current state of the art
beverly at cs.wisc.edu
Thu Nov 7 10:14:47 EST 1991
In article <9111042128.AA03563 at alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> mroussel at alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes:
>In article <kgstbfINNpbv at agate.berkeley.edu> dean2 at garnet.berkeley.edu
>(Dean Pentcheff) writes:
>>In article <DAVIS.91Oct22132657 at pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu>
>>davis at pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu ("John E. Davis") writes:
>>Why not more? Biologists tend
>>not to be mathematically astute (gross generalization, but...)
> I would really like to hear more from biologists on this subject.
>Does it bother you that a lot of interesting biological work is being
I am a biologist with a degree in math from MIT. I don't consider myself
to "not be mathematically astute". Most of the questions that biologists
find interesting have not yet been shown to be amenable to mathematical
analysis. Biophysics issues like blood flow require so many simplifications
for analysis that they aren't very biological. The question of WHY
biology doesn't behave like physics has been debated by people for years.
I remember a Freeman Dyson lecture/essay about just this.
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
More information about the Comp-bio