 Studies of immunity coupled to developmental biology, ecology, and evolutionary biology have balanced the molecularization of immunology with an organism-based orientation. Early advocates of such approaches, like Metchnikoff, described immunity in terms of cells and cellular interactions, a “biological” perspective extended by Burnet, who eclectically endeavored to include underlying molecular processes (Crist and Tauber 2000; Baxter 2006: 38). He presented immunity in terms of adaptation, selection, and population-level cell behavior, rather than solely in terms of chemical and physical molecular reactions. As already discussed, this broadened perspective introduced the ‘self’ into the immune lexicon and brought new figurative language associated with agency and a host of meanings borrowed from other human experience. And, complementing these holistic explanatory and narrative strategies, he also postulated the existence of molecular signatures of self and considered lymphocyte receptors as independent decision-makers mediating immune reactions based on their physical fit with cognate antigens (Burnet 1969). Thus, by representing cases of theoretical integration and explanatory heterogeneity, epistemic strategies adopted by Burnet and other organism-oriented immunologists fit into the inclusion of of plurality and unification increasingly regarded as necessary to capture the complexity of immune functions (cf. Dupré 1993; Mitchell 2003; Plutynski 2013).