided into three main chapters. The first chapter is a partial review of the vast amount of data that has been accumulated in the field of tumor immunology. To intelligibly interpret the results of my own experimental findings, a basic understanding of the principles involved in tumor immunology is of primary necessity. Those principles most related to my own assays and those, which I feel, present an adequate understanding for problems dealt with in this paper are presented. The genetic aspect of immunology is dealt with at length, but without a basic understanding of the genetics of immunology, an in depth comprehension of the immune response is impossible. The homograft and isograft reactions are presented in two separate sections to eliminate the confusion that the neophyte often encounters. As for myself, it took a good while to discern what concepts applied to each. Also, a section dealing primarily with methyleholanthrene-induced tumors is incorporated into the thesis to substantiate the conclusions drawn from my own empirical data. The experiments enumerated within are but a small reflection in quantity and sophistication of the work being carried out to explore the mechanics of immunity and enhancement.
The second chapter is a presentation of the data drawn from my experiments. To set up an experiment with a high degree of validity and reliability requires experienced insight into the variables that must be accounted for in order to produce any conclusive evidence. This is certainly not accomplished in a few months or even a few years, The results of my assays have some value, but to over extend their significance would be a senseless blunder.
The final chapter is a discussion of the results of my own experiments in respect, to the work of others in similar fields. The discussion section of a scientific publication is reserved for the author of the respective article to draw any possible conclusions that he can from bis work. It is best to discuss those things which are supported by factual evidence; nevertheless, some room is left in the discussion for a bit of speculation. Speculating about and pondering upon nature's mechanisms is a part of the excitement, that scientific research generates. <br /> This paper is divided into three main chapters. The first chapter is a partial review of the vast amount of data that has been accumulated in the field of tumor immunology. To intelligibly interpret the results of my own experimental findings, a basic understanding of the principles involved in tumor immunology is of primary necessity. Those principles most related to my own assays and those, which I feel, present an adequate understanding for problems dealt with in this paper are presented. The genetic aspect of immunology is dealt with at length, but without a basic understanding of the genetics of immunology, an in depth comprehension of the immune response is impossible. The homograft and isograft reactions are presented in two separate sections to eliminate the confusion that the neophyte often encounters. As for myself, it took a good while to discern what concepts applied to each. Also, a section dealing primarily with methyleholanthrene-induced tumors is incorporated into the thesis to substantiate the conclusions drawn from my own empirical data. The experiments enumerated within are but a small reflection in quantity and sophistication of the work being carried out to explore the mechanics of immunity and enhancement.
The second chapter is a presentation of the data drawn from my experiments. To set up an experiment with a high degree of validity and reliability requires experienced insight into the variables that must be accounted for in order to produce any conclusive evidence. This is certainly not accomplished in a few months or even a few years, The results of my assays have some value, but to over extend their significance would be a senseless blunder.
The final chapter is a discussion of the results of my own experiments in respect, to the work of others in similar fields. The discussion section of a scientific publication is reserved for the author of the respective article to draw any possible conclusions that he can from bis work. It is best to discuss those things which are supported by factual evidence; nevertheless, some room is left in the discussion for a bit of speculation. Speculating about and pondering upon nature's mechanisms is a part of the excitement, that scientific research generates. <br /> | |
