Do you have to be a genius to do nuclear/particle physics?

[Mishra]

Hello,

I am an undergraduate physics student (graduating next year) and will soon have to choose my field after a 6months intership in the private sector. Even if this internship could open my mind about the corporate world, I am fairly sure I want to do a Phd.

I've taken a few labs and courses on different fields such as biophysics, structural biology, biotechnology etc. All of that is very interesting and seems to be a good move careerwise.

But the more I try other stuff, the more I realize I want to know all about the standard model, understand quantum field theory, general relativity etc. Even though I am not a beast at math, I still love it, enjoy a nice looking equation, and have fun understanding how things work. Basically I have more fun thinking about Lagrange's equations than watching Seinfeld.

But here's my problem: all those years studying physics I realized pretty much all the physicists were some 16 years old genius getting their Phd at 18, and producing a game changing theory at 20. Considering I've failed 2 times (had to redo my first and second years of bachelor), is it worth it for me to keep doing physics ?

I am clearly getting better at what I do, but is there room in particle physics for people like me or do you have to be a genius to work in that field ?

 

[ellipsis]

Hard work and determination always beats creativity and genius. (That is to say, there is no such thing as a lazy genius)

 

[mfb]

But here's my problem: all those years studying physics I realized pretty much all the physicists were some 16 years old genius getting their Phd at 18, and producing a game changing theory at 20.

That is not true independent of the set of physicists you consider, and you have (at least) two effects that will lead to a bias:
- you mainly hear about scientists that found game changing theories, most scientists never get famous
- science was different several decades ago, there were less existing theories you had to know before you could go beyond those

 

[Vanadium 50]

I realized pretty much all the physicists were some 16 years old genius getting their Phd at 18, and producing a game changing theory at 20.

Where did you get that? Apart from the idea that the only value in science is theoretical (and game changing), it's not true. Weinberg and Jones (18910–18914, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1102895108) looked at Nobel Prize winners and the mean age in which scientists did their Nobel prize winning work was done is in their late 40's.

 

[QuantumCurt]

Your perceptions are very common, but they are not really true. The vast majority of physicists are not Newton, Einstein, Hawking, Feynman, Dirac, etc. The majority of them are normal people that genuinely enjoy math and physics, and have worked their butts off to get good at it. The typical physicist is not the vision that people often conjure up of some born genius that completes an undergraduate degree at age 16 and completes a doctorate by 19. These people are incredibly scarce. However, there are thousands upon thousands of physicists that have made real, meaningful contributions to physics that you have simply never heard of. The most useful fields of physics often tend to be the least romanticized fields. Fields like cosmology and string theory capture imagination in a very big way, but they don't have nearly the impact on the real world that fields like condensed matter and biophysics have. People rarely romanticize condensed matter physics though.

Point being, no, one does not need to be a born genius to become a scientist. Many of the greatest scientists in history have been awarded Nobel Prizes, but many of them have not. Unfortunately, only one of them is given out every year. In either case, one does not need to win a Nobel Prize to make meaningful contributions to a field.

 

[e.bar.goum]

I know many many successful physicists. I myself am a nuclear physicist (but it's a bit to early to tell if I'll be successful ) . I don't know any who were 16 year old geniuses and go their PhD's at 18. However, they all are extremely hardworking, dedicated and passionate about their work, as ellipsis pointed out. Don't get me wrong, they all are very clever, but that's a necessary, not sufficient condition.

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

It's kind of an anachronism, as an outsider my impression is that it's a pretty dead field by comparison to say, neuroscience. I'm not really sure why anybody would want to enter a dying field of study. Since dying fields have minimal funding prospects, the bar automatically heightens, but you might be able to get into it if you're average.

 

[e.bar.goum]

It's kind of an anachronism, as an outsider my impression is that it's a pretty dead field by comparison to say, neuroscience. I'm not really sure why anybody would want to enter a dying field of study. Since dying fields have minimal funding prospects, the bar automatically heightens, but you might be able to get into it if you're average.

What? Nuclear physics or particle physics? Two rather different fields.

But sure, I'll just go tell my rather vibrant, large, research group, that our field is dead, and we may as well go home.

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

Well the NSF appropriates something on the order of no money to Nuclear/Particle stuff, again by comparison with say, neuroscience or biochemistry. There was a study of the language used in Arxiv abstracts from condensed matter and nuclear/particle/cosmology (I believe they lumped all of them together) and condensed matter had much more variation in its buzz words with time. Of course maybe CM people are more prone to invent new buzz words, but the alternative explanation is that it's a much more active field with a greater demand for new buzz words. I'm not saying you shouldn't work on nuclear physics or that there is nothing left to do, but that perhaps one should be very careful about how they justify such a decision given the state of the subject.

So the point is that it's apparently far more stagnant than other exciting regions of the scientific world, including the world of physics, which I think goes a long way towards explaining the impression many young physics students get that you need to be a genius to enter it.

 

[e.bar.goum]

Well the NSF appropriates something on the order of no money to Nuclear/Particle stuff, again by comparison with say, neuroscience or biochemistry. There was a study of the language used in Arxiv abstracts from condensed matter and nuclear/particle/cosmology (I believe they lumped all of them together) and condensed matter had much more variation in its buzz words with time. Of course maybe CM people are more prone to invent new buzz words, but the alternative explanation is that it's a much more active field with a greater demand for new buzz words. I'm not saying you shouldn't work on nuclear physics or that there is nothing left to do, but that perhaps one should be very careful about how they justify such a decision given the state of the subject.

So the point is that it's apparently far more stagnant than other exciting regions of the scientific world, including the world of physics, which I think goes a long way towards explaining the impression many young physics students get that you need to be a genius to enter it.

I'm trying not to get my hackles too far up here.

Let's start with keeping in mind that not all physics is done in the US. However, the US nuclear community is pretty dang active. At the moment, NSCL is in the process of building a ~ half billion dollar new accelerator for rare beams called FRIB, which is really exciting for the field. That's where a fairly large amount of the money the US for nuclear physics is going, but there are plenty of other smaller facilities in the US that do interesting and important work, and tonnes around the world (Europe & Japan & India are powerhouses, and China is throwing a whole lot of money around, but there are labs everywhere). Yes, a few labs have shut down, but that's what you get in physics.

Nuclear physics is so far from being "done" it's not even funny - we don't understand a whole heap about the nucleus. Most of that reason is because nuclear physics is hard -- the nucleus is an excellent testing ground for finite quantum systems, and is the only field that needs to consider all of the fundamental forces of nature at once (ok, gravity only needs to be considered on occasion, but there is plenty of theory work being done R.E. neutron star interiors). However, it is a fairly well established field, so we have fewer buzzwords.

Thirdly, condensed matter physics has been the biggest field of physics for a very long time. Something like 70% of all active physicists are condensed matter physicists. That's not really that hard to explain - there's plenty of money in it, plenty of applications, and much of what we interact with is in the condensed phase. So of course there are a lot of buzzwords and movement. That doesn't make smaller fields "stagnant" or less exciting (CM stuff seems rather dull to me, but that's a personal thing), it just makes them smaller.

Ditto biology. Of course biochem/neuroscience/whatever has more money. It's (a) really expensive to do biology, and (b) is very easy to motivate the funding for.

ETA: And I didn't even get into particle physics. It has different challenges to those facing nuclear physics, but it is also at a pretty exciting crossroads.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Well the NSF appropriates something on the order of no money to Nuclear/Particle stuff, again by comparison with say, neuroscience

Really?

The NSF's Cognitive Neuroscience Program is $8M per year. NCSL alone is $21.5M. NSF HENP is probably about $80M total, more if you include particle astrophysics. DoE is $1.3B for HENP.

 

[ellipsis]

I think the topic is straying from the original point: You don't have to be a rocket scientist to do nuclear science. As an aside, I can't see why frequency of buzzwords* would be a metric for potential avenues of research. Academic dishonesty, maybe.

If you go into a field chiefly because there's money being thrown around (in lieu of personal passion)... good luck.

*** buzzword: an important-sounding usually technical word or phrase often of little meaning used chiefly to impress laymen

 

[Catria]

No. You know the skillset required to become a nuclear/particle physicist though.

What do you want out of nuclear/particle physics? Build cutting-edge detectors? Process experimental data? Discover new theoretical stuff in nuclear/particle physics?

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

Well I seem to have minced my acronyms, I should have stated that the overall public funding for neuroscience positively dwarfs public funding for HEP/N physics, since it was 5.55B in 2011. Moreover I'm skeptical that the DoE budget Vanadium quotes is devoted mostly to fundamental nuclear physics, but admit that I'm no expert.

Again my goal wasn't to say that nuclear physics is completely dead, but the field is significantly more geriatric than other fields of physics and science. This is especially true of the fundamental particle physics the OP describes. The LHC is the collider we should be talking about here, and particle physics the subject. The results have so far been pretty disappointing (verifying a 50 year old theory and opening no new avenues is not an indication that there is a lot left to do in your field). There is a popular misconception courtesy of individuals like Michio Kaku or Brian Greene that this sort of stuff is an exciting, genuinely active field, but this is only if you don't consider healthy experiments to be a necessary part of describing a field as active.

Moreover I was not suggesting that you should pursue a field which has lots of funding because it has lots of funding. If HEP had an interplay between theory and experiment anywhere near as healthy as the structural biology/biophysics the OP refers to I'd say consider it even if the funding pool was a bit dry. Rather there tends to be some degree of financial growth in fields which are scientifically very active. The LHC for instance was envisioned decades ago, in a time when the future for HEP didn't look quite so grim, and managed to secure quite a bit of funding.

As far as not being passionate about more active subjects such as neuroscience is concerned, I find this to be quite bizarre. For starters, your daily existence as, say, a computational nuclear physicist and a computational biological physicist is probably going to be shockingly similar. It's a bit of an extreme case, but from my understanding there are lattice QCD codes operating in a kind of microcanonical ensemble (or at least exploiting the Euclidean connection between stat mech and field theory) and wind up numerically integrating coupled highly non-linear ODE's... which is precisely what you do when you study protein biophysics. Even if you're doing Monte Carlo integrations of diffusion path integrals and this is contrasted with solving SDE's for a full cell simulation, which are mathematically and computationally different, you're still writing codes, debugging them, writing more codes, running codes, debugging, debugging some more, debugging a bit more, etc. With this in mind it's quite peculiar that one would maintain a preference for nuclear over anything else. I don't get the philosophical motivations; I don't care if this or that is more fundamental, I just get curious about how the world works and in my case want to figure it out by writing codes and running simulations.

Maybe the more experienced people on these boards feel the philosophical feelings are more important than I give them credit for? I might have an overly myopic and pedestrian view of such things.

 

[mfb]

Well I seem to have minced my acronyms, I should have stated that the overall public funding for neuroscience positively dwarfs public funding for HEP/N physics, since it was 5.55B in 2011.

So what. Consider 10 subfields of neuroscience separately and the number is lower again.

The LHC just started, found a new particle already, ruled out various extensions of the standard model, has a significant potential to find other stuff with the increased energy (or at least rule out more alternatives), and there are many open questions in particle physics. It is an exciting and very active field, with more papers appearing than you could ever read.
Japan shows strong interest in a linear collider, and the Chinese plan to build another circular collider. Add the tons of neutrino experiments and various specialized experiments for rare decays, g-2 experiments, antiproton research, astroparticle physics and so on and you get a much broader picture than the popular press shows. And that is just particle physics, for nuclear physics you also have to add FAIR as big project and various smaller projects. ISOLDE is getting a nice upgrade, for example.

If HEP had an interplay between theory and experiment anywhere near as healthy as the structural biology/biophysics the OP refers to I'd say consider it even if the funding pool was a bit dry.

How much do you know about the interplay between theory and experiment in high-energy physics? I know how well it works.

 

[Mishra]

Let me start by apologising, I should not have mixed bio and particle physics in the same topic ;).

All joke aside, thank you all for you answer.
Also, since we derived there, do you feel like structural biology is an active field nowadays ? During my quest I've tried to find what physicist do in the biology field, and it seems like all of them are either doing medical imaging (which is not my cup of tea) or structural biology. Is there something else to it than solving structures (crystals seems random and solving a structure felt like black boxing) ?What I was wondering is: as a particle physics student, did you felt up to the task or is it a common feeling due to all the bias mfg mentionned ?...

No. You know the skillset required to become a nuclear/particle physicist though.

What do you want out of nuclear/particle physics? Build cutting-edge detectors? Process experimental data? Discover new theoretical stuff in nuclear/particle physics?

That's an other thing, I might be in this situation because this is still unclear to me. All I've really touched was theoretical physics. I can't say that my bachelor's lab work and computationnal training really gave me an idea of what experimental and computationnal physics really are... I mostly want to get into that field because it fascinates me.

 

[mfb]

What I was wondering is: as a particle physics student, did you felt up to the task or is it a common feeling due to all the bias mfb mentionned ?...

I'm in experimental particle physics, where nothing works without collaborations. It does not matter how bright you are, you cannot build a detector and analyze its data on your own. In other words: there is no person who found the Higgs. Only the collaboration of hundreds to thousands of scientists made this discovery possible.

 

[e.bar.goum]

I'm in experimental particle physics, where nothing works without collaborations. It does not matter how bright you are, you cannot build a detector and analyze its data on your own. In other words: there is no person who found the Higgs. Only the collaboration of hundreds to thousands of scientists made this discovery possible.

This is where I think it's important not to talk about nuclear or particle physics careers as "nuclear/particle physics careers" (which you didn't do, mfb, but your post proves a point). mfb highlights one of the important differences in the way nuclear and particle physics operates - while collaborations like ATLAS and CMS have thousands of collaborators, nuclear physics collaborations are much much smaller - on the order of 10 or so is usual. (This is due to a bunch of reasons. Mostly complexity, cost and energy scales, and diversity of physics)

As such, there tends to be much more ownership in your work, in that I (as someone in experimental nuclear physics) have to think about all aspects of my experiments, from "how do we produce this beam" to "what detector setup are we going to use" to "lets work out how to analyze this data". It's very rare to just be a "detector person" or just an "analysis person".

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

mfb:
Yes, there are unanswered questions, yes the LHC has accomplished great things, no, HEP is nowhere near as active as it was decades ago, in terms of the interplay between experiment and theory. You say there are more papers than I could ever read, which is true, but I'd rephrase that as more papers then I'd ever care to read, because I'm not interested in science fiction--er, supersymmetry, string theory etc, which makes up a substantial portion of theoretical output to this day (See: ten recent arxiv preprints in the HEP theory section. As of the day of this post, I counted 6/10 papers which have probably nothing whatsoever to do with reality). I'm not trying to say that the OP should under no circumstances enter the field, but that s/he should know full well what they are getting themselves into.

Mishra:
Unpacking the black box of a protein structure (or other biomolecule) is done either by experiments studying the dynamics or by computationalists; in the latter case, molecular dynamics simulations are a popular choice. At its most theoretical entirely new methods in statistical physics are developed to examine these problems. Critical dynamics in non-equilibrium systems are very difficult to study. It is at its most creative when one invents non-physical/non-physiological algorithms such as replica exchange Monte Carlo or umbrella sampling to calculate physical results, or when one develops techniques to extract non-equilibrium quantities from equilibrium simulations.

 

[mfb]

HEP is nowhere near as active as it was decades ago, in terms of the interplay between experiment and theory.

Do you have a reference for that claim?

because I'm not interested in [...]

That is okay - but do not use your lack of interest to claim it would not be interesting in general.

 

[Vanadium 50]

should have stated that the overall public funding for neuroscience positively dwarfs public funding for HEP/N physics, since it was 5.55B in 2011.

But that includes things like psychiatry. While it's probably true that a career as a psychiatrist - even a research psychiatrist - is more lucrative than one as a physicist, I don't think that's what either you or the OP had in mind.

Most of your messages really boil down to "this subfield doesn't appeal to me". I am fine with that, but not with taking it to the step - "therefore it shouldn't appeal to you either".

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

mfb:
Wikipedia has a timeline of fundamental particle discovery, which while probably not comprehensive illustrates my perspective. Between 1974 and 1983, 6 fundamental particles were discovered. Between 1983 and 2012, I count 3 fundamental particles, half as many in more than double the time. I would be curious to know what you think since this is clearly a birds eye view of the situation. Moreover supersymmetry and string theory have been dominant players in the realm of theory but have made no experimental contact to my knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_particle_discoveries

Vanadium:
I don't agree that I am projecting my subjective tastes, at least not entirely. The OP seems interested in the subject for the same reasons I was interested in the subject. When it became apparent to me that particle physics in particular (perhaps not nuclear physics) had poor theory/experiment contact compared with other branches of physics, and that the notion that particle physics is somehow more fundamental and that this makes it somehow more interesting (neither statement is really true) is silly, I lost all interest. Particle theory is an extremely popular topic among undergraduates due to what I think are widespread misunderstandings of the subjects current status and overall importance. At the end of the day it is still an interesting subject, but I know that I personally would have benefited more had I turned my attention to other physics sooner.

 

[gleem]

My two cents. I haven't read all the previous responses so I might repeat some ideas. No you do not have to be a genius, but you must be capable. As previously noted. Very few attain the universal recognition of a... you know them. But many many physicist have attained professional recognition by their peers. That's important. Interest is essential for it provides focus. But one still must have the tools to do the job. If you foresee a theoretical path then you really need to be a mathematician and be good at it. If you see an experimental path (as I) then you need practical skills and a good sense of how to implement your ideas. You must be comfortable in the "shop". Aside: a Rube Goldberg character can work in Physics too. There are not many courses for experimental proficiency so a lot of specific skills you will learn as you get involved with your research. You may find that patience is more than a virtue as an experimentalist. I know first hand. Patience with yourself, your fellow researchers, your projects. Long nights, no free weekends, little real family life. Belief in your goal keeps you going when things look bleak. Any way you can judge your abilities by comparing them to your peers. How do you rank in the necessary skills. Judge yourself honestly run it by your professors. Choose wisely. Oh! If you don't measure up someone will tell you before long.
..

 

[mfb]

@Arsenic&Lace: If you think the rate of new elementary particles discovered is a measurement of progress, then I fear further discussion is pointless.

 

[Vanadium 50]

If you think the rate of new elementary particles discovered is a measurement of progress, then I fear further discussion is pointless.

I agree.

 

[Mishra]

My two cents. I haven't read all the previous responses so I might repeat some ideas. No you do not have to be a genius, but you must be capable. As previously noted. Very few attain the universal recognition of a... you know them. But many many physicist have attained professional recognition by their peers. That's important. Interest is essential for it provides focus. But one still must have the tools to do the job. If you foresee a theoretical path then you really need to be a mathematician and be good at it. If you see an experimental path (as I) then you need practical skills and a good sense of how to implement your ideas. You must be comfortable in the "shop". Aside: a Rube Goldberg character can work in Physics too. There are not many courses for experimental proficiency so a lot of specific skills you will learn as you get involved with your research. You may find that patience is more than a virtue as an experimentalist. I know first hand. Patience with yourself, your fellow researchers, your projects. Long nights, no free weekends, little real family life. Belief in your goal keeps you going when things look bleak. Any way you can judge your abilities by comparing them to your peers. How do you rank in the necessary skills. Judge yourself honestly run it by your professors. Choose wisely. Oh! If you don't measure up someone will tell you before long...

So I guess the first step would be to define if I want to work as an experimentalist, a theorist or a "computationnalist". Maybe I should ask around to the doc and post-doc students I know at the university.

Also, I have taken many different courses from many different fields, QFT, GR, standard model, statistical physics, solid state physics, biotechnology lab, biophysics etc. And right now I am doing a lab (8h/week) in structural biology.
Basicaly, I've taken theoretical/applied courses from physics, and all sorts of biology from the Life science faculty (and as it turns out, all the biology prof. are physicists). I did this to open up to biology since I am wondering if I should leave physics. But now, my "file" tells I'm a Jack of all trades. Most of my fellow students are highly specialized already (mostly in solid state physics or optics). Will it be possible for me to find a Phd in nuclear/particle physics or am I too far out already ?

 

[mfb]

For a PhD position, previous experience in the field is nice but not required (especially in the US where you are not expected to have a MSc like in Europe).
Experimental nuclear and particle physics is a special case anyway, because it includes everything from detector development to data analysis. There are PhD positions where you construct some gas system for a detector, for example - it is still called nuclear/particle physics but lectures on the Standard Model do not help to design gas systems at all.

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

@Arsenic&Lace: If you think the rate of new elementary particles discovered is a measurement of progress, then I fear further discussion is pointless.

Weird, I'd lost respect for HEP theorists when it became clear that many of them do not understand the basic rules of empirical science, but it hadn't occurred to me that this applied to the experimenters too.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Weird, I'd lost respect for HEP theorists when it became clear that many of them do not understand the basic rules of empirical science, but it hadn't occurred to me that this applied to the experimenters too.

If you believe that progress in particle physics is measured solely by the number of particles discovered, do you believe that progress in chemistry is measured solely by the number of chemical elements discovered as well?

And it might not be a bad idea to think about waiting to lose respect for your peers until, you know, you actually become one of their peers.

 

[QuantumCurt]

It's incredibly bizarre to me that anyone could claim that the progress and merit of the entire field of particle physics should somehow be judged on the rate of discovery of new fundamental particles. With neutrinos alone, there have been a bounty of new discoveries in recent years that don't pertain to any new particles.

Should the success and merit of biology be based on the rate at which new species are discovered? That would be silly. There are countless things to study and research in biology that do not involve discovering new species, and there are countless things in particle physics to research that don't involve discovering new particles. Such as the particles that we already know about.

You're certainly entitled to your own opinions on this, but you might be better served to express your disagreement in a slightly more respectful and non-dismissive way.

Signed - an undergrad with a passion for particle physics

 

[gleem]

Will it be possible for me to find a Phd in nuclear/particle physics or am I too far out already ?

You have a very varied background. From what you have said there would be a few items of concern if they came to light. Your two years of substandard scholastic endeavor and your lack of focus regarding what you are interested in. You show indecision in your own mind about what you want to do. If a graduate program can get by this probably because of your recent outstanding performance? then you can try most any area you what. Specialization comes when you qualify for the Ph.D. program. You can combine Physics and Biology but you must decide so you can find the right program. Like I said if you are confident you can contribute to a field then give it a go. I would leave my options open as long as possible. But having said that you must chose a program that likes your background. They want people that they think will fit and contribute their programs. The Bachelor's degree is for a sound foundation in the fundamentals In the grad program you only need to commit to a research area after about two years.

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

I did not state that progress in HEP was solely measured by the number of fundamental particles discovered. Indeed, I stated:

I would be curious to know what you think since this is clearly a birds eye view of the situation.

which was intended to communicate that I am well aware that this is only one indicator.

Considering that a substantial portion of HEP theorists, from my vantage point, have adopted pseudo-scientific views (The theory is aesthetically pleasing, and therefore it is almost certainly true!), I do not need to be a professional to lose respect for them.

Again, my goal is to communicate to the OP that:
1. There's nothing special about HEP/Nuclear; people often quote philosophical reasons for entering these fields which are silly.
2. Both fields, from my vantage point, appear to be comparatively saturated and established. The comparison is to structural biology.

It would still be reasonable to enter the field, but I know for me that I personally was very interested in HEP until I realized points 1 and 2, at which point I completely changed where I was headed.

 

[gleem]

And it might not be a bad idea to think about waiting to lose respect for your peers until, you know, you actually become one of their peers.

Amen, something like don't judge a person until you have walked a mile in his moccasins.

 

[Mark Harder]

Your love of the subject is at least as important as some 'innate' intelligence. It and your determination will carry you through the rough spots you encounter.

My college biology adviser (my declared major was biochemistry) advised me to drop my math studies because of one D grade in one course, which was probably a 'separate the men from the boys' course for would-be math majors in a highly competitive college. I was also discouraged by a poor instructor in the one-quarter year course. So I pursued a career in biochemistry, which came to involve more and more math & physics as it progressed. But I still half-regret that early decision, because I have since discovered I have an ability to sit with an interesting math/phys problem for hours on end (sometimes) until I get it right. Einstein had this tenacity as well. The Germans call it 'sitzfleisch'. Granted, he was a genius and I am not. But both of us probably have/had severe cases of ADD. One peculiarity of people like us is that there is usually one thing, maybe 2, on which we can give this extreme 'hyperconcentration', as psychologists call it. Mine also seem to be math and music.

So my advice is to develop your 'sitzfleisch' ( roughly translated as 'sit yer meat', or what I would call ' park your a** and stay there until you're finished for the day (and night, if necessary) until you solve it, fall asleep, or answer one of the calls of nature '. Also, don't sell biophysics and biophysical chemistry short. There are problems in macromolecular structure and dynamics that will need challenging work for some time to come. Many of these are highly relevant to problems pharma companies encounter developing rational approaches to drug design.