This is a large file with photos and may take a few seconds longer to download
to your computer.
the news came from Montreal in the summer of 1967 that I had been accepted
by Dr. Selye to work in his Institute, I was madly in love with a
girl who later became my wife. So I told her about the legendary
Dr. Selye and outlined carefully that my highest desire was to work with
him. After having listened carefully to the story, she asked me what
is going to happen to our marriage plans now? "Well," I said, "would
you like to get married before I go, or after I come back?" The answer
was, without much hesitation, that we should get married before, so we
did on September 3, 1967, and off I went a few weeks later to Montreal.
The prospect was that we would spend an entire year, the duration of my
planned stay in Montreal, separated as the common practice of the Hungarian
authorities at the time was not to allow spouses or family members to follow
individuals on study trips or other kinds of missions to the West.
My journey to Montreal by plane impressed me very much in that I flew across
the ocean and set foot on another continent on the same day. I remembered
my teenage readings about all the troubles, disease and death that Columbus
and other sailors went through during the same trip. At the airport
in Montreal one of my fellow countrymen, Dr. Pal Vegh, was waiting for
me and escorted me to my room nearby the University which was rented by
the Institute so that I would have a place to come to. The next morning
after receiving directions from my French Canadian landlady, whose English
was much better than mine, I set out to find the University on foot, and
did so without much trouble. There it was, majestically standing
on the top of a hill, like a cathedral of knowledge and science.
As I learned later, not very far from the University there was indeed,
on the hill a Roman Catholic cathedral as well.
Although I had learned a lot about Dr. Selye and his Institute from my
colleague and good friend, Dr. Lorand Bertok, who was the first to go from
Hungary, being there in person was not short of surprises. On the
main corridor there were dozens of pictures of scientists, most of which
I had only heard about by name, but had no idea what they looked like.
My greatest surprise was that there was even a portrait of Kossa, who was
a professor of my alma mater, and I knew that he pioneered histochemistry
by the development of a staining method for the deposition of calcium in
animal tissues, but I had never seen his portrait before. At the
main entrance, near the elevator, there was the inscription:
"Neither the prestige of your subject, and the power of your instruments,
nor the extent of your learnedness and the precision of your planning,
can substitute for the originality of your approach and the keeness of
I had never thought about these problems consciously before, but during
my stay in the Institute, the message became engraved in my mind through
numerous discussions about great discoveries, the history and psychology
of science and of personal characteristics of scientists. In the
corridor there was also a world map marked with little flags of all the
countries from which students or visiting scientists came to the Institute.
At my arrival there were students/scientists from Russia (even though this
was at the height of the cold war after the Cuban crisis), from Korea,
Japan, Egypt, Turkey, Italy, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Argentina,
and of course, Canada. I couldn't help noticing that whenever Dr.
Selye met someone in the corridor, frequently he spoke to him/her in his/her
native language as he was fluent in Hungarian, German, English, French,
and Italian and knew a fair bit of Spanish, Czech, Russian, and several
Soon after my arrival, Dr. Selye saw me in his office as he always found
the time to greet in a very personal manner newly arrived students/scientists
and visitors this way. After telling him about my trip we settled
my project, which was to do experiments on calcifilaxis. Then he
pointed to a bouquet of snow lillies (adelweiss) tied with a red, white
and green ribbon, which was framed and hung on the wall, and said: "You
see, this symbolizes my heritage and native land, which is Austria/Hungary.
My father was Hungarian and a surgeon in the army and my mother was Austrian.
So, by ancestry, I am neither Hungarian nor Austrian; I am Austro-Hungarian."
I often wondered, why he called my attention to these things right at the
beginning. Perhaps it was because I heard from a number of my colleagues
while still at home that he was Hungarian, but then later on I also came
across people who were convinced that he was Austrian or German.
In any case, later on I was fortunate and privileged to have numerous private
conversations with him through which I have learned a great deal about
his personal views, character and attitude towards life in general.
The other thing he pointed out to me in his office was a picture of desperate
people that was hanging above the door of his office, and said, "You see,
this is stress." I was given an office in the Institute shared
by Dr. Arpad Somogyi down the corridor and began the work. First
I had to learn about the phenomenon of calcifilaxis quickly, which was
by reading and by attending the daily rounds with Dr. Selye, when we examined
the experimental animals collectively and each investigator had to present
his/her animals, especially if symptoms of interest and/or importance were
noticeable. The round finished in the autopsy room where Dr. Selye,
with our participation, would look at every experimental animal that was
terminated on that day. Again, the investigator had to call attention
to pathological changes of possible importance.
After finishing with the autopsy, plans for new experiments were presented
by the various investigators to Dr. Selye for his approval. Each
experiment had to be justified on theoretical grounds and this frequently
led to vivid discussions of scientific problems, theories and views.
Each autopsy session also had a slide puzzle which was placed under the
microscope and was to be viewed by everybody and diagnosed by a secret
vote as to what it was. To my surprise, I noticed that some of the
slides were coded in Hungarian which gave the correct answer. Apparently
this strategy worked very well until some of us who understood the code
arrived. One day a chicken experiment was evaluated and Dr. Selye
remarked while looking at the carcasses that the lymph nodes along the
neck were normal. Well, I had to tell him with all due respect that
those nodules, though looking exactly like lymph nodes, were really the
thymus, and that the chicken did not have any real lymph nodes. This
came so quickly in compliance with my character that I hadn't even considered
the possible consequences of contradicting this world famous great scientist
in public, or even worse, in front of his students and collaborators.
Intuitively, I felt that he would appreciate the information, which came
from my training in comparative anatomy, and would not be insulted or take
this as a criticism. This is exactly what happened. During
a similar session weeks later he remarked that we all profit from these
discussions and that he learned from me the other day that the chicken
has no lymph nodes.
in the Autopsy Room
Being newly wed and separated and determined to be faithful I went to the
Institute also on weekends. I had a lot to learn about my project
so that I could propose decent plans for experiments and interpret the
results, write up the papers, all of which was required if I was to last
for some time in the Institute. To my surprise and great satisfaction,
the Institute had a fantastic library and collection of reprints and I
could hardly ask anything from the librarian, Mr. Krzyzanowsky, which was
not on my desk by the end of the day. This was in sharp contrast
with the situation in Budapest, where I had to travel frequently to the
Central Medical Library, and sometimes wait in line for a particular book
or journal for hours, or occasionally I had to return on another day in
order to see the article I wanted. Once I got to see the article
I was not allowed to take it out of the building, but had to sit down and
very quickly take notes of the salient findings and conclusions.
All these problems were solved by the quick availability of the material
and by the use of the Xerox machine which was a wonder for me in the western
world. Among the other wonders, I was most fascinated by the efficiency
of the telephone which allowed one to phone instantly all over the world.
The 15 months I spent in the Institute, not only was one of the most memorable
periods of my life, but it was also very productive.
It didn't take long for Dr. Selye to find out that I was there every day
as he also was there every day. For his weekdays he worked 12 hours
a day (from 6:00 in the morning until 6:00 in the evening), and during
the weekend he took it easy and stayed from 6:00 in the morning until only
4:00 in the evening or sometimes even until 2:00 in the afternoon.
Soon he became a constant visitor to my office during the weekend for personal
chats which was most exciting and memorable and I felt very honoured and
privileged by this relationship. We discussed everything from politics
to religion, history, personal life, even telling jokes. He called
my attention to the fact that contrary to the prevailing opinion in Hungary,
Ferenc Deak, who was responsible for entering into confederation with Austria,
was not a traitor, but in fact, a very wise politician. He said that
all I had to do was look around in Budapest and determine when the House
of the Opera and a whole list of other beautiful public buildings were
erected. "You will find," he said, "that much was built around the
turn of the century between 1867 and 1914." I was astonished by this
logical argument and asked myself, why I didn't think of this before?
He also told me how angry he was about the two world wars, both of which
he lived through; the terrible suffering and damage to Europe and, indeed,
to mankind, these wars inflicted, and that one of the reasons why he escaped
to North America was that science and creativity were virtually paralyzed
in pre-Second World War Europe. "The only aristocracy I respect,"
he said, "is the aristocracy of intellect. Politicians," he pointed
out, "are trying to guide their countries into the future while thinking
in terms of the past, which is based on nationalism."
During our discussions he never missed the opportunity to point out that
science is international and that the only thing which should count is
the importance of the contribution. He had the greatest admiration
for Claude Bernard, who was the first to recognize that the internal environment,
which he called "millieu interieur", is under sophisticated physiological
regulation. Walter Cannon was the other scientist whom he regarded
as his immediate predecessor in terms of thinking. He also had
high esteem for Pasteur and Koch and for many of his contemporaries that
were invited to the Institute as "Claude Bernard Professors."
The visit of the Claude Bernard Professors to the Institute was usually
for two days to deliver one or two lectures, participate in rounds, and
to withstand the "roasting party" from members of the Institute, which
was a very exciting event. The party was held at Dr. Selye's house
in the evening to which, in keeping with good Hungarian customs, all the
staff and students were invited. After having something to eat and
one or two drinks to raise our spirits, we sat down around our guest and
asked questions which one would not ask under any other circumstances.
Almost anything was allowed, but the topic usually circled around the human
factors that drive scientists, about the philosophy and psychology of science,
the question of originality, discoveries, and so on. I met Dr. Aurelia
Jancso this way and learned about the discovery of neurogenic inflammation,
listened to George Palade, who later on received the Nobel Prize for his
work, and got a chance to have some very interesting conversations with
Dr. Elwin Kabat, who, as I realized later, was one of the founders of modern
immunology. I can only appreciate now the caliber of Claude Bernard
Professors that visited the Institute over the years and the diversity
of topics discussed. These included Sir Macfarlane Burnett, Baruj
Benacerraf, and Pierre Grabar, just to name a few.
These invitations did not only reflect Selye's ability of judging scientific
accomplishment, but also testified to the flexibility of his mind. Lecturers
were invited, not only from the well established disciplines in medicine,
but also from the area of psychology, as he was always very conscious about
looking at the whole organism in its entire complexity. I will never
forget his reaction to the publication by Christian Barnard of the first
heart transplantation in man.  He said that transplantation is
not the solution to the problem, but rather, prevention of the disease
is the right approach. He also remarked that transplantation will
never be suitable for the routine treatment of people with heart disease.
It will be a treatment only for the rich, he said, even if all the technical
problems are solved, and stated that this approach may even generate criminal
activity. Over the years I have remembered this many times, admiring
how well he saw the problem and how right he was.
No matter what the subject was, he always challenged your imagination and
intellect, therefore touching your emotions. I don't remember meeting
anybody who was neutral towards him. Some admired him constantly,
others were in violent opposition with almost everything he stood for,
and there were a fair number of people who had a love/hate relationship
with him. I have to confess that I have had my differences and difficulties,
and I didn't always agree with his opinion. As I said already, I
was working on calcifilaxis, and made a lot of effort to catch up with
the literature and to produce meaningful results. But the news of
the first heart transplantation in man shifted his interest back to his
old favourite subject which was experimental cardiopathies. Before
long, within a few weeks, the most important problem became cardiopathies
in the Institute and not calcifilaxis and related phenomena. Somehow
he managed to quickly convince most everybody to switch to this problem,
except me. I felt that I should stick to my original problem as I
only had a year to stay, and I planned to do my doctoral work there.
My doctoral thesis would have to be on a coherent subject and not
calcifilaxis and cardiopathy. In the end he understood my reasons
and agreed that I continue with my project for a few more months, and even
asked me to co-author a review article  with him on the subject which
was a great honour.
As I became more and more familiar with Selye's research interests and
achievements, it became clear to me that his conviction was, in fact, that
neuroendocrine factors play major roles in most, if not all, diseases.
I learned from him, and also from his popular books, [5-9] that the discovery
of the stress syndrome was accidental during his attempts to isolate some
hormones from the placenta. For a while it was thought that the adrenal
enlargement and involution of lymphoid organs was specific for a particular
hormone, but attempts to purify it always failed as the activity was lost.
At some point it occurred to Selye that this, in fact, could be a nonspecific
response to nocuous agents, and, indeed, when he performed the control
experiments, that was the case. He published a short note about his
findings in Nature in 1936. During the same year a longer article
was published by him in The British Journal of Experimental Pathology,
where he demonstrated that the involution of the thymus was in fact mediated
by the adrenal gland as it was absent in adrenalectomized animals if stressed.
His experiments in chickens revealed that the Bursa of Fabricius is also
extremely sensitive to steroid hormones.
A review was published by Selye in 1946, where he already gives a comprehensive
theory of the general adaptation syndrome which is supported by experimental
facts. He also talks about the possibility that diseases of adaptation
do exist. He states that, after exposure to stress, initially there
is shock, which is followed by a counter shock phase, and this gradually
goes into a stage of resistance. If, however, the stressor persists,
resistance may go into exhaustion and death may ensue. He points
out that specific and nonspecific resistance follow the same course but
this latter "cross resistance" will fall much sooner and stays below normal
during the period of resistance. He also presents data of blood sugar
and chlorine changes and points out that white blood cell counts rise invariably
during stress, regardless of the stressor used. The changes in the
adrenal cortex and of thymus involution are also illustrated histologically.
The adrenal cortex becomes wider with loss of lipid granules and the border
between the zona fasciculata and reticularis is no longer distinct.
The thymus shows a depletion of cortical thymocytes. Nuclear debris
is evident and pyknotic thymocyte nuclei are abundant. He notes that
this "accidental involution" becomes most pronounced during the countershock
phase when the adrenal cortex reaches its maximum development. Large
macrophages engulf the dead thymus cells and carry them away through the
lymphatics. At the same time he noted that thymic reticulum reverts
to its origianl epithelial type and the cells become roundish or polygonal
and rich in cytoplasm. When involution is most acute the entire organ
is distended with jelly-like edema. He points out that lymph nodes,
the spleen and other lymphatic organs are almost as markedly affected as
the thymus, although they do not involute quite as rapidly and their involution
cannot be completely prevented by adrenalectomy. His summary figure
is a fairly accurate outline of the acute phase response, as we recognize
it today .
1. Functional interrelations during general adaptation syndrome.Schematized
drawing indicating that non-specific damage causes clinical shock, loss
of body weight and nitrogen, gastro-intestinal ulcers, temporary rise in
plasma potassium with fall in plasma Cl, through unknown pathways (nervous
stimulus?, deficiency?, toxic metabolites?) but manifestly not through
the stimulation of the hypophyseoadrenal mechanism. This is proven by the
fact that the above manifestations are not prevented either by hypophysectomy
or by adrenalectomy; they even tend to be more severe in the absence of
either or both of these glands.
Non-specific damage, again through unknown pathways, also acts upon the
hypophysis and causes it to increase corticotropic hormone production at
the expense of a decreased gonadotropic, lactogenic and growth hormones.
The resulting corticotropic hormone excess causes enlargement of the adrenal
cortex with signs of increased corticoid hormone production. These corticoids
in turn cause changes in the carbohydrate (sugar active corticoids) and
electrolyte metabolism (salt-active corticoids) as well as atrophy of the
thymus and the other lymphatic organs. It is probable that the cardiovascular,
renal, blood pressure and arthritic changes are secondary to the disturbances
in electrolyte metabolism since their production and prevention are largely
dependent upon the salt intake. The changes in g -globulin, on the other
hand, appear to be secondary to the effect of corticoids upon the thymicrolymphatic
We do not know as yet, whether the hypertension is secondary to the nephrosclerosis
or whether it is a direct result of the disturbance in electrolyte metabolism
caused by the corticoids. Similarly, it is not quite clear, as yet, whether
corticoids destroy the circulating lymphocytes directly, or whether they
influence the lymphocyte count merely by diminishing lymphocyte formation
in the lymphatic organs. Probably both these mechanisms are operative.
(Taken from Ref.13.)
Today we know that a variety of insults, including trauma and infection
stimulate the release of chemotactic-, proinflammatory cytokines, and a
whole host of other mediators from a variety of cells in the damaged area
that include mast cells, endothelial cells, platelets. The released
mediators attract blood borne leucocytes, such as neutrophilic granulocytes,
monocytes/macrophages, lymphocytes, eosinophils and basophils that release
additional mediators, and thus contribute to the inflammatory response.
In some cases certain cytokines, such as interleukin-1 (IL-1), tumor necrosis
factor-a (TNF-alpha) and interleukin-6 (IL-6), become detectable in the
blood and function as acute phase hormones. They act on the brain
causing fever and other functional modifications (IL-1, TNFalpha), release
certain pituitary hormones and inhibit others (much of which is indicated
in the graph reproduced from his article), promote general catabolism,
(mediated primarily by TNF-alpha, also known as cachectin), stimulate the
production of new serum proteins known as acute phase reactants in the
liver (the joint action of IL-6, glucocorticoids and catecholamines), and
also elevate the production of leucoytes in the bone marrow, the mechanism
of which is not fully elucidated.[14,19] (For further reference,
please see also the papers by Asa and Kovacs, Besedovsky and del Rey, Gaillard,
and Nagy and Berczi in this volume.) Thus, with the recent discovery
of cytokines and our increasing recognition of their functions, we have
begun to fill in the gaps in Dr. Selye's adaptation syndrome outlined nearly
half a century ago.
In 1949 Selye discovered that an inflammatory reaction, which can be induced
in the rat by the parenteral administration of egg white, is inhibited
by cortisone or by purified ACTH. On the other hand, desoxycorticosterone
acetate, a mineralcorticoid compound, tends to aggravate the reaction.
These experiments initiated his interest in inflammation which became the
most lasting topic in his research and led to the proposition later that
diseases, like rheumatoid arthritis, anaphylaxis, etc. are in fact diseases
of adaptation as stated in numerous publications. In his review article
in Science, entitled "Stress and disease", he shows a diagram
of the stress response with inflammation clearly in mind.(Fig. 2).
2. Diagram illustrating the principal pathways of the stress response.
A-C: glucocorticoids, also known as antiphlogistic corticoids; ACTH: adrenocorticotrop
hormones; P-C: the mineralocorticoids, also known as prophlogistic corticoids;
STH: somatotropic (growth) hormone. (Taken from Ref.16).
The paragraphs in this article that contain important conclusions and theoretical
considerations are as follows:
"Certain recent experiments suggest that, depending on the conditions,
ACTH may cause a predominant secretion of one or the other type of corticoid.
However, be this as it may, the `growth hormone,' or somatotrophic hormone
(STH), of the pituitary increases the inflammatory potential of connective
tissue very much as the prophlogistic corticoids do; hence, it can sensitize
the target area to the actions of the prophlogistic corticoids. . .
"Among the derailments of the general adaptation syndrome that may cause
disease, the following are particularly important:
(i) an absolute excess or deficiency in the amount of adaptive hormones
(for example, corticoids, ACTH, and STH) produced during stress; (ii) an
absolute excess or deficiency in the amount of adaptive hormones retained
(or `fixed') by their peripheral target organs during stress; (iii) a disproportion
in the relative secretion (or fixation) during stress of various antagonistic
adaptive hormones (for example, ACTH and antiphlogistic corticoids, on
the one hand, and STH and prophlogistic corticoids, on the other hand);
(iv) the production by stress of metabolic derangements, which abnormally
alter the target organ's response to adaptive hormones (through the phenomenon
of `conditioning'); and (v) finally, we must not forget that, although
the hypophysis-adrenal mechanism plays a prominent role in the general-adaptation
syndrome, other organs that participate in the latter (for example: nervous
system, liver, and kidney) may also respond abnormally and become the cause
of disease during adaptation to stress. . .
requirements during stress:During stress, the corticoid requirements
of all mammals are far above normal. After destruction of the adrenals
by disease (as after their surgical removal), the daily dose of corticoids,
necessary for the maintenance of well-being at rest, is comparatively small,
but it rises sharply during stress (for example: cold, intercurrent infections,
and hemorrhage), both in experimental animals and in man. . .
effects of corticoids: The same antiphlogistic corticoids (cortisone
and cortisol) that were shown to inhibit various types of experimental
inflammations in laboratory animals exert similar effects in a human being
afflicted by inflammatory diseaes (for example, rheumatoid arthritis, rheumatic
fever, and allergic inflammations). . .
to infection after treatment with antiphlogistic corticoids. In experimental
animals, the suppression of inflammation by antiphlogistic hormones is
frequently accompanied by an increased sensitivity to infection, presumably
because the encapsulation of microbial foci is less effective and perhaps
partly also because serologic defense is diminished. . .
and psychiatric effects of corticoid overdosage: It has long
been noted that various steroids - including desoxycorticosterone, cortisone,
progesterone, and many others - can produce in a variety of animal species
(even in primates such as the rhesus monkey) a state of great excitation
followed by deep anesthesia. It has more recently been shown that
such steroid anesthesia can also be produced in man, and, of course, the
marked emotional changes (sometimes bordering on psychosis) that may occur
in predisposed individuals during treatment with ACTH, cortisone, and cortisol
are well known. Several laboratories reported furthermore that the
electroshock threshold of experimentl animals and their sensitivity to
anesthetics can be affected by corticoids."
He concludes as follows:
"If I may venture a prediction, I would like to reiterate my opinion
research on stress will be most fruitful if it is guided by the principle
that we must learn to imitate - and if necessary to correct and complement
- the body's own autopharmacologic efforts to combat the stress factor
The prediction by Selye that the pituitary gland has the capacity to both
stimulate and inhibit inflammatory reactions is the subject of recent investigations
and is proven correct.[17,18] The notion of prophlogistic steroids
has not been studied to a great extent to date, but the antiinflammatory
effect of glucocorticoids is firmly established and it is clear today that
the adrenal gland plays an important physiological role in the regulation
of immune and inflammatory responses. The disproportion of hormones
and other mediators, altered responsiveness in tissues and the significance
of metabolic derangements during acute phase reactions related to sepsis,
severe trauma and shock are the subject of current investigations and deemed
to be highly relevant to prognosis. The involvement of the central
nervous system, the liver and of other organs, such as the kidney, is also
substantiated. That "conditioning" may also play a role in host defence
is also gaining ground. Some hard evidence is forthcoming regarding
the corticoid requirements during infection and other forms of stress.
The antiinflammatory effect of cortisone and cortisol are well recognized
and are widely applied in medicine today. That corticosteroids increase
the sensitivity to infection is of common knowledge. The phenomenon
of stress related anesthesia is well recognized, but opioid peptides rather
than steroid hormones are considered to be the mediators.
My colleague, Dr. Lorand Bertok, upon his return to Budapest from Selye's
Institute, brought the news that the study of mast cells was in the focus
of interest and he also brought a copy of the book written by Dr. Selye:
The mast cells. As it turned out, the inflammation Dr. Selye
induced years earlier in rats by the injection of egg white was due to
the discharge of mast cells. Because of my intentions to go to Dr.
Selye's laboratory, I studied this book and was struck by the importance
of mast cells in various pathological phenomena. At that time the
role of mast cells in immune mechanisms had not been firmly established.
However, a related cell type, the basophilic leucocyte's role in immune
mechanisms was known already. Selye was interested in mast cells
mainly because they play a major role in inflammation and he was puzzled
by the powerful effects of mediators released by mast cells which could
play a role in various pathological processes, such as inflammation, necrosis,
calcification or thrombohemorrhagic phenomena.[4,21-24] After my
arrival in Montreal, the name of Professor Jancso and coworkers came up
frequently during discussions because of their discovery that the stimulation
of sensory nerves induces inflammation. By 1967 Professor Jancso had
passed away so his wife and long time collaborator, Dr. Aurelia Jancso,
was invited to the Institute as a Claude Bernard Professor. It was
most exciting to hear the story of neurogenic inflammation from someone
who participated in its discovery.
Looking at Dr. Selye's principal areas of research during his scientific
career, which spanned half a century, one may observe that even if they
seem to be very different, all of them were inspired by the profound conviction
of Dr. Selye that neuroendocrine mechanisms play a role in what he called
"diseases of adaptation." Once he decided to work on an area, he
thoroughly surveyed the literature which was usually published then in
the form of a book. In these books [21,26-34] a possible role of
neuroendocrine mechanisms in relation to the subject was never neglected,
even in the event of not much information being available. Then he
presented related findings from his own laboratory, which also appeared
in numerous publications (his lifetime output was 1,325 papers).
His contributions to modern immunology are major indeed. He discovered
that steroid hormones regulate lymphoid organs such as the thymus, spleen,
lymph nodes and Bursa of Fabricius. He demonstrated that thymic atrophy
is mediated by the ACTH-adrenal axis during stress with glucocorticoids
being the final effector molecules. He also described the antiinflammatory
action of adrenal steroid hormones. He and his coworkers made significant
contributions to our understanding of the role of mast cells in various
pathological phenomena. Selye made all these contributions without
knowing the function of the thymus, lymph nodes or the Bursa of Fabricius.
The function of these organs was understood only a few years prior to my
arrival in Montreal. I followed these developments closely because
my major interest has always been immunology.
One of Selye's major dilemmnas was that he was never able to define stress.
In his comprehensive review published in 1946  he talks about the alarm
reaction that is comprised of shock and counter shock, the recovery phase
which leads to resistance and eventually, if the stress lasts, to breakdown.
However, 20 years later when I got to his laboratory he recognized already
that not only damaging, unpleasant or even dangerous events/agents, but
also pleasurable experiences evoke a neuroendocrine response that involves
the ACTH-adrenal axis. As a matter of fact, I think he realized that
the pituitary gland constantly reacts to our internal and external environment,
which enables us to function normally. Therefore, he began to talk
about the stress of life and divided stress into two subgroups: eustress
and distress, the former referring to pleasurable and the latter referring
to unpleasant or dangerous impulses.[35,36] Another difficulty was
the realization that there is great variance in individual reactivity towards
stressors and that the same stimulus which could be pleasurable to one
individual may be very stressful to another. I remember him talking
about the frustrated businessman who was forced to take a holiday by his
family while he had so much to do. Perhaps this is why he showed
me the picture of desperate people above the door in his office because
that was the best definition he could provide. Looking at a picture
we all formulate an idea of what it could mean though we are not absolutely
certain, and it is likely that each person who looks at it will have somewhat
The prediction by Dr. Selye of the pluricausal nature of most diseases
is really the recognition that living organisms have evolved multiple mechanisms
to defend themselves against harmful agents. For this reason, in
most cases, it is necessary to interfere with these defense mechanisms
at more than one point to cause disease. The redundancy of immune
effector mechanisms [14,37] or the recent recognition that it is necessary
to deregulate more than one gene to cause cancer,  certainly supports
this view. In his last years he turned his attention to the protective
power of certain hormones against various toxins and other noxious stimuli
and created the term "catatoxic steroids" [29,35] for those hormones that
have protective effect. A book of two volumes entitled "Hormones
and Resistance"  has also been published by him on the same topic.
That hormones are important in immunological and other forms of resistance
is the subject of current scientific inquiry.[14,17,18]
Selye faced many criticisms and by the time I came to his laboratory he
had been highly regarded only by psychologists, whereas most scientists
in other disciplines had ignored his ideas. It was widely held that
his experiments were highly artificial and hence not relevant to pathophysiological
processes that occur in real life. It was also a problem that stress
was not and could not be defined. In most disciplines scientists
were busy working to discover and characterize basic interactions like
the interaction of antigen presenting cells, T cells and B lymphocytes
within the immune system, and were not concerned about stress. Another
difficulty was that neither the basic knowledge nor the tools necessary
to study and understand further the stress problem were available.
Clearly, one could not possibly study the effect of interleukin-1 and of
other cytokines on the release of pituitary hormones before these mediators
He knew about this criticism already in 1955 and refers to it in his article
in Science  as follows:
"Pasteur, Koch, and their contemporaries introduced the concept of specificity
into medicine, a concept that has proved to be of the greatest heuristic
value up to the present time. Each individual, well-defined disease,
they held, has its own specific cause. It has been claimed by many
that Pasteur failed to recognize the importance of the `terrain,' because
he was too preoccupied with the pathogen (microorganism) itself.
His work on induced immunity shows that this is incorrect. Indeed,
at the end of his life he allegedly said, `Le microbe n'est rien, le terrain
Only a scientist with very strong convictions of being right would maintain
his position in the face of such mounting criticisms and he did so.
Moreover, he dedicated his entire scientific career to furnishing more
and more proof for the importance of neuroendocrine mechanisms in the development
of disease. After his forced retirement at the age of 70 he organized
the International Institute of Stress and remained active in promoting
Selye did not only present his findings in scientific journals, but also
wrote popular books about the process of scientific research, about stress
and related subjects. [5-9] These books have been translated into
many languages. Of his popular books I was most impressed by the
one having the title: "In vivo."  This is a collection of lectures
dealing with his philosophy of the scientific process, with the human factors
involved, and giving advice to scientists with regards to what is important
and what is not so important. On the first page there is a quotation
from Albert Szent-Gyorgyi:
"In studying life, you keep diving from higher levels to lower ones until
somewhere along the way life fades out, leaving you empty handed.
Molecules and electrons have no life."
The main message of the book is that one always should try to view the
entire organism in its complexity and not to get lost with tiny little
details without even considering how it relates to the whole organism.
He considers that although intellect is important in science, instinct
is indispensable as well. He classifies scientists into problem finders
and problem solvers as follows:
"In problem finding, the principal requirement is inspiration, perhaps
with a certain amount of opportunism, a tendency to follow the line of
least resistance rather than the steadfast pursuit of what we set out to
find. On the other hand, problem solving is based on careful planning
and persistence on a steady course until the aim is reached. It requires
patience and the courage to resist all temptations to start on something
new in the hope of quick returns. Here perspiration is often more
effective than inspiration. Yet, even in problem solving, it is rarely
possible to be guided merely by the laws of logic."
The roles of logic, intellect and of hypotheses in science are summarized
by him as cited below:
"No matter how distasteful this may be to many scientists, we must accept
the fact that intellect is not always the safest approach to exploration
and the acquisition of knowledge. The homing pigeon's `knowledge'
of geography, the bat's understanding' of radar are very effective though
not intellectual; it is not through the logical rules of grammar that a
child learns his native tongue. . . .
"Even the construction of hypotheses is much less dependent upon logical
reasoning than most people think. No hypothesis can be arrived at
by logical reasoning alone since it must be based on insufficient evidence,
or else it is not a hypothesis at all but a factual conclusion. Indeed,
the more a lack of facts forces a hypothesis to depend upon imagination,
the more ingenious it is."
The importance of originality is illustrated through the example of Mendel
who had no laboratory and, as a matter of fact, was not even a scientist,
yet he discovered the basic laws of genetics. Then he describes the
discovery of penicillin, which is attributed to Fleming. He points
out that the phenomenon described by him had, in fact, been described repeatedly
before, namely that bacterial colonies will not grow around colonies of
mold on solid agar containing medium. He speculates that there could
have been a lot more people who saw the phenomenon but did not publish
it as it indicates sloppiness in work. Normally, he remarks, mold
is not supposed to grow in bacterial cultures. The importance of
Fleming's discovery was fully realized after Florey and Chain demonstrated
its practical value. Indeed, he says, it may be asked whether even
Fleming himself fully appreciated all the potentialities of what he had
found since he abandoned this field for many years in favour of less important
Discovery, he states, is the realization that something new exists.
This necessarily means that the finding is of something unpredictable,
but discovery does not necessarily imply importance. To be important
the discovery must not only be unexpected, but also generalizable, i.e.
applicable to many situations. Only this gives it real scope.
In contrast, development is the further exploration of an already discovered
fact. Because discoveries cannot be planned, intuition and "peripheral
vision" play the most important role in this process.
In defence of in vivo research he remarks:
"It would hardly have been possible to discover anaphylaxis, yellow fever,
and the phenomenon of homograft rejection by the use of electron microscope
or of cell chemistry.
"You could never learn what a mouse is like by carefully examining each
of its cells separately under the electron microscope any more than you
could appreciate the beauty of a cathedral through the chemical analysis
of each stone that went into its construction."
While he acknowledges that specialization is unavoidable in research, he
emphasizes a need for "general practitioners" of science:
"Nowadays, you rarely meet a mature scientist who has retained at least
the recent medical graduate's general knowledge of, say histology, physiology,
biochemistry, pharmacology, clinical medicine and surgery. Most of
them try to specialize and become experts in one field. This is undoubtedly
the sound attitude for the vast majority whose primary interest is the
solution of well-defined problems. But we shall always need at least
a few general practitioners of medical research, men whose minds are open
to the many things that come their way. We shall depend upon them
in research just as we shall always require general practitioners of clinical
medicine who can look at the patient as a whole and at least determine
to which kind of specialist he ought to be sent."
While I was at the Institute of Experimental Medicine and Surgery, one
of my colleagues, Dr. Cirpilli, who came from Turkey, remarked that Dr.
Selye could have become equally as well a writer, a linguist, a philosopher,
or a politician. Indeed, he was not only much ahead of his time in
science, but also with regards to his views on politics and society.
His efforts to popularize science and teach important general principles
to his young colleagues was just as important as his scientific activity.
If you ask me what did I learn from him, the answer is very simple:
a lot. I became convinced by his work that the immune system is under
neuroendocrine regulation and never gave up my intentions to do research
in this field, despite the funding difficulties, which sometimes seemed
insurmountable. I never forgot Selye's teaching about originality
and that one must keep an open mind and adjust the theories to the facts
found and not the other way around. Ever since we started to work
on the role of the pituitary gland in immune function with my dear colleague,
Dr. Eva Nagy, we trusted in vivo research and it was not disturbing for
us that for years we were unable to demonstrate a reproducible effect of
prolactin or growth hormone on in vitro immune reactions. We always
reasoned that mother nature is more reliable than our primitive in vitro
experiments and that if it does not work in the bottle, there must be some
important detail that we don't know and this is why we cannot do it.
Erythropoietin and some of the colony stimulating factors that regulate
bone marrow function have already been produced by recombinant DNA technology,
which could be considered as a triumph of in vitro research. 
However, the role of pituitary hormones in hemopoiesis has never been uncovered
by these experiments.
In contrast, one can find good indication for such a role in the old literature
 and we saw it very clearly in our in vivo experiments. 
So again the in vitro experiments, although highly sophisticated and successful,
did not give a complete picture and it was necessary to investigate hemopoiesis
in vivo in the complexity of the organism in order to uncover further aspects
of the regulatory network involved in bone marrow function.
Through my endeavours I have learnt over the years that there is much truth
in the old literature. Many consider old papers to be useless and
irrelevant, yet with proper insight one can gain a lot of information and
even confidence from the results of early investigators. Consequently
I cannot help but be fascinated and puzzled by the foresight and wisdom
of those scientists who, with primitive methodology and with enormous gaps
in knowledge, predicted biological laws which got forgotten only to be
rediscovered later again. Hans Selye was one of these geniuses.
He saw very clearly what his contemporaries were unable to see. It
is only now that we are beginning to understand what he was really talking
about. Indeed, I realized myself that I have evolved over the years
to appreciate more and more of what he was saying, which deepened my admiration
towards him. I feel very fortunate and privileged to have been associated
I am much obliged to the Hans Selye Foundation, to Mme. Louise Drevet Selye
and to Dr. Beatriz Tuchweber-Farbstein, President of the Hans Selye Foundation,
for providing material and valuable information for this chapter.
text is reprinted from the book "Advances in Psychoneuroimmunology", Plenum
to more information on the impact of Dr Selye's work:
Biology Book Series
left to right: Vol 1 - 5
1: New Foundations of Biology Volume
Editors: Istvan Berczi and Reginald Gorczynski
2: Growth and Lactogenic Hormones Volume
Editors: Lina Matera and Robert Rapaport
3: Immune - Neuroendocrine Circuitry: History and Progress Volume
Editors: Istvan Berczi and Andor Szentivanyi
4: The Neuroendocrine Immune Network in Ageing Volume
Editors: Rainer Straub and Eugenio Mocchegiani
Volume 5: Natural Immunity
Volume Editors: Lóránd Bertók and Donna Chow