This post initially appeared on Science Blogs

Back in October, I wrote about the bittersweet nature of this year's Nobel in Physiology or Medicine. On the one hand, it was given for early discoveries in the field of innate immunity - my field! On the other hand, it was given to a scientist that many* feel is undeserving of the honor, while at the same time sullying the legacy of my scientific great-grandfather.

Ed Yong rightly called me out for the phrase "many scientists." This term, and another often-used trope, "some scientists," are vague and lazy, since they obscure the details and can mean almost anything. "Many scientists dispute global warming," or "Many scientists dispute evolution," are examples of statements that, while technically true, are misleading and absurd if you know that details.

To further criticize myself, my "many scientists" statement referred mostly to other scientists in Charlie Janeway's and Ruslan Medzhitov's lineage, who aren't necessarily the most unbiased sources. I was gratified, however, to receive several comments on that post from scientists I don't know and that are unrelated to Janeway and Medzhitov who also agreed. In addition, last month, an open letter to Nature, written on behalf of 26 senior scientists (intentionally restricted to people not affiliated with in the lineage of Janeway/Medzhitov*) that say much the same thing.

Immunologists are delighted that the field of innate immunity has been recognized by this year's Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. However, we believe that the Nobel Committee should also have acknowledged the seminal contributions of immunologists Charles A. Janeway Jr (1943-2003) and Ruslan Medzhitov[...]

The innate-adaptive connection is now a fundamental principle in immunology. We believe that the work of Janeway and Medzhitov was a Nobel-standard breakthrough for immunology.

Yes, this whole exercise is probably meaningless to anyone outside the innate immunity community. But I'm on the inside, and it seems important to me.

*See Mike Pollard's comment and my response below.