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."

Comments

Re:Math vs Maths

[Dogtanian]

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

Clobbering With Statistics

[Bing Tsher E]

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.'

Re:Clobbering With Statistics

[methano]

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.

Re:Clobbering With Statistics

[LostMyBeaver]

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.

Re:Clobbering With Statistics

[xtsigs]

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.)

Well, duh.

[karlandtanya]

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.

Re:Well, duh.

[guises]

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.

Re:Well, duh.

[jandersen]

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.

Re:Well, duh.

[xtsigs]

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.

Purity

[Anonymous Coward]

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

nonsense

[cinnamon colbert]

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

Re:nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

history repeats

[pcr_teacher]

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/...

Re:Math vs Maths

[K. S. Kyosuke]

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

Re:Math vs Maths

[Hognoxious]

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