forthy and then when he gets interested fpye inf@ biology, MfBtim
he sees it asa formal &Somewhat more formal problem.
What's
making me hesitate here, I'm thinking of another physicist of
about the same age as Tobias, perhaps even younger.}
Well,
I'd say
the physicist’s associations would be all with physical and
chemical phenomeng.
The biologist who may know a good deal about
physics and chemistry,
nonetheless has another set of associations
dealing with the functioning audthe organism as a whole.
that, yeah I think that's the way I would put it.
Now
So for certain
kinds of problems it doesn't make any difference because if the
problem is very closely defined and if the problem deals with a
particular physical aspect that underliges a biological end point,
they'1l come to it in the same sort of way. But,
then the
biologist can go off and think about the functioning of the whole
animal and the physicist by and large doesn't .qmite.seatiycant
deswgat.
Just as the biologist couldn't go on and think of the, wal
high class physics.
_
B@@BNepryt.
bb -
FO
Par
Abey—
ean
|
—_
[P?vintners the biologist, of course, maytend to think of
epidemiology, which is of considerable importance.
On the other
hand, the other physicist who came to my mind, a man by the name
of Warren Sinclair, #4 ultimately became quite interested in the
a
effects of radiation on populations.
°RE
‘L&would take
time to think through just what the
differences are.
Llieseres
I
7
ae
erSTi
asia
Pn
acf,3eee| “=
fi
ora
One
Pe
baled
=
a ee
ak ATO
Oe hieetudiwould
22
Lee
eC
eee
er
CaS
Ater
aieee