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