A fatty decline?

if they fit a hypothesis or invalidate it. Observations are intrinsically quantitative, but quantitative validity is sometimes so obvious that we ignore it and consider a result to be qualitative. A numerical answer is always more satisfying, even if it just puts a limit of detectability on a yes/no answer. What's cool about computational biology is that it allows you to handle large quantitative data sets and use numerical tools to extract more of their richness. The systems biology question is different. Systems biology is too often contrasted with analytical biology, but it really refers to looking at the ways in which components of a system interact to produce the behaviors characteristic of the system The 'system' could be a signaling network, a cell, a squid or a prairie. Analysis is the first step. The systems problem is one of scale and numerical complexity. We need to understand the components, their interactions and the consequent system behavior. The key is to define the organizational scale where you know or don't know something, where your experimental tools are powerful and where your interest lies. Then you consider the scale of complexity just above it and just below it. I am mostly a biochemist, which means that I think about biological molecules. I rarely think of individual atoms, nor do I frequently think above the level of cells. Neither of these scale jumps would make sense. I'm an experimental reductionist, but reductionism doesn't deny emergent properties of complex systems. We're all empiricists. You call yourself a biochemist but work in a pharmacology department: which term most aptly describes what you do? For me, biochemistry is approach and attitude, pharmacology is intent. Magazine R943 Concern is growing about the availability of food for many breeding seabirds amidst worries of climate change and human pressures forcing a decline in their traditional fish prey. Poor breeding success in many colonies over recent years has been attributed to the absence of such key prey, but a new study suggests an additional problem: for those birds able to find alternative sources of food to feed their chicks, the diet may be lacking in key components necessary for a healthy brood. The new work suggests that young seabirds that do not get enough fat in their diet are slow learners and are less likely to grow into successful adult birds. and his colleagues monitored the development of 20 …