Abstract

The history of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) -also known as Charcot's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, and motor neuron disease (MND) -freezes the texts of the scientist and physician Jean-Martin Charcot in a hagiographic narrative describing a brilliant discovery, based on the anatomoclinical method. This narrative is often used by biologists and physicians as a reference point. This article shows that the use of the hagiographic register faces limitations. In particular, it obscures points of interest from Charcot's texts on ALS, such as the epistemological and ontological implications of scientific plurality in medicine. Although Charcot recognized the importance of scientific plurality in medicine, he prioritized the approaches and conferred the most important epistemic authority on clinical and pathological observations. In his view, animal modelling remains secondary to the understanding of disease. The concept of ALS and its diagnostic operability are the result of an association of symptoms and lesions. By studying the past, we can highlight the specific features of the present. Today, although the ALS concept retains its diagnostic and clinical relevance, it is increasingly called into question in etiological and mechanistic research. Despite these differences, Charcot's reflections are a reminder of the importance of theoretical thinking on scientific plurality, all the more so today in the context of ALS research, in which combining different approaches is increasingly valued to understand the phenotypic and genetic heterogeneity of ALS.