Le papier commence par une rétrospective des débats sur l'origine de la vie : le virus ou la cellule ? Le virus a besoin de la cellule pour se répliquer, mais la cellule est une forme plus évoluée à l'échelle évolutive de la vie. De plus, l'étude des virus soulève des questions conceptuelles et philosophiques pressantes sur leur nature, leur classification et leur place dans le monde biologique. Le sujet des pandémies est abordé à partir de l'existentialisme d'Albert Camus et (...) Sartre, du remplacement du rituel d'exclusion par le mécanisme disciplinaire de Michel Foucault, et de l'hypothèse Gaia, développée par James Lovelock et soutenue dans la pandémie actuelle par Bruno Latour. Les dimensions sociales des pandémies, leur lien avec le réchauffement climatique, qui a conduit à une augmentation des maladies infectieuses, et la déforestation de vastes zones, qui ont provoqué la migration des virus de leur zone d'origine (leur « réservoir ») sont mis en évidence ci-dessous. L'éthique des pandémies est abordée sous plusieurs points de vue philosophiques, dont le plus important dans une crise de telles dimensions globales est l'utilitarisme qui consiste à maximiser les bénéfices pour la société en conflit direct avec la vision ordinaire (kantienne) du respect des personnes en tant qu'individus. Après une rétrospective du virus COVID-19 qui a causé la pandémie actuelle, son cycle de vie et son histoire, avec un accent sur la philosophie de la mort, est discuté le concept de biopouvoir initialement développé par Foucault, en référence à la pratique des États modernes de contrôle des populations, et le débat généré par Giorgio Agamben qui déclare que ce qui se manifeste dans cette pandémie est la tendance croissante des États à utiliser l'état d'urgence comme un paradigme normal de gouvernement. Une autre approche intéressante et très débattue est celle générée par les travaux de Slavoj Žižek, qui déclare que la pandémie actuelle a conduit à la faillite du capitalisme « barbare » actuel, se demandant si le chemin que l'humanité empruntera est un néocommunisme. Un autre effet négatif important est la désocialisation, avec la conclusion de certains philosophes que nous ne pouvons pas exister indépendamment de nos relations avec les autres, que l'humanité d'une personne dépend de l'humanité de ceux qui l'entourent. La dernière section est consacrée à prédire à quoi ressemblera le monde après la pandémie, et il y a déjà des signes de changement de paradigme, y compris la disparition soudaine de l'idéologie du « mur » : une toux a suffi à rendre soudain impossible d'échapper à la responsabilité qui chaque individu l'a envers tous les êtres vivants pour le simple fait qu'il fait partie de ce monde et du désir d'en faire partie. Le tout est toujours impliqué en partie, car tout est, en un sens, dans tout et dans la nature il n'y a pas de régions autonomes qui font exception. La pandémie COVID-19 semble restaurer la suprématie qui appartenait autrefois à la politique. L'une des vertus du virus est sa capacité à générer une idée plus sobre de la liberté : être libre signifie faire ce qui doit être fait dans une situation précise. -/- SOMMAIRE: -/- Abstract Introduction 1 Virus 1.1 Ontologie 2 Pandémies 2.1 Dimensions sociales 2.2 Ethique 3 COVID-19 3.1 Biopolitique 3.2 Néocommunisme 3.3 Désocialisation 4 Prévisions Bibliographie -/- DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17905.92003 . (shrink)

Lucrarea debutează cu o retrospectivă a dezbaterilor privind originea vieții: virusul sau celula? Virusul are nevoie de celulă pentru replicare, în schimb celula este o formă mai evoluată pe scara evoluționistă a vieții. În plus, studiul virușilor ridică întrebări conceptuale și filozofice presante despre natura lor, clasificarea lor, și locul lor în lumea biologică. Subiectul pandemiilor este abordat pornind de la existențialismul lui Albert Camus și Sartre, înlocuirea ritualului de excludere cu mecanismul disciplinar al lui Michel Foucault, și despre ipoteza (...) Gaia, dezvoltată de James Lovelock și susținută în actuala pandemie de Bruno Latour. În continuare sunt evidențiate dimensiunile sociale ale pandemiilor, legătura lor cu încălzirea globală care a dus la o creștere a bolilor infecțioase, și despădurirea unor zone întinse, care au determinat virușii să migreze din zona lor nativă („rezervorul” lor). Etica pandemiilor este abordată din mai multe puncte de vedere filosofice, din care cel mai important într-o criză de asemenea dimensiuni globale este utilitarismul care presupune maximizarea beneficiilor pentru societate în conflict direct cu viziunea obișnuită (kantiană) privind respectul față de persoane ca indivizi. După o retrospectivă a virusul COVID-19 care a cauzat actuala pandemie, a ciclului său de viață și a istoriei sale, cu accent pe filosofia morții, este discutat conceptul de bioputere dezvoltat inițial de Foucault, cu referire la practica statelor naționale moderne de control al populațiilor și dezbaterea generată de Giorgio Agamben care afirmă că ceea ce se manifestă în această pandemie este tendința crescândă de a folosi starea de excepție ca o paradigmă normală de guvernare. O altă abordare de interes și foarte dezbătută este cea generată de lucrările lui Slavoj Žižek, care afirmă că actuala pandemie a dus la falimentul actualului capitalism ”barbar”, întrebându-se dacă nu cumva drumul pe care îl va lua omenirea este un neo-comunism. Un alt efect negativ important este desocializarea, cu concluzia unor filosofi că nu putem exista independent de relațiile noastre cu ceilalți, că umanitatea unei persoane depinde de umanitatea celor din jurul ei. Ultima secțiune este dedicată previziunilor despre cum va arăta lumea după pandemie, existând deja semne ale unei schimbări de paradigmă, inclusiv dispariția bruscă a ideologiei legate de „ziduri”: o tuse a fost suficientă pentru a face dintr-o dată imposibilă evitarea responsabilității pe care fiecare individ o are față de toate ființele vii pentru simplul fapt că este parte a acestei lumi, și a dorinței de a fi parte a ei. Întregul este întotdeauna implicat în parte, pentru că totul este, într-un anumit sens, în tot și în natură nu există regiuni autonome care să constituie o excepție. Pandemia COVID-19 pare să restabilească supremația care a aparținut cândva politicii. Una din virtuțile virusului este capacitatea acestuia de a genera o idee mai sobră de libertate: a fi liber înseamnă a face ceea ce trebuie făcut într-o situație specifică. -/- CUPRINS: -/- Abstract Introducere 1 Viruși 1.1 Ontologia 2 Pandemii 2.1 Dimensiuni sociale 2.2 Etica 3 COVID-19 3.1 Biopolitica 3.2 Neocomunism 3.3 Desocializarea 4 Previziuni Bibliografie -/- DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27611.39205 . (shrink)

El propósito central de este artículo consiste en realizar un análisis de la pandemia actual, intentando situar estratos básicos del fenómeno, y particularmente el modo como se estructura su mundo y los vínculos de coexistencia entre los individuos, tomando como hilo conductor un elemento que la analítica existencial heideggeriana destaca como característico del modo de apertura del hombre al mundo: el temple anímico o la disposición afectiva. Para situar este elemento y buscar una orientación para nuestra indagación, analizaremos el relato (...) de Tucídides acerca de la peste que asoló a Atenas a finales del siglo V a. C. Partiendo de las indicaciones que extraeremos de Tucídides nos encaminaremos hacia el campo de la analítica existencial para descubrir a partir de su enfoque el modo como se definen las relaciones mundanas en conexión con el temple anímico del miedo. Nos interesa mostrar cómo este temple anímico motiva una especial transformación del sentido del virus responsable de la pandemia actual, transformación que nos lleva a considerar su carácter mutualista, lo cual remitirá en última instancia y de manera retroactiva a una mejor determinación del modo de ser de la existencia humana, como esencialmente vinculada al otro, como co-existencia. (shrink)

Ecology is usually described as the study of organisms interacting with one another and their environments. From this view of ecology, viruses – not usually considered to be organisms – would merely be part of the environment. Since the late 1980s, however, a growing stream of micrographic, experimental, molecular, and model-based (theoretical) research has been investigating how and why viruses should be understood as ecological actors of the most important sort. Viruses, especially phage, have been revealed as participants in the (...) planet's most crucial food webs, even though viruses technically consume nothing (they do not metabolize by themselves). Even more impressively, viruses have been identified as regulators of planetary biogeochemistry, in which they control cycles such as carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus – cycles on which all life depends. Although much biogeochemical research black-boxes the entities filling functional roles, it is useful to focus a little more closely to understand how viruses can be held responsible for the global processes of life. This paper will give a brief overview of the history of virus ecology and tease out the implications of large-scale ecological modelling with viruses. This analysis suggests that viruses should be conceptualized as ecological actors that are at least comparable and possibly equal to organismal actors. Ecological agency can therefore be distinguished from standard interpretations of biological agency. (shrink)

The popular textbook image of viruses as noxious and selfish genetic parasites greatly underestimates the beneficial contributions of viruses to the biosphere. Given the crucial dependency of viruses to reproduce in an intracellular environment, viruses that engage in excessive killing (lysis) can drive their cellular hosts to extinction and will not survive. The lytic mode of virus propagation must, therefore, be tempered and balanced by non‐lytic modes of virus latency and symbiosis. Here, we review recent bioinformatics and metagenomic studies to (...) argue that viral endogenization and domestication may be more frequent mechanisms of virus persistence than lysis. We use a triangle diagram to explain the three major virus persistence strategies that explain the global scope of virus‐cell interactions including lysis, latency and virus‐cell symbiosis. This paradigm can help identify novel directions in virology research where scientists could artificially gain control over switching lytic and beneficial viral lifestyles. Also see the Video Abstract: https://youtu.be/E1TOU1JDXo4. (shrink)

In this paper we address the issue of how to think about immunity. Many immunological writings suggest a straightforward option: the view that the immune system is primarily a system of defense, which naturally invites the talk of strong immunity and strong immune response. Despite their undisputable positive role in immunology, such metaphors can also pose a risk of establishing a narrow perspective, omitting from consideration phenomena that do not neatly fit those powerful metaphors. Building on this analysis, we argue (...) two things. First, we argue that the immune system is involved not only in defense. Second, by disentangling various possible meanings of ‘strength’ and ‘weakness’ in immunology, we also argue that such a construal of immunity generally contributes to the distortion of the overall picture of what the immune system is, what it does, and why it sometimes fails. Instead, we propose to understand the nature of the immune system in terms of contextuality, regulation, and trade-offs. We suggest that our approach provides lessons for a general understanding of the organizing principles of the immune system in health and disease. For all this to work, we discuss a wide range of immunological phenomena. (shrink)

Viruses have generally been thought of as infectious agents. New data on mimivirus, however, suggests a reinterpretation of this thought. Earth’s biosphere seems to contain many more viruses than previously thought and they are relevant in the maintenance of ecosystems and biodiversity. Viruses are not considered to be alive because they are not free-living entities and do not have cellular units. Current hypotheses indicate that some viruses may have been the result of genomic reduction of cellular life forms. However, new (...) studies relating to the origins of biological systems suggest that viruses could also have originated during the transition from First to the Last Universal Common Ancestor. Within this setting, life has been established as chemical informational system and could be interpreted as a macrocode of multiple layers. The first entity to acquire these features was the First Universal Common Ancestor that evolved to an intermediate ancestral that could be named T-LUCA and be equated to Woese’s concept of progenotes. T-LUCA may have remained as undifferentiated subsystems with viruses-like structures. The net result is that both cellular life forms and viruses shared protein synthesis apparatuses. In short, virus is a strategy of life reached by two paths: T-LUCAs like entities and the reduction of cellular life forms. (shrink)

Viruses have generally been thought of as infectious agents. New data on mimivirus, however, suggests a reinterpretation of this thought. Earth’s biosphere seems to contain many more viruses than previously thought and they are relevant in the maintenance of ecosystems and biodiversity. Viruses are not considered to be alive because they are not free-living entities and do not have cellular units. Current hypotheses indicate that some viruses may have been the result of genomic reduction of cellular life forms. However, new (...) studies relating to the origins of biological systems suggest that viruses could also have originated during the transition from First to the Last Universal Common Ancestor. Within this setting, life has been established as chemical informational system and could be interpreted as a macrocode of multiple layers. The first entity to acquire these features was the First Universal Common Ancestor that evolved to an intermediate ancestral that could be named T-LUCA and be equated to Woese’s concept of progenotes. T-LUCA may have remained as undifferentiated subsystems with viruses-like structures. The net result is that both cellular life forms and viruses shared protein synthesis apparatuses. In short, virus is a strategy of life reached by two paths: T-LUCAs like entities and the reduction of cellular life forms. (shrink)

There is currently a great debate about whether the holobiont, i.e. a multicellular host and its residential microorganisms, constitutes a biological individual. We propose that resident microorganisms have a general and important role in the individuality of the host organism, not the holobiont. Drawing upon the Equilibrium Model of Immunity, we argue that microorganisms are scaffolds of immune capacities and processes that determine the constituency and persistence of the host organism. A scaffolding perspective accommodates the contingency and heterogeneity of resident (...) microorganisms while accounting for their necessity and unifying contributions to host individuality. In our symbiotic view of life, holobionts may not be organisms or units of selection, but macroorganisms cannot persist nor function as individuals without their scaffolding microorganisms. (shrink)

Une rétrospective des débats sur l'origine de la vie : le virus ou la cellule ? Le virus a besoin de la cellule pour se répliquer, mais la cellule est une forme plus évoluée à l'échelle évolutive de la vie. Les virus semblent avoir joué un rôle dans des événements tels que l'origine de la vie cellulaire et l'évolution des mammifères. Même la bactérie la plus simple est bien trop complexe pour être apparue spontanément au début de l'évolution. Par la (...) suite, l'évolution a pu produire des systèmes de plus en plus complexes. La première vraie cellule doit déjà avoir été un produit de l'évolution, résultant d'une communauté primordiale. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27284.53122. (shrink)