There is still considerable skepticism in many quarters regarding the utility of mathematical models in molecular biology. Those of us who do model are frequently required to justify our activities. The preferred justification is the ‘you can’t argue with success’ rationale, which can be used in cases where you already have a working model on hand that’s generating accurate predictions and yielding useful insights.
Unfortunately, in cases where you have yet to build that model, it is necessary to resort to other, more long-winded justifications for modeling. This Gilman and Arkin review nicely sums up the reasons I typically give for modeling:
The detailed models we examine demonstrate the principal strength of modeling: It is a means to formulate all available knowledge about a system in as precise a manner as possible Continue reading “Why We Model”
Over at Ars Technica’s Nobel Intent, Robert Fortner takes a long, insightful look at synthetic and systems biology:
So far, neither systems nor synthetic biology has been able to find an unambiguous anchor point from which to spin a web of equations enclosing living matter. Instead, systems biology models grow and grow, but the end result is a molecular anatomy of overwhelming detail. Without models, making use of this mass of knowledge for medical applications becomes very difficult. Although synthetic biology begins at the bottom and looks up, it eventually comes face to face with the same complexity that systems biology sees peering from the top down. In either direction, the more we look, the more we find. In the pincer movement of systems and synthetic biology on complexity, complexity is winning.
Complexity certainly kicked my ass this summer.
Suffice it to say that earning the title Predator X should require a resume loaded with specific instances of statistically significant bad assery[1]. Big fangs or some kung fu lessons might get you Predator L or, even, E, but we are talking about Predator Freaking X here. By law, Predator X must be one bad mother. . .
Shut your mouth!
I’m talking ’bout Predator X.
Then we can dig it.
Predator X[2] was a pliosaur, a group of prehistoric marine reptiles (within the order plesiosauria) characterized by large body size, long heads, short necks, conical teeth, four flippers, and eating tasty things that had the misfortune to be smaller than them. Basically, pliosaurs were sea monsters, and sea monsters are already pretty bad ass.
Originally discovered in 2006, Predator X was the subject of a History channel documentary in 2009. Predator X was the subject of all manner of articles with the notable exception of the academic, peer-reviewed variety[3]. Hmmm, the publicize before peer-review strategy sounds familiar to me.
What makes Predator X deserve all this attention? According to the team from the University of Oslo Natural History Museum Predator X stands out even in a clade of sea monsters:
Its anatomy, physiology and hunting strategy all point to it being the ultimate predator – the most dangerous creature to patrol the Earth’s oceans – quoted in New Scientist (link to original press release no longer available[4])
Wait, did I just say University of Oslo Natural History Museum? What does that remind me of? Continue reading “Predator X: Too Bad Ass for Peer-Review?”
Is it the end of the world? 2012? An optical illusion? Continue reading “House of the Rising Sun”
The Finch and Pea 