Increasingly it does (minus the artsy chick, some fantasies never die). Very few current articles in biology have been written by one or two people. Even those articles have a long list of people that the researchers relied on for technical and intellectual support. It's not Charles Darwin walking down the road any more.
While there may be great insights developed by single 'intuitive' biologists, the intellectual foundations of those insights are going to come from thousands of disparate people. DNA chemistry and sequencing is an example here - how many biologists understand the chemistry of the analyzers? How many chemists understand the software?
I don't think H.O. is really correct though. At the complexity level that biologists are working at 'intuitive' thinking isn't going to help much. Working the numbers will.
I'd rather train a mathematician to be a biologist than the other way around.
Source: http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdotScience/~3/9M2q6uv0OX0/story01.htm
montrose marshawn lynch earthquake bay area clear channel drexel dale george will
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.