[not replying to the bug to avoid surcharging it.] Le Mon, May 15, 2006 at 06:42:06AM +0200, Francesco Pietra a écrit : > Mathematics > Physics > Biology > Medicine > > Maybe I am overlooking one or two important "cuts". Suggest. These sections > allow interdisciplinary contacts. Today, more perhaps than ever, it is hard > to do good science that is not interdisciplinary. The more you cut into > pieces, the more you isolate scientists because, for economy reasons, one > tends to scan only his specialized section. > > These are my ideas of an university organic chemist with parallel education > in biological sciences. In particular, i am against "tasks" with respect > to "disciplines". Tasks change with small changes in the society. Disciplines > are for a long time a reference point.
Dear Francesco, I am just reading a paper in which researcher designed a microfluidic chip to analyse the gene expression in isolited cells. Typically, they may have used programs from : - Engeneering/Electronics, to design the chip. - Science/Biology, to deal with the sequence-specifig gene expression analysis. - Mathematics, to plot the results. Would not it be better with - Science/Vectorial design (for sure, there must be a better name) - Science/Sequence analysis - Science/Data plotting I agree that the concept of task is somehow volatile, but if the name of the task has an obvious meaning in the present, is the volatility really a problem ? I think that having tasks avoids the "economic scanning" you described in your mail: people will have an unbiased toolbox instead of havin the tools scattered in boxes with "not for you" subliminal stickers. PS: I could not figure out whether it is allowed for a program to appear more than once in the menu. Best regards, -- Charles Plessy Wako, Saitama, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
