Abstract

In 1949, Linus Pauling and collaborators published in Science a paper provocatively titled: 'Sickle cell anemia, a molecular disease'. What was actually meant by 'molecular disease'? We interpret the concept of molecular disease in the frame of the traditional positions about the nature of diseases: the ontological and the physiological positions. We conclude that the physiological does not give an adequate account of what molecular diseases are. The ontological position, when correctly reinterpreted, leads to an understanding of molecular diseases where the macromolecule is seen as a symptom or as a part of a mechanism leading to the symptoms of the disease. We then show that the concept of molecular disease leads to a particular view of therapy, emphasizing eugenics as a way of eliminating disease. On the individual level, this concept leads to an increased power of diagnosis, and especially predictive diagnosis, but has little therapeutic consequence. Lastly, we examine how this concept of disease unifies two contemporary classifications of diseases, one based on the location of the diseases, the other on the cause of the diseases