Skip to main content
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • Archive
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • Highlights from Latest Articles
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Purpose and Scope
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • For Reviewers
    • Author FAQ
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • Archive
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • Highlights from Latest Articles
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Purpose and Scope
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • For Reviewers
    • Author FAQ

New Research In

Physical Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Applied Mathematics
  • Applied Physical Sciences
  • Astronomy
  • Computer Sciences
  • Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
  • Engineering
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics

Social Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Economic Sciences
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Political Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Social Sciences

Biological Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Anthropology
  • Applied Biological Sciences
  • Biochemistry
  • Biophysics and Computational Biology
  • Cell Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Evolution
  • Genetics
  • Immunology and Inflammation
  • Medical Sciences
  • Microbiology
  • Neuroscience
  • Pharmacology
  • Physiology
  • Plant Biology
  • Population Biology
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Sustainability Science
  • Systems Biology

Biography of Douglas T. Fearon

Regina Nuzzo
PNAS May 24, 2005 102 (21) 7415-7417; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0502415102
Regina Nuzzo
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

When immunologist Douglas T. Fearon was a young physician in Boston in the early 1970s, he began treating a patient with rheumatoid arthritis. For 15 years, he tried to stop the progress of the crippling disease, but the patient's immune system continued to degrade his cartilage and destroy his joints until the disease finally killed him. Fearon learned that treating patients did not always mean saving them. In the end, real help could come only from a better knowledge of basic science. “Contrary to what I thought when I went to medical school, we weren't really curing a whole lot of people,” he says. “This patient's death told me I had to either put up or shut up. If I was committed to being a physician-scientist and making discoveries, and if not being able to cure patients truly bothered me, I had to do research 100 percent of the time.”

To Fearon, the logic was clear. The path to making his patients well again began first with understanding what made them sick. Yet clinical duties stole time away from Fearon's research, and his concern for his patients ironically meant he needed to stop seeing them altogether. Indeed, by the time he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 2001, his pursuit of basic science had led to a rewarding career as a researcher but also took him away from much that he valued: his patients, his career as an academic physician, and eventually his home country.

Currently the Sheila Joan Smith Professor of Immunology at the University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine (Cambridge, U.K.), Fearon's research has helped describe how the body's two immune defense systems work together to recognize and fight pathogenic invaders. In his Inaugural Article (1) published in this issue of PNAS, Fearon presents for the first time his work on immunological memory and how the immune system remembers its prior encounters with foreign agents, through either vaccination or infection, and maintains the stem cell-like ability to produce defensive responses over a lifetime.

Unacceptable Compromises

Football and fiction, not cell biology, dominated Fearon's undergraduate years. He majored in English literature and quarterbacked the football team at Williams College in Williamstown, MA, but had little star quality for either one, he says. Upon graduation, Fearon, whose father founded the first cardiac clinic at Methodist Hospital in Brooklyn, NY, decided to study medicine. “As a physician, you can do good for people, so that seemed reasonable,” he says. “And being a physician meant that you had to understand people. It's also one of the reasons you might go into literature—to understand people.”

Fearon graduated with his medical doctorate from The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (Baltimore, MD) in 1968. He stayed at Johns Hopkins Hospital for two years of internship and residency in medicine, where he began to see the incongruity of modern medical care. “During my residency, it was terribly exciting, because you're saving people,” he recalls. “But you suddenly realize they still had the same disease at the end of the process. Patients would return to us within months, so what we'd learned in medical school seemed to be wasted effort, almost.”

For the next two years, Fearon served as an Army Major in the United States Army Medical Corps. He spent a year in Vietnam and received a Bronze Star Medal, awarded by the Army for meritorious service. In 1972, Fearon accepted a research fellowship at Harvard Medical School and Robert B. Brigham Hospital (now Brigham and Women's Hospital) in Boston, where he also had clinical duties. It was there that Fearon began treating the rheumatoid arthritis patient he would eventually follow for 15 years.

At Harvard, Fearon learned to be a scientist in addition to being a physician. He joined the rheumatology and immunology research laboratory of Frank Austen, who invited Fearon to join his group despite a lack of scientific background. “He always encouraged me to follow my ideas,” Fearon says of Austen. “He took a chance on me.” In fact, Austen oversaw a laboratory full of physicians like Fearon and trained them in fundamental research. “He gave us the self-assurance that we could approach clinical problems through basic science,” Fearon says. “This let us understand the mechanisms of diseases and move beyond the sorts of correlative observations you find in a lot of clinical research.”

As years passed, Fearon continued to balance his work in the laboratory and the clinic. With Austen, he studied innate immunity, focusing his attention on the complement system, which supports the activity of antibodies by directly attacking microorganisms or enhancing their susceptibility to phagocytosis (2–6). In 1984, Fearon became a full professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and deputy chairperson of the Department of Rheumatology and Immunology at Brigham and Women's Hospital.

A defining moment in Fearon's career came when, despite best efforts, his rheumatoid arthritis patient died. “I remember it distinctly,” Fearon says. “He had always been so grateful. He had an unwavering trust. But I didn't halt the progression of the disease, so I wasn't deserving of this trust, I felt.” Fearon saw that scientific limitations could sometimes trap physicians into extending care rather than cures.

In 1987, Fearon returned to The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine to head the Division of Molecular and Clinical Immunology. The chairman of the Department of Medicine, Jack Stobo, offered Fearon the resources to recruit three young scholars with dual M.D./Ph.D. degrees. That trio, Bob Siliciano, Drew Pardoll, and Mark Schissel, allowed Fearon to develop the new immunology graduate program at the medical school. From these and the other members of the graduate program, Fearon began to learn about adaptive immunity, which remembers past infections and is the basis of vaccines. Innate immunity, which Fearon had studied up to that point, dates back to invertebrate ancestors and was at the time thought to be completely separate from adaptive immunity, a much younger process on the evolutionary timeline. Intrigued, Fearon began to explore the connections between innate and adaptive immunity.

By the early 1990s, Fearon's research group had found a molecular link between the two systems (7–10). To follow up on this discovery, however, he needed to learn more about adaptive immunity, which would demand more of his time. Fearon reflected again on his traditional academic medical career— juggling patients, teaching, research, and administration—and saw its potential to snuff his creative spark. “To be a good researcher, you need to have the opportunity to be intellectually inefficient,” he says. “You need to pursue things in a tangential way. You can't be too focused, or else you'll exclude potential solutions.” His career was primed for a more radical change.

A few years later, Sir Keith Peters, the Regius Professor of Physic at the University of Cambridge, invited Fearon to join the university and start a new phase in his career. The Wellcome Trust, the largest private biomedical research foundation in the United Kingdom, would offer generous funding for Fearon's proposed research, in addition to state-of-the-art university facilities in the Laboratory of Molecular Biology of the Medical Research Council in Cambridge, U.K. Fearon would be able to work at a research institution dedicated to fundamental problems in biology, where autonomy was valued and small interactive research groups were the norm—and where he could finally give himself wholly to his research. In 1993, Fearon moved his laboratory to Cambridge.

Freedom to Start Anew

During much of Fearon's early investigations, adaptive immunity had been the hot topic in immunological research, not innate immunity. Fearon's work helped to change that. By the mid-1990s, research in his laboratory at Johns Hopkins and the University of Cambridge and in Charles Janeway's laboratory at Yale University (New Haven, CT) showed that innate immune systems could actually instruct the adaptive immune system.

Immunologists grew excited about innate immunity and began to tie the field to their study of the immune system in general. In 1996, Fearon formally linked the innate immune system of complement to the adaptive immune system. He found that the complement protein C3 could prime an antigen so that the adaptive immune system would be 10,000 times more likely to recognize and respond to it (11). The questions that had been driving Fearon since his postdoctoral years were finally being answered.

Innate immunity had always been the hallmark of Fearon's research, but as researchers embraced the innate immune system into their work, he turned elsewhere. Adaptive immunity became more attractive to him on its own research merits. He had always been interested in B and T cell biology and had already studied B cells in relation to innate immunity. But now Fearon saw an opportunity to study a problem unique to lymphocytes: immunological memory, or the way that lymphocytes remember past infections.

“You need to pursue things in a tangential way. You can't be too focused, or else you'll exclude potential solutions.”

Joining the University of Cambridge had provided an unprecedented level of freedom for Fearon, allowing him now to take a step back, free from clinical and administrative responsibilities, and devise a new line of research. Immunological memory suited his desires perfectly, providing a fundamental research question unrelated to his past work. Fearon's new focus on immunological memory began to take shape when the journal Science invited him to write a review in 2001 (12). “I think the editor expected me to do it on innate immunity, but I was kind of tired of that and didn't have anything new to contribute,” he says.

Fearon had some new ideas he wanted to explore in the area of memory lymphocytes, which he thought in some ways resembled stem cells. Both stem cells and memory lymphocytes must last throughout a lifetime while producing many other cells. When memory B and T cells encounter the same antigen, even years later, they immediately produce large numbers of effector cells to specifically combat the foreign agent. Two properties allow the parallel ability in stem cells: self-renewal, in which one daughter cell replaces the parental cell while the other goes on to differentiate; and prevention of senescence, in which cells escape the natural aging process. If memory lymphocytes shared the abilities of stem cells to self-renew and evade senescence, it might be the key to understanding immunological memory (12).

Tracking Killer T Cells with BCL6b

Fearon spent the next few years following up on these ideas, exploring memory T cells and one particular transcription factor, BCL6b. In his Inaugural Article (1), he and his colleagues found that BCL6b was important in the magnitude of response of memory CD8+ T cells, or killer T cells, to a second encounter with antigen. In mice deficient in BCL6b, this secondary immune response is reduced by 3- to 4-fold. Fearon and his team found that this decrease occurs because BCL6b acts as a transcriptional repressor to the cytokine signaling that drives CD8+ T cell differentiation, and this repression in effect allows the responding memory CD8+ T cells to self-renew.

Yet BCL6b is not the only key to immunological memory, Fearon says, because the BCL6b knockout mice still showed a secondary response, albeit reduced. “I think I oversold myself on BCL6b being the only way that memory occurs in CD8+ T cells,” he says. “It is part of it, but it's an add-on to something more fundamental that is required for development of memory lymphocytes in the first place.” His laboratory thus continues to look for other factors necessary for self-renewal in CD8+ T cells. Fearon also wonders how these cells block senescence and keep their ability to replicate. “Every time you have an infection, you make millions of new effector CD8+ T cells,” he says. “And if you have HIV, you're doing that almost on a daily basis. The stress for replication of CD8+ T cells is enormous.” Interesting answers should come in a few years, he says.

Looking for Common Ground

With experience in both camps, Fearon clearly sees how the intersection of science and medicine can be a puzzling place. He finds that, while basic scientists embrace the possibility of their research helping to cure disease, clinicians may not always equally value pure science. “I find that being a scientist can hurt my ability to communicate with clinicians, because I'm not seeing patients—basically, because I'm not one of them. Yet medicine is the reason that I do research.”

Fearon worries about this apparent cultural divide between basic research and clinical medicine. “From a policy point of view, it could lead to a competitive relationship that distorts the overall goals of biomedical research,” he says. He admits that scientists' desire to understand fundamental principles of biology seems to clash with academic clinicians' commitment to overcome a specific disease. But focusing too narrowly on particular clinical problems may not be the best strategy for physicians.

In fact, some specific disease treatments stem from unrelated basic work elsewhere, he points out, as was the case with the first truly effective treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. The development of the antibody to tumor necrosis factor for this purpose by academic clinicians Marc Feldmann and Ravinder Maini of Imperial College London relied on basic research done previously by Lloyd Old of the Sloan–Kettering Cancer Institute (New York) and Anthony Cerami, formerly of The Rockefeller University (New York). “This should remind us that, in the best of circumstances, basic and clinical research are synergistic,” says Fearon. “The over-promotion of either will adversely affect the other. There must be a constant attempt to achieve balance.”

Physicians and scientists can draw inspiration from a common desire to help their fellow human beings, Fearon says, and they need not necessarily be brilliant, either. Motivation may be enough to propel them onward. “There's an unfortunate tendency to think that people who have made scientific contributions are different than others, or inherently more intelligent,” Fearon says. “In my case, that is not true at all.” Looking back over his career, Fearon sees the force of his motivations still driving him ahead. “I don't know what other people feel like when they're elected to the Academy. It's a marvelous recognition, a mark of approval by the leaders in your field,” he says. “But I presume that people consider it just as a step along the way, and not a way of saying you've arrived. Since I haven't yet arrived at any kind of disease cure, it's still a very unfinished process for me.”

Figures and Tables

Figure 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1

Douglas T. Fearon

Footnotes

  • This is a Biography of a recently elected member of the National Academy of Sciences to accompany the member's Inaugural Article on page 7418.

  • Copyright © 2005, The National Academy of Sciences

References

  1. ↵
    Manders, P. M., Hunter, P. J., Telaranta, A. I., Carr, J. M., Marshall, J. L., Carrasco, M., Murakami, Y., Palmowski, M. J., Cerundolo, V., Kaech, S. M., et al. (2005) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102 , 7418–7425. pmid:15833813
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    Fearon, D. T. & Austen, K. F. (1977) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 74 , 1683–1687. pmid:266208
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. Fearon, D. T. (1979) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 76 , 5867–5871. pmid:293688
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. Weis, J. J., Tedder, T. F. & Fearon, D. T. (1984) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 81 , 881–885. pmid:6230668
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. Klickstein, L. B., Wong, W. W., Smith, J. A., Weis, J. H., Wilson, J. G. & Fearon, D. T. (1987) J. Exp. Med. 165 , 1095–1112. pmid:2951479
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    Weis, J. J., Toothaker, L. E., Smith, J. A., Weis, J. H. & Fearon, D. T. (1988) J. Exp. Med. 167 , 1047–1066. pmid:2832506
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    Carter, R. H., Spycher, M. O., Ng, Y. C., Hoffman, R. & Fearon, D. T. (1988) J. Immunol. 141 , 457–463. pmid:2968402
    OpenUrlAbstract
  8. Weisman, H. F., Bartow, T., Leppo, M. K., Marsh, H. C., Boyle, M. P., Carson, G. R., Concino, M. F., Roux, K. H., Weisfeldt, M. L. & Fearon, D. T. (1990) Science 249 , 146–151. pmid:2371562
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. Matsumoto, A. K., Kopicky-Burd, J., Carter, R. H., Tuveson, D. A., Tedder, T. F. & Fearon, D. T. (1991) J. Exp. Med. 173 , 55–64. pmid:1702139
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    Carter, R. H. & Fearon, D. T. (1992) Science 256 , 105–107. pmid:1373518
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    Dempsey, P. W., Allison, M. E. D., Akkaraju S., Goodnow, C. C. & Fearon, D. T. (1996) Science 271 , 348–350. pmid:8553069
    OpenUrlAbstract
  12. ↵
    Fearon, D. T., Manders, P. & Wagner, S. D. (2001) Science 293 , 248–250. pmid:11452114
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Biography of Douglas T. Fearon
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
Citation Tools
Biography of Douglas T. Fearon
Regina Nuzzo
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences May 2005, 102 (21) 7415-7417; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0502415102

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Biography of Douglas T. Fearon
Regina Nuzzo
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences May 2005, 102 (21) 7415-7417; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0502415102
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 116 (8)
Current Issue

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Unacceptable Compromises
    • Freedom to Start Anew
    • Tracking Killer T Cells with BCL6b
    • Looking for Common Ground
    • Figures and Tables
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

News Feature: Cities serve as testbeds for evolutionary change
Urban living can pressure flora and fauna to adapt in intriguing ways. Biologists are starting to take advantage of this convenient laboratory of evolution.
Image credit: Kristin Winchell (Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis).
Several aspects of the proposal, which aims to expand open access, require serious discussion and, in some cases, a rethink.
Opinion: “Plan S” falls short for society publishers—and for the researchers they serve
Several aspects of the proposal, which aims to expand open access, require serious discussion and, in some cases, a rethink.
Image credit: Dave Cutler (artist).
Featured Profile
PNAS Profile of NAS member and biochemist Hao Wu
 Nonmonogamous strawberry poison frog (Oophaga pumilio).  Image courtesy of Yusan Yang (University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh).
Putative signature of monogamy
A study suggests a putative gene-expression hallmark common to monogamous male vertebrates of some species, namely cichlid fishes, dendrobatid frogs, passeroid songbirds, common voles, and deer mice, and identifies 24 candidate genes potentially associated with monogamy.
Image courtesy of Yusan Yang (University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh).
Active lifestyles. Image courtesy of Pixabay/MabelAmber.
Meaningful life tied to healthy aging
Physical and social well-being in old age are linked to self-assessments of life worth, and a spectrum of behavioral, economic, health, and social variables may influence whether aging individuals believe they are leading meaningful lives.
Image courtesy of Pixabay/MabelAmber.

More Articles of This Classification

  • Biography of Carol W. Greider
  • Biography of Mark T. Keating
Show more

Related Content

  • BCL6b mediates the enhanced magnitude of the secondary response of memory CD8+ T lymphocytes
  • Scopus
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited by...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Archive

PNAS Portals

  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Teaching Resources
  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Site Map

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2019 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490