Slashdot Mirror
Maths Becomes Biology's Magic Number (bbc.com)
In the middle of a discussion about the pros and cons of statins, Sir Rory Collins, the head of clinical trials at Oxford University, noted that If you want a career in medicine these days you're better off studying mathematics or computing than biology. A report on BBC adds: It is a nice one-liner, but I didn't think much more about it until a few days later, when I found myself sitting in a press conference to mark the launch of a new initiative on cancer. Rubbing shoulders on the panel with the director of the Institute of Cancer Research, Professor Paul Workman, was a scientist I didn't recognise, but it soon became clear this was exactly what Sir Rory had had in mind. Dr Andrea Sottoriva is an astrophysicist. He has spent much of his career searching for Neutrinos -- the elusive sub-atomic particles created by the fusion of elements in stars like our sun -- at the bottom of the ocean, and analysing the results of atom smashing experiments with the Large Hadron Collider at Cern in Geneva. "My background is in computer science, particularly as it applies to particle physics," he told me when we met at the ICR's laboratories in Sutton. So why cancer? The answer can be summed up in two words: big data. What Dr Sottoriva brings to the fight against cancer is the expertise in mathematical modelling needed to mine the vast treasure trove of data the information revolution has brought to medicine. "The exciting thing is that we can apply all the new analytical techniques we've developed in physics to biology," he says. "So we have all these new quantitative technologies that allow us to process an enormous amount of data, and all of a sudden we can start to apply that to implement the paradigm of physics in biology."
This hasn't always been the case. Michael Faraday had no formal degree and used hardly any math and yet contributed a great deal. I just watched a lecture series by him recently (reccomended) and was impressed by how much he was able to demonstrate through nothing but rigorous qualitative experimentation. I kinda have this impression, which I know to be completely false, that everyone prior to the modern era were total idiots who ascribed all natural phenomena to humorous vapors and spirits and the mumbling of witch doctors. To be able to learn something about the physical world from someone who's been dead for 150 years is somewhat revelatory.
Of course, most all of what can be learned that way has been learned that way. So you're not completely off base to say that you can't do science without math if you're talking about contributing to the sum of human knowledge, but a person who learns a thing through rigorous experimentation and application of the scientific method is still doing science, even if what they discover is already known to the broader scientific community.
I think the mistake we often tend to make is to believe that it is either one side or the other. Computing a cure for cancer is very likely a hopeless approach. On the other hand if we can at some point understand enough about DNA to identify cancerous anomalies and target them through custom tailored retroviruses or nano-tech, I figure... sure why not?
That said, I have been "volunteering" from time to time at a university's biochem department with regards to code optimization. I do this in exchange for lab access so I can learn learn a little about biochemistry. At this point what I've learned is that we really don't know anything at all about biochemistry and instead of focusing all our attention into developing tools that could maybe allow us to actually learn about it, we prefer these insane studies of protein folding an such.
I don't necessarily agree with the original article or how it was written in such a way to sensationalize instead of inform. I think the whole Plato/Socrates conversational thing is entertaining a times, but has very little value outside of philosophy and Hollywood. I do however agree with the sentiment suggesting that there is great value in getting an education that would allow you to make valuable contributions to the study of medicine by taking a less traditional approach.
Of course, I could just be speaking out of the side of my own ass. I like the idea of making improvements to scanning tunneling technology to possibly allow full mapping of a human cell. Then focusing on observing all the molecular interactions that explain the purpose of each part of the cell. Biology labs are almost always completely full of pretty white equipment that looks really really expensive. They even have fancy looking centrifuges.... which is a machine which spins stuff.... around in circles... and it probably cost more than my car (a BMW i3). If I as a computer nerd needed such a thing, I would get a power supply, a mosfet, a motor, an arduino and maybe an IR transmitter/receiver for good luck. Total cost... $100. Biology labs should be located in the same building as machine shops and electronic and mechanical engineers.
As someone who works at the Broad Institute and knows people from physics and finance who have gone into biology, I can say beyond a doubt that the OP's famous biologist must have either not read many papers, not understood how research works now, or was just not thinking much when that comment was made. I don't see how researchers in fields like genetics can get by without at least some programming/analysis/statistics skills - that's what the field is turning into.