Baitaluk Michael
San Diego Supercomputer Center, University of California - San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Methods Mol Biol. 2009;569:55-87. doi: 10.1007/978-1-59745-524-4_4.
A famous joke story that exhibits the traditionally awkward alliance between theory and experiment and showing the differences between experimental biologists and theoretical modelers is when a University sends a biologist, a mathematician, a physicist, and a computer scientist to a walking trip in an attempt to stimulate interdisciplinary research. During a break, they watch a cow in a field nearby and the leader of the group asks, "I wonder how one could decide on the size of a cow?" Since a cow is a biological object, the biologist responded first: "I have seen many cows in this area and know it is a big cow." The mathematician argued, "The true volume is determined by integrating the mathematical function that describes the outer surface of the cow's body." The physicist suggested: "Let's assume the cow is a sphere...." Finally the computer scientist became nervous and said that he didn't bring his computer because there is no Internet connection up there on the hill. In this humorous but explanatory story suggestions proposed by theorists can be taken to reflect the view of many experimental biologists that computer scientists and theorists are too far removed from biological reality and therefore their theories and approaches are not of much immediate usefulness. Conversely, the statement of the biologist mirrors the view of many traditional theoretical and computational scientists that biological experiments are for the most part simply descriptive, lack rigor, and that much of the resulting biological data are of questionable functional relevance. One of the goals of current biology as a multidisciplinary science is to bring people from different scientific areas together on the same "hill" and teach them to speak the same "language." In fact, of course, when presenting their data, most experimentalist biologists do provide an interpretation and explanation for the results, and many theorists/computer scientists aim to answer (or at least to fully describe) questions of biological relevance. Thus systems biology could be treated as such a socioscientific phenomenon and a new approach to both experiments and theory that is defined by the strategy of pursuing integration of complex data about the interactions in biological systems from diverse experimental sources using interdisciplinary tools and personnel.
一个著名的笑话故事展示了理论与实验之间传统上尴尬的联盟,并体现了实验生物学家与理论建模者之间的差异。故事是这样的:一所大学派一位生物学家、一位数学家、一位物理学家和一位计算机科学家去徒步旅行,试图促进跨学科研究。休息期间,他们看到附近田野里有一头牛,团队负责人问道:“我想知道怎样才能确定一头牛的大小?”由于牛是一个生物对象,生物学家首先回答:“我在这个地区见过很多牛,知道这是一头大牛。”数学家争辩说:“真正的体积是通过对描述牛身体外表面的数学函数进行积分来确定的。”物理学家建议:“我们假设牛是一个球体……”最后,计算机科学家变得紧张起来,说他没带电脑,因为山上没有网络连接。在这个幽默但具有启发性的故事中,理论家提出的建议可以被视为反映了许多实验生物学家的观点,即计算机科学家和理论家与生物现实相距太远,因此他们的理论和方法没有太大的直接用处。相反,生物学家的说法反映了许多传统理论和计算科学家的观点,即生物实验在很大程度上只是描述性的,缺乏严谨性,而且由此产生的许多生物数据的功能相关性值得怀疑。当前作为多学科科学的生物学的目标之一,是将来自不同科学领域的人聚集在同一“座山”上,并教会他们说同一种“语言”。事实上,当然,大多数实验生物学家在展示他们的数据时,确实会对结果提供一种解释和说明,而且许多理论家/计算机科学家旨在回答(或至少充分描述)具有生物学相关性的问题。因此,系统生物学可以被视为这样一种社会科学现象以及一种新的实验和理论方法,它由使用跨学科工具和人员从不同实验来源整合有关生物系统中相互作用的复杂数据的策略所定义。