Comments on: Can a Biologist Fix a Radio?

By: coturnix

coturnix — Thu, 03 Mar 2005 20:35:12 +0000

Hi, I found the link on Stacey’s site (though I am a regular reader here, not there) and, as a biologist, I liked the article. I do not see it as call-to-arms, though. But perhaps I do not see it the same way cell biologists see it….

By: Rawdeegee

Rawdeegee — Wed, 02 Mar 2005 20:36:31 +0000

I love it! As a software developer in a bioinformatics research group, I totally share this cynicism. It is unfortunate, but it seems that people will confuse a particular methodology with scientific rigour itself, and thereby acquire a “blind spot”. A too common scenario: A practitioner in one of the “more analytical sciences” (mathematics, computer science theoretical physics or chemistry, etc) proposes a novel approach to a biological problem. A “traditional biologist” will too readily dismiss the idea as being overly reductionist and somehow lacking the “ineffable” biology. (Never mind that many experimental protocols are themselves extremely reductionistic.)

By: Irina

Irina — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:56:50 +0000

I would agree with your friend. This paper is definitely a call to arms (and a really entertaining one at that). In fact, I think this paper makes a very intresting argument, that, if you squint a little, would apply to social science and the reasons for why HCI designers and computer scientists are so frustrated with social science and it’s rhetoric and it’s science. How would a social scientist fix a radio?

By: Stacey

Stacey — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 12:21:28 +0000

Hi Danah:

Thanks for the link to this article! I’m going to link to it from my own group blog on “Humans in Science.” Although it is definitely humourous (humoUr spelled with the ‘U’ on purpose!), I think I have to side with your friend. A lot of what the article had to say really resonated with my own experience as a biologist, and Figure 3 is a great illustration of exactly how biology would benefit from sharpening up its language and its thinking!