Chapter 1 – Introduction  11

Question dogma. Always question dogma.

Be curious about the natural world. Endlessly curious. Keep on asking questions.

And when you think you have found the answer, well… think again….

Enjoy this book. Please let me know if you have or haven’t. I’ll aim to make it better the next time.

1.5  SUMMARY POINTS

◾We can treat physical science techniques applied to biology problems as a “toolbox,”

but we must be mindful that these tools are often hard to use and expensive.

◾Physical scientists might wish to help biologists to think of the big questions and

can consider building established balanced, long-​term, dialectical collaborations as

an alternative to providing transient technical support services.

◾Relentless progress on producing new physical science tools emerges, which then

can offer different biological insights, but many old tools can still provide powerful

details.

QUESTIONS

1.1

One criticism by some physical scientists in liaising with biologists, at the risk of

propagating a stereotype, is that biologists just “don’t have the math!” Do you think

this is true? Is it actually possible to convey complex mathematical ideas without, for

example, writing down an equation?

1.2

Some biologists complain, at the risk of propagating a stereotype, that physical scientists

simply do not have a good appreciation of the complexities of biology and lack the required

knowledge of basic biological and chemical details to help them to understand even the

simplest processes inside living cells. Do you think this is correct? Is there anything that

physical scientists could do to improve this hypothetical situation?

1.3

Ernest Rutherford, described by many as the father of nuclear of physics, suggested

famously that “all science is either physics or stamp collecting.” Discuss how modern

biology is stamp collecting. Then think again, and discuss how modern biology is

more than just stamp collecting.

1.4

I’ve suggested that there is no such thing as a dumb question. But do you agree? In

terms of biophysics and the physics of life, are there some things which are so obvious

that any questions concerning them really are stupid?

REFERENCES

KEY REFERENCE

Hodgkin, A.L. and Huxley, A.F. (1952). A quantitative description of membrane current and its appli­

cation to conduction and excitation in nerve. J. Physiol. 177:500–​544.

MORE NICHE REFERENCES

Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of

Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, Salt

Lake City, UT.

Kendrew, J.C. et al. (1958). A three-​dimensional model of the myoglobin molecule obtained by x-​ray

analysis. Nature 18:662–​666.

Maxwell, J.C. (1873). A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, 3rd ed. (June 1, 1954). Dover

Publications, New York.

Popper, K.R. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge &

Kegan Paul, London.