A Mathematician, a Computer Scientist, and a Biologist Walk in to a Bar...
Today was the first day of the Algebraic Biology conference at RISC in Hagenberg. The talks on tap were quite a mix of biology and mathematics. This is, of course, what they were aiming for, but it is certainly different than anything I have ever seen. There was also a pretty even mix of 'published paper' presentations and 'tutorials', the former being focused on papers in the conference proceedings while the latter were simply intended to be an introduction to some topic.
The motivation for the event was the following: Biology, and the life sciences in general, is quite qualitative in its development. There is a lot of measurement and numerical data, but largely this results in probabilistic models that suggest the ways in which life on our world work. A growing number of people, however, believe that biology should become a more certain, quantitative discipline. One where experimental results are more certain and models for the world are more reliable. There is not yet a multitude in this state, I think, but there were plenty of them at the conference today.
Accordingly, these people are getting together for the second year in a row to see how computer science and algebra might make the study of biology better. Both sides have the chance to speak; after a mathematical talk on simplifying equations we might find a description of some current research in Parkinson's Disease. The goal is that biologists need to know the solutions that computer scientists and mathematicians have come up with for various problems, to see if they can find things which will help them in their work. In the same way, computer scientists and mathematicians need to learn about the problems that biologists face in biology, so that they might come up with better solutions and methods to suggest.
My personal experience was quite lopsided, especially in comparison with the conference I attended just a few days ago. Today when listening to the various talks, I learned things, but very few were direct and consistent with the goals of the speaker. When a mathematician was up front, I understood and recognized most of the ideas presented. On the other hand, when a biologist got up to speak, I usually was lost within the first 10% of the presentation.
It got me to thinking about whether the biologists in the room were having a similar, but reversed, experience. Sometimes it seemed that the computer science types were the better speakers, although this was certainly not the universal case. However, the talks I heard from that field seemed very accessible. Surely, I thought, the biologists would have some capacity to follow them better than I could follow the presentations they gave.
I discussed it with a few people so far. It seems like the CS/Math people had experiences similar to me. I have not discussed this enough with the biologists at the conference to make any conclusions. One interesting conversation, though, transpired with one man: He has a biology background and is also attending the summer school with me. He said that he had trouble following the CS talks, but was sometimes able to keep up. What intrigued me was that he mentioned a specific talk as being more lucid than the others, but it was not the one I expected to be the clearest to someone in his situation.
Clearly, more research is needed.
The motivation for the event was the following: Biology, and the life sciences in general, is quite qualitative in its development. There is a lot of measurement and numerical data, but largely this results in probabilistic models that suggest the ways in which life on our world work. A growing number of people, however, believe that biology should become a more certain, quantitative discipline. One where experimental results are more certain and models for the world are more reliable. There is not yet a multitude in this state, I think, but there were plenty of them at the conference today.
Accordingly, these people are getting together for the second year in a row to see how computer science and algebra might make the study of biology better. Both sides have the chance to speak; after a mathematical talk on simplifying equations we might find a description of some current research in Parkinson's Disease. The goal is that biologists need to know the solutions that computer scientists and mathematicians have come up with for various problems, to see if they can find things which will help them in their work. In the same way, computer scientists and mathematicians need to learn about the problems that biologists face in biology, so that they might come up with better solutions and methods to suggest.
My personal experience was quite lopsided, especially in comparison with the conference I attended just a few days ago. Today when listening to the various talks, I learned things, but very few were direct and consistent with the goals of the speaker. When a mathematician was up front, I understood and recognized most of the ideas presented. On the other hand, when a biologist got up to speak, I usually was lost within the first 10% of the presentation.
It got me to thinking about whether the biologists in the room were having a similar, but reversed, experience. Sometimes it seemed that the computer science types were the better speakers, although this was certainly not the universal case. However, the talks I heard from that field seemed very accessible. Surely, I thought, the biologists would have some capacity to follow them better than I could follow the presentations they gave.
I discussed it with a few people so far. It seems like the CS/Math people had experiences similar to me. I have not discussed this enough with the biologists at the conference to make any conclusions. One interesting conversation, though, transpired with one man: He has a biology background and is also attending the summer school with me. He said that he had trouble following the CS talks, but was sometimes able to keep up. What intrigued me was that he mentioned a specific talk as being more lucid than the others, but it was not the one I expected to be the clearest to someone in his situation.
Clearly, more research is needed.