This is the title of a slate article by a medicinal chemist. He goes on to say:
But there’s an even larger problem with the “more scientists, no matter what” view. In R&D, the rate-limiting step (to use a term from my chemical background) is usually not the number of people working on a problem. Not after a certain point, at any rate. Automation and miniaturization have been changing that, as in so many other industries. We can test more compounds and generate even bigger server-choking piles of data faster than ever before. The problem is figuring out what all of those numbers mean and what they’re telling us to do next.
Right. So we don't need more "scientists", we need more mathematicians, statisticians, and computer scientists.

blog comments powered by Disqus


24 June 2012