Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Should physicists study biology?

  1. Apr 25, 2005 #1
    Francis Crick figured out the structure of DNA with a
    degree in Physics!Should physicists be applying themselves to
    finding cures for medical diseases?
    In general,physics groups have more members and posts
    on the internet than other groups.Why are physicists so
    passionate/aggressive about their subject compared to other
    people?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 25, 2005 #2

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Most physicists haven't a clue about how to do good medical research.
     
  4. Apr 25, 2005 #3
    First, I don't want to descriminate biologists and doctors, but physics is a much more interesting and wide subject for research than biology.

    Second, it's not that physicist are more agresive than others, but if there are more physics forums it is because physics is a theme more atractive to amateur people who can easily design their own ideas, concepts, theories....
     
  5. Apr 25, 2005 #4

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    That's simply ridiculous.
    I fully agree.
     
  6. Apr 25, 2005 #5
    ok, maybe I didn't exactly manifested my opinion correctly.


    being more exact, physics resereasch is more interesting than biological research to most of the people. because of my second statement (theory development) and because it is simply more wide: meaning that it's themes are the biggest themes of all.
     
  7. Apr 25, 2005 #6

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    "meaning that it's themes are the biggest themes of all."

    Would you mind telling us what "metric" you are using here?

    So far all you have done is state opinions and value judgements as if they were facts.
     
  8. Apr 25, 2005 #7

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Physics is probably more widely appealing than biology; that certainly seems to be the case. If I had to guess, I'd say it's because conceptual physics can be understood by the common man a little easier, who then thinks he knows physics. Biological systems in general are incredibly more complex than physical systems and are more difficult to conceptualize. That said, popular biology in the form of zoology is still pretty popular. The ratings of the Discovery Channel and Animal Planet, shows like the Crocodile Hunter, while not exactly serious biology, are still widely appreciated. It may just be that there are more popular physics writers that write for the layman than there are popular writers that do the same for biology. Aside from appeal to the layman, though, I'm pretty sure that biology is a more popular major in US universities at this point; in fact, it may be one of the single most popular majors out of all of them, if only because the employment prospects are huge with the boom in molecular genetics and medical research.

    To answer the question, though, no, physicists should study physics. Whatever they want to study on their own time they can, but they shouldn't be required to learn biology nor should they be conducting much biological research outside of biophysics. Crick was able to do what he did because of his expertise in x-ray crystallography, a technique that wasn't widely employed by biologists at the time.
     
  9. Apr 25, 2005 #8

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Perhaps to most people on this site, because it is a physics forum, but you'd have a hard time proving that to me in the general population.

    Statements like this make me think that perhaps physicists should study biology, because at least some physicists seem to have a pretty limited view of what biology is all about and the variety of research topics and unknowns in the field.

    In response to the original question, it depends on what you mean by should. If you mean should all physicists be required to study and learn biology and apply their physics to biology, no, there's no need for it (though it wouldn't kill them to learn it if they were interested). If you meant should some physicists consider biological applications for their research, sure, that would be great, and yes, they would need to study biology in as much depth as they study physics in order to bridge the fields.

    I'm biased, but I'd love to see physics students required to learn some biology, just as us biologists had to learn some physics. We didn't learn enough to become physicists by a long shot, but having a little taste of it reminds us that none of the sciences exists in total isolation from the other sciences. We've basically taken parts of our physical universe and divided them up among three main branches of scientific inquiry, but they are all interrelated at varying levels.
     
  10. Apr 25, 2005 #9

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    1) If Sagan had studied more biology, he wouldn't have made such silly statements in his debate with Ernst Mayr (Nereid ducks, as the shower of rotten tomatos from the physicists starts).
    2) Although specific examples are not reliable guides, I recently heard of an astrophysicist, who was studying GRBs, did some work on determining the most appropriate gamma radiation treatment regime for individual cancer patients, as part of her sabbatical ... she is so emotional about how her work may result in 'giving life' to cancer patients that she doesn't want to return to her home university (and continue studying the esoterica of GRBs)
    3) The intellectual challenges in both fields are both many and deep; that a person with familiarity with one field may find a spark to creativity in applying/extending approaches common in the other is to be welcomed (and should also serve as an antidote to arrogance).
     
  11. Apr 25, 2005 #10
    college should be a 7 years programmwhere you need to learn math computersci, physics, biology and chemistry =]
     
  12. Apr 26, 2005 #11
    I will try to answer all at once.

    1) I never said that physicist should not study biology, no way, I think they should, to have a bigger general understanding.

    2) I also think biologists should study soe physics fenomena, like electricity, magnetism, sound...(for ex. wales comuncation, turtoils orientation....)

    3) I do think more people seem interested in physics not only in this forum but in genral, not by a much bigger percentage, and it is because physics is a much mor strange thing and many of the great scientists were physics 8bigger percentage than biology, not too much). And iot is because biology is something that touches us from very near.

    4) Last but not least, when I say that physics is wider I mean that physics makes the biggest questions of all, and has to do with universal things (most biology as I said is near us, in the earth): forces, energy, mass......some so so wide concepts that are really dificult to explain.
     
  13. Apr 26, 2005 #12

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Guille:
    Apart from experiments, the physicist's main tool for investigation of the world (i.e, the study of what various mathematical models predict along with the development of such models) is simply inadequate for the study of biological system.
    The inadequacy is not to be understood that it would have been logically contradictory to develop mathematical models in order to study biology; rather, the sheer complexity of a biological system means that the maths involved would either be far too simplistic yielding grossly inaccurate predictions, or the maths would be so UGLY that no predictions worth mentioning could be gleaned from it.
    The study of large dynamical systems is extraordinarily difficult from the mathematical point of view, and the tools that physicists are in possession of now are totally unsuitable for a worthwhile application of them in biology.
     
  14. Apr 26, 2005 #13
    Arildno,

    I never said, or meant to say, that physics experimentation and way of wroking should be introduced in biology or vice versa. I said that the profesionals of each science should ahve a wide-enough knowledge to understand some things in their areas. Just to remember, math isn't all physics.
     
  15. Apr 26, 2005 #14

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    As far as I know, most, if not all, universities in the US require biology majors to take at least a year of physics (many general physics sequences last a year and a half).
     
  16. Apr 26, 2005 #15
    well that's good. :smile: I didn't know though.
     
  17. Apr 26, 2005 #16

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I started with saying "Apart from experiments,.." so I do know that maths is not all of physics.

    It is, basically, an impossible dream you want to have realized then?
    The field of biology is far too vast for anyone to have more than the most fleeting acquaintance with most of the field.
     
  18. Apr 26, 2005 #17
    and also in physics. and yes, it is my dream on science, well, one of them, but who cares. I don't say theat physics have to know all biology or most,but as much as possible. Actually they don¡'t have to, but should and that is my last word in the discussion, sorry.
     
  19. May 2, 2005 #18
    Other way, make the Biology guys learn something about basic statistics and mathematical science, not necessarily physics.
     
  20. May 2, 2005 #19

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Those working with issues where these topics are relevant do.
    Don't regard biologists as dumb, just because they aren't primarily interested in physics&maths.
     
  21. May 2, 2005 #20
    They should certainly be aware of it and respect it, but whether they study or not, it is up to them.

    Who are we to tell other physicists what to do? Since when was science so restraining?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?