Paul Schlosser wrote:
>*But* I think that many experimental biologists think
>that the processes are so complex as to be impossible
>to model, and "Who is this upity modeler who thinks
>he/she can learn enough about biology to describe it
>with math in a few months, when I have been studying
>this all my life and I know that even the greatest
>experts don't understand the biology completely." (This
>is essentially what I was told when I proposed the
>development of a model of the menstrual cycle.)
Lest anyone doubt that this is exactly what many experimentalists really
do believe, here is what a distinguished experimentalist once wrote (and
I'm sure many others have thought and still think):
"Because it is short and clearly written, the paper of Sauro & Fell
(1987) illustrates especially well three features that experimentalists
would strongly urge theorists to avoid: (1) unnecessarily complicated
treatment of essentially simple concepts; (2) careless choice of
assumptions, which result in conclusions that are not valid; (3) an
intellectual values system within which it seems self-evident that a few
hours of mathematical doodling can invalidate any amount of work and
thought by experimentalists." [D. E. Atkinson (1990) pp. 3-27 in
"Control of Metabolic Processes" (Cornish-Bowden, A. and Cardenas, M.
L., eds.), Plenum Press, New York]
Paul's invented question ("Who is this uppity modeler...") is almost a
paraphrase of point (3). I hasten to add that I do *not* share the
implied opinion about Sauro & Fell (1987) (beyond agreeing that it is
short and clearly written), even though I edited the book in which the
quotation appeared.
We fool ourselves if we do not recognize that experimental biologists do
not in general hold theory in very high esteem.
Athel
