When Scientists Could Not Define the “Virus,” They Reinvented It
Paid subscribers get one week of early access to all AntiViral episodes. A full-year subscription is currently 25% off. [Learn more about what comes with the subscription here.]
In this episode of AntiViral, we explore the historical question that still haunts virology: What exactly is a “virus?”
From the earliest days of the field, scientists were never in agreement about what “viruses” actually were. Some believed they were tiny bacteria, others thought they were chemical poisons, ferments, or even processes generated within the host itself. For decades, there was no clear definition of a “virus,” and the concept remained fluid and speculative.
As historian of science William Summers acknowledged, the category of “virus” was essentially constructed and continually re-constructed by scientists over time. As scientific tools and theoretical frameworks changed, so did the definition of what a “virus” was supposed to be.
Eminent virologist Thomas Rivers acknowledged in the early 1930s that “viruses” were initially defined by absence: they were invisible under ordinary microscopes, passed through certain filters, and could not grow outside living cells. Even Rivers admitted that reliable data about the true nature of “viruses” was lacking.
French microbiologist André Lwoff later played a key role in redefining “viruses” in 1957 as genetic entities that depend on host cells. Yet even this modern definition largely relied on negative characteristics—describing “viruses” by what they supposedly lack rather than what they are.
Taken together, these historical sources reveal that the concept of the “virus” has never been stable. Rather than emerging from a steady accumulation of facts, the idea has evolved through shifting interpretations shaped by technology, theoretical trends, and the assumptions of researchers at the time.
For a more detailed examination, please see my article Inventing the Nature of “Viruses.”
The cover story mutates while projecting its signature to the script or prop.
Cover story serves as a masking defence.
identifying in vested defences as part of self, frames the mind we think with or the lens we see through.
The ability and willingness to look on the framing definitions or beliefs is a free awareness.
This cannot be forced on others -nor on ourselves.
Very good summary Mike, thanks. The video on isolation is tops!