Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Maths Becomes Biology's Magic Number (bbc.com)

Posted by msmash on from the changing-patterns dept.

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."

39 of 75 comments (clear)

  1. Re: Math vs Maths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ah, but Maths is 1\5 the betterer.

  2. Re:Math vs Maths by Dogtanian · · Score: 3, Funny

    In the US, Mathematics is abbreviated as "Math" (this article is tagged with "math"), not "Maths".

    I always felt sorry that you guys only had the one math.

    I thought of starting a fundraiser to buy you another mathematic. :-P

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  3. The Graduate (2016 version) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Son, let me give you a tip... data science.

  4. A bit of an exaggeration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You'll never end up being the guy designing the experiments or a CSO if you learn math/comp sci instead of biology. You may be hired by those guys to do some work, but that's about it.

  5. Clobbering With Statistics by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Clobbering reality with statistics is what you do when you don't have a theory to work with.

    It's kind of un-scientific, but it puts all that equipment to 'good use.'

    1. Re:Clobbering With Statistics by methano · · Score: 2

      This guy shouldn't be modded down. This is the first intelligent comment on this article that I've come across so far. This computation cure for cancer crap is just that, crap.

    2. Re:Clobbering With Statistics by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Clobbering With Statistics by xtsigs · · Score: 2

      Clobbering reality with statistics is what you do when you don't have a theory to work with.

      It's kind of un-scientific, but it puts all that equipment to 'good use.'

      Right. Statistical analysis has been useless in physics, why should we expect any better when applied to biology?

      Of course, some people actually think science is about determining probability in order to predict the future. Those in the know understand science is about making up cool facts that others can believe without evidence, like religion. We don't need even one math, so the idea of maths is just silly.

      (Sometimes I wish Slashdot had a desightful rating.)

  6. If it reduces the count of absurd results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    published, I am all for it. Every day we see articles with studies which cannot be statistically valid being flaunted. It's no wonder two thirds of them cannot be reproduced. If they only applied the analysis required by a first-year physics or chemistry student the world would be a lot nicer place.

  7. Well, duh. by karlandtanya · · Score: 3, Informative

    Without math, you don't have science, you're just collecting anecdotes.
    Really--I don't know what further to say. I'm just floored this is even a subject for discussion.

    --
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
    1. Re:Well, duh. by guises · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Well, duh. by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

      And it's more important to take the next step of identifying what is and isn't mathematics. Chemistry applies extensive use of mathematics though I've often questioned the underlying principles underlying their means of representing objects and effects. I seem to feel as if there must be massive amount of contradicting methods to describe molecular behavior. This in itself is alright, but have we actually observed this behavior and have we corrected the chemical mathematics to properly represent these observations?

      In addition, why is it that we use high school chemistry books today that are based on the same mathematics taught before the invention of the electron microscope. Did we actually understand molecular behavior so well that what we guessed before we had things like scanning tunneling microscopes was so accurate that we don't have to rewrite the books? Or are we just trying to observe only what will prove what we already know?

    3. Re:Well, duh. by jandersen · · Score: 2

      To be able to learn something about the physical world from someone who's been dead for 150 years is somewhat revelatory.

      Well, look at some the names that are prominent in science, especially mathematics:

      Euclid, ~2000 years ago, the father of, well, Euclidean geometry
      Isaac Newton, ~400 years ago, prominent contributor to classical mechanics and differential calculus
      Gauss, ~350 years ago, major contributor to just about anything, not least differential geometry
      etc

      In fact, most of the mathematics and physics you study as an undergraduate at university is at least 100 years old (apart from linear algebra, which is surprisingly young); the only major revolutions since then were general relativity and quantum mechanics, and that is close to a century ago now. What we have been doing since can be described as gap-filling, by comparison. Very important gap-filling, with immense value to all areas of modern life, but the next revolution in science is not going to come until we find a way to unify GR and QM.

    4. Re:Well, duh. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      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.

      Well, it may be false, but since the "modern era" is considered to have started sometime around 1600, it doesn't include Faraday in any case, so even if it were true, it wouldn't exempt him.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re:Well, duh. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I meant "the pre-modern era doesn't include Faraday", of course.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:Well, duh. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Modern logic is also surprisingly young. I'd include that in mathematics for sure.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    7. Re:Well, duh. by xtsigs · · Score: 2

      was impressed by how much he was able to demonstrate through nothing but rigorous qualitative experimentation.

      My Aunt Erma can telepathically communicate with her cat. Through rigorous qualitative experimentation, I have determined she can call her cat to her just using her mental powers. At least, it seems that way, perhaps more than 50% of the time. Maybe it just happens occasionally. No need to run the numbers, though. Without all those bothersome "statistics," I can tell you that Aunt Erma's cat telepathy is a sure thing because when the cat come and curls up on her lap, Aunt Erma says, "You heard me calling you, didn't you, you wonderful little fur ball."

      Good observation and imagination are critical to the scientific process, but they are just the beginning.

    8. Re:Well, duh. by karlandtanya · · Score: 1

      "Maths" is a lot more than arithmetic (A rat in Tommy's house...).
      The most important mathematical discipline in science is simple Boolean logic that (at least at one time) was taught as part of the freshman high school math curriculum. The tools of logical thought and formal deduction rather than "hand waving" explanations are the *first* requirements.

      More to the point of the article...
      Scientists generally organize themselves into a couple of different disciplines--simply because the skill sets (and technical requirements) tend to diverge:
      Statistical analysis and mathematical modeling (the subject of the article) are extremely important to both.
      The job of the theoretician is to produce a descriptive, predictive, and testable mathematical model and study that model. And to describe experiments and predict what the results might be *if* the model and the hypotheses it's built on are representative of reality.
      The job of the experimentalist is to determine whether the model is actually consistent with reality.

      Take as a timely example the theoretician's prediction of gravity waves, and around a hundred years later, the experimentalist's observation of same.
      Makes a nice ringtone...and a nice conversation starter--when folks ask "what's that noise", you can explain how science takes a lot of persistence and work.

      Of course, sometimes experimentalist invalidates the theoretician's model; this is when some of my old professors told me "I was writing Science Fiction...didn't mean to, but the results are in...". Of course you have the theoretician who refuses to submit to experiment, but that doesn't mean they're all charlatans.

      --
      "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
    9. Re:Well, duh. by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      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.

      This is the fault of both bad science teaching and bad history teaching. The history of science is generally taught as a barrage of "cherry-picked" historical anecdotes that make it look like a series of brilliant unerring people who always seemed to find their way progressing to the next advance. We rarely teach the failures in any depth, certainly not acknowledging the reasons why many learned people used to believe in different models or ideas. When we do bring up some failure -- like phlogiston, to take a prominent example -- it's often just to laugh at it. "Oh how quaint and ridiculous people were back then!"

      Meanwhile, general historians often no longer receive in-depth education in science and math, so they're ill-equipped to tackle specialized stuff like the history of science. They may be used to questioning "narratives of progress" or Whiggish history in other intellectual areas, but they don't have the expertise to critique the stories about science.

      For years, I've believed the best way to improve this would be to teach the Copernican controversy in some depth. No, not the stereotyped version of the Galileo affair where Science (now endowed with a capital "S") confronts "Ignorant Religion" and triumphs. I mean the real version when in 1633 -- when Galileo was on trial -- nobody had incontrovertible empirical evidence for the earth going around the sun. (That would have to wait until 1727, when James Bradley's chance observation of stellar aberration finally put heliocentrism on empirical footing.) In fact, throughout the 1600s, there were loads of people -- not just Galileo -- looking for things like parallax and Coriolis forces and other evidence of the earth's motion and not finding them. (These were not clearly observed until the 1800s.)

      So, contrary to the Galileo stereotype, it was a really tough situation for scientists to figure out what was going on in the heavens in the 1600s. Once Kepler came up with his ellipses (something Galileo rejected, preferring the perfection of circles, a la Ptolemy), there was at least something mathematically more elegant in favor of the heliocentric model. And by the time you have people like Newton coming along, trying to continue to do math in a geocentric (whether Ptolemaic or Tychonic) universe had become increasingly tedious.

      If you really want to know how learned people were trying to tackle this problem in the 1600s, it might be good to look at something like Riccioli's 1651 compilation of 126 arguments concerning the motion of the earth (49 in favor of the Copernican hypothesis, 77 against) as part of his 1500-page astronomical treatise. Unfortunately, they've never been translated to my knowledge from the original Latin, but you can read an English summary here.

      It's really amazing the sort of reasoned debate that was going on about issues like this. Lots of experimental evidence brought to bear, etc. If we had people who were training to become scientists have a look at stuff like this, they might get a much greater perspective and respect for earlier attempts to produce scientific knowledge... much better than fairytales about Galileo, or Newton getting hit on the head by an apple or whatever.

      And, frankly, it might be fodder for discussion of modern speculative theoretical physics, which also has headed toward divorcing itself from empirical verification (at least not in the near future for many theories) in pursuit of mathematical elegance. Newflash to those folks -- some parts of physics for most of its history has depended on major speculative theories with little empirical support. It might be instructive to look back at how earlier generations handled this problem.

    10. Re:Well, duh. by guises · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, they've never been translated to my knowledge from the original Latin, but you can read an English summary here [arxiv.org].

      Hey, that's pretty neat. Thanks. Never even realized arXiv had a "history and philosophy of physics" section.

    11. Re:Well, duh. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      why is it that we use high school chemistry books today that are based on the same mathematics taught before the invention of the electron microscope.

      What do you think has changed? Which parts are obsolete?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  8. Purity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    https://xkcd.com/435/ [xkcd.com]

    1. Re:Purity by cinnamon+colbert · · Score: 1

      mod up

  9. Re: And how many maths are there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    *please to doing the needful*
    FTFY

  10. nonsense by cinnamon+colbert · · Score: 2

    I was a graduate student under a very famous biologist
    and he often remarked, of all the physicists who have gone into biology, only one or two have made a substantial contribution - their minds don't work the right way
    True, we need math for clinical trials, and omics, but for biology you need a feeling for the organism

    1. Re:nonsense by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      Was this EO Wilson? If so, he was an idiot. If he wasn't EO Wilson, he was still an idiot.

    2. Re:nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:nonsense by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      But then, years later after the housing bubble popped, I had to leave the USA to find work - and ended up spending six years living and working in Southeast Asia. Well, long story short, Asia is a really big place - a whole lot more than just China, obviously. And now when someone invokes a generalization about "Chinese" people, I just shake my head and smile. There are a whole lot of different people in that part of the world.

      Unsurprisingly, the same thing goes for Europe, Africa, South America...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  11. history repeats by pcr_teacher · · Score: 4, Informative

    Physicists have been doing this for a long time. See Max Delbruck and the phage group in the 40's and 50's
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    1. Re:history repeats by bosef1 · · Score: 1

      Scientist and saint?

  12. Re:Consent isn't something women can actually do by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

    Have you actually met a women or are you basing this entirely on what you've seen on pornhub and xvidoes?

  13. Re:Math vs Maths by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    Clearly, mathematika is all Greek to you.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  14. Re:Math vs Maths by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    EtymologIcally, it is. But foreign words often dissociate themselves from their original morphology.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  15. Re:Math vs Maths by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

    No, that's why they need you to go to sleep.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  16. Re:Math vs Maths by mrbester · · Score: 1

    The -a ending implies a plural...

    --
    "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  17. Re:Math vs Maths by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Informative

    Would it make sense to have a mathematic? Would you put it on the same shelf as your economic?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  18. Re:Math vs Maths by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    Of course it does. That's why it works.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  19. A Case History In Scientific Method by srwood · · Score: 1

    B. F. Skinner's exposition of the appropriate approach to conducting science: http://courses.umass.edu/psyc241/Skinneracasehist.pdf

  20. Re:Biology? Neutrinos? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    Why not study newt-rhinos while you're at it?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20