In bionet.biology.computational article
<1991Nov7.174637.26500 at milton.u.washington.edu> Dr. Hayes writes:
> Certainly, the intersection of two fields often proves to be
> fertile intellectual ground. But at the same time, an awful lot
> of hogwash or even more fertile substances is produced at the
> same time.
and;
> What qualifies as "interesting work" for one person is a yawner
> to another. It may not have been the previous poster's intent
> to insult biologists, but he did a darn good job of it.
Hear, Hear! A little common sense enters this age old
discussion of how mathematically inept biologists are, and how
biologically inept mathematicians are...
Few individuals can bridge the gap between math/physics and biology,
and when most try the results involve so many simplifications that
they are no longer general, or even interesting for that matter.
What is the solution? Joint efforts for one, mathematicians and
biologists talking can only help, and joint training progams between
Applied Math and Biology programs will set the stage for the future.
So stop beating the long dead horse and get it together.
Chris Jordan
jordance at zoomaster.zoology.washington.edu
--
Domain: curtiss at umiacs.umd.edu Phillip Curtiss
UUCP: uunet!mimsy!curtiss UMIACS - Univ. of Maryland
Phone: +1-301-405-6710 College Park, Md 20742
