Douglas Kell wrote:
>There is a thread going in this group, which I have been reading with increasing incredulity, of the ilk that 'biologists hate modelling, mainly because they can't do it, distrust anything that has to do with maths, stats or computers, and don't believe the answers anyway, and that if only it were otherwise life would be wonderful, all problems solved (and maybe MCA would be seen as the most wonderful innovation since sliced bread)'.
>May I just remark that this type of view is such a gross
overgeneralisation that it is almost drivel...
True enough, but whose remark is it? It seems to me to be yours Douglas,
as I can't find anything resembling it in the postings that have reached
me in the past month. Maybe you've been receiving some that don't make
it to Marseilles, but in any case please could you be more specific in
your criticisms, otherwise we are all mystified about whom you are
attacking.
Maybe you mean Paul Schlosser's
>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.)
but Paul was referring to a specific person who did indeed say it to
him, just as I (in my reply of 1 May) was referring to a specific person
who had written what I quoted. Pointing out that some biologists are
applying modelling hardly affects the observation that others in
positions of power are hostile to it.
Maybe you think that Arlin Stoltzfus invented the opinion that he
attributed to Brenner and Crick, but he didn't; whether we like it or
not that's what Brenner actually wrote:
>In late 1962, Francis Crick and I began a long series of conversations about the next steps to be taken in our research. Both of us felt very strongly that most of the classical problems of molecular biology had been solved...
Of course, that's what he thought in 1962, so maybe he doesn't think it
any more; however, in 1987 he was still happy enough about it to quote
it, and the manager of the Caenorhabditis elegans server feels happy
enough about it in May 1997 to post it without any editorial comment to
the effect that he thinks it's such a gross over-generalization that it
is almost drivel (or some such). You should check out the site
(http://eatworms.swmed.edu/Sydney.html) that Arlin recommended, Douglas;
it's worth a look, and it answers your question,
>(and what was that I heard about there being no new concepts to be developed in biology...?)
Athel
