Bob Phair wrote:
>> Pedro, too, is right. Theoretical work has regularly appeared in
> experimental biology journals. And with increasing frequency.
>> But with what impact?
>> How often does theory alter an experimental design in a mainstream lab?
> How often has theory solved a tough problem universally recognized as
> important?
>> Exposure is not the answer. We must solve a problem whose solution will
> make them gasp...a problem whose solution they have sought for years.
>> As I mentioned in response to Paul, I think the right problem is
> polygenic disease.
>> {Cheesh! Two soapboxes in one day!} :-))
>> --
> Robert D. Phair, Ph.D. rphair at ix.netcom.com> BioInformatics Services http://www.webcom.com/rphair> Partnering and Outsourcing for Computational Biology
Electrophysiology has depended upon mathematical analysis for a long
time.
Models of ion channel gating, selectivity and permeation are theoretical
constructs which have been experimentally probed for many years.
I agree though, that metabolic modelling does not get much attention in
experimental journals. I have never read a Journal of Theoretical
Biology
article, though I read articles in the Biophysical Journal, but usually
the
biophysically oriented ones. What is the audience for J of Theor.
Biol.?
Computer simulation, an important tool in modelling, has gotten
attention
in UCLA cardiovascular research. A group here headed by Drs. Weiss and
Garfinkel are using 2D computer simulations to probe ventricular
fibrillation
(asynchronous electrical stimulation of the heart and the cause of
300,000
deaths per year). And their work was published in the Journal of
Clinical
Investigation - usually very experimental, containing works on gene
knockouts,
vascular disease, etc...
