current state of the art

[Beverly Seavey]

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