I have just returned from a 2 day meeting hosted by the EPSRC to encourage work at the Physics/Life Science Interface. The main problem was that the Physicists (and I am one for the purpose of this analysis) outnumbered the biologists by about 3 to 1. Despite that it was an interesting meeting and I have been able to develop a couple of future possible collaborations.
Collaborations across disciplines are always difficult and examplar talks (one by a biologist and one by a physicist) were interesting in that the collaborations seemd one way in each case. The biologist was doing interesting work but the “physics” was the use of a rather simple tool to blast temporary holes in cell membranes. This was an exciting development for the biologist but the physics development (as part of the project) seemed minimal. The other talk – from the physicist – appeared to be trying out a range of diagnostic tools where the development was in the physics/engineering to supply a tool that did not improve the understanding of biology bu possibly speeded up diagnosis. Here it seemed a little like classic technology push. Now both projects are worthy and very good examples of working across a boundary but neither seemd a true collaboration with equal work done by the physical and life sciences.
Are there opportunities or true interdisciplinary work or is it always one way with one side providing a target or a developed technique for the other to work with?
Interesting question. I have a physics background and now working in physiology. I have to say that I usually use my physics background when I’m working on the equipment/technology side. I can’t really come up with an example as you requested, but in general my guess is that physics is pushed in rather simple systems, and biology is just complex.