"Can a Biologist Fix a Radio?" - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: radar_macgyver
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2016, 09:37:59 pm
content: I came across this today:http://bml.bioe.uic.edu/BML/Stuff/Stuff_files/biologist%20fix%20radio.pdfIt's not every day someone can question their entire field of study, one in which he must have invested a lot of time. Also, the biologist's view of a radio segment is quite amusing.

author: Buriedcode
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2016, 12:45:53 am
content: That's interesting. Sounds sarcastic in text, and I rarely read such links, but when poeple 'cross fields' or work at the boundary between two fields - things get interesting! Different disciplines have different approaches, and the same could be said for cultures. (the lesson being - ask someone else who doesn't know much about what you're doing).Biology can be horrifically complex but I easily see his point that engineers have made great strides in standardizing methods, measurements, and quantities that allow really quite good simulations, collaboration and 'moving forward' by breaking things into discrete stages. Whilst everything in science and engineering effectively comes under the umbrella of 'studying nature', engineering doesn't necessarily ask the deeper questions about nature - it exploits whats already known for 'better' technology.In the same vein, I was reading about sleep research, and looking at the EEG graphs. Even in 2012 they were *still* judging what 'state' the brain was in by having graduates break them up into 10 second slices and manually reading and marking them as 'fast' or 'slow' or 'alpha', 'beta' etc.. It wasn't until an electronic engineer graduate saw this and proposed doing a spectral analysis on them. Turns out there are many more highly specific frequency-domain patterns that can be used to predict sleep state and brain function (as if that wasn't obvious already).Think about that for a bit. With all the wonderful powerful computers we have, and the possible 'clever' algorithms people make (dont' get me started on those trying to get more information out of data than the source can provide).. in 40 years no-one thought to try and automate the process in a meaningful way, because they were trying to use computers to do 'what humans do' in the exact way they do. It took someone from outside the field to point it out.As for the state of biological research, I could rant all day on it. The vast amount of research papers and complicated theories loses its edge when you start to read details of how studies are carried out, and the analyses performed on data. A paper claiming a procedure can boost memory '500%' - half way through you read 'rats were engineered to lack certain neurons, which were then replanted'. Sure, rats are mammals like us, but there are always these massive leaps of faith that are skipped over, like 'well, its only a matter of time before we do it in humans!'. Just seems like much of it is for getting funding for more research (which in part, it is, one needs resources to study anything).

author: radar_macgyver
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2016, 01:27:01 am
content: Quote from: Buriedcode on November 07, 2016, 12:45:53 amI've seen similar things happen when meteorologists have to interpret radar data. They employ grad students to manually go through each radar sweep and 'edit' the data to remove outlier points, and to fix things like Doppler velocity aliasing. It took an EE to point out that it wasn't too hard to implement automated algorithms to do these things, and that said algorithms were available for at least 25 years.I suppose there's something wired into our way of thinking to break down a problem into steps that can be automated. It wasn't until I spent some time with people from other disciplines that I realized that it wasn't how everyone thinks.

author: android
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2016, 11:34:39 am
content: A. Yes. But only if the radio is part of a cell phone.

author: CJay
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2016, 11:52:28 am
content: Quote from: android on November 07, 2016, 11:34:39 am*badumtish*

author: setq
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2016, 02:03:13 pm
content: My sister is a vet (a form of 'applied biologist') and they generally have no idea how to debug the systems they are working on. The general case for her is to euthanise the whole system or lop a bit off that looks funny. I'm not sure human medicine is much better.

author: calexanian
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2016, 06:41:06 pm
content: Feynman kinda accidentally discovered DNA but did not conduct the lab correctly and did not want to publish the data. He was however right about what he found. Not bad for a theoretical physicist.https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/oscillator/feynman-on-biology/

author: boz
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 21, 2016, 06:55:36 pm
content: As an easier analogy I used 20 years ago and is still applicable today is if we think of the human genome as say an executable binary such as microsoft word, we are currently at this stage of changing the various bytes of this binary code and seeing that it either, does nothing (there is whitespace in code eg to align bytes and in the genome and changing them seems to do nothing), the program crashes (dies biologically) or something else happens like the font colour changes from black to red (eye colour changes from blue to grey) while never understanding why the complete thing works without the source code and a means to understand the compiler.Bottom line is good luck to them and I'm very happy to be an EE not a biologist!

author: Buriedcode
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2016, 12:31:34 am
content: Nice analogy. Can't be too hard on biologists because as was discovered after the Human Genome Project was complete - it was assumed to be very complicated, but seems is far more complicated than that. The HGP was all over the news for a while, and when complete, it was covered but not a major headline. Since then? not much. They assumed that each gene has one function, and therefore it was assumed (again) that we would have roughly 100k genes, an estimate based on all of the variation and properties of a human, sounds pretty reasonable to me.Turns out if was roughly a fifth of this. With the conclusion that it is the combination of genes than form complexity. So change one, and it might not do anything, change another and it creates differences in several seemingly separate areas. That analogy whilst always dangerous to use engineering/software analogies to draw conclusions about much older 'technology' (us) pretty much covers it.Now that the CRISPR technique is becoming far more common, the ability to switch individual (and entire groups) genes on/offin vitrois trivial and makes it easier to check their effect. But those studies probably will never be performed for ethical reasons, and even if they were, I wouldn't like to be the poor sod who has to draw conclusions from it, given the vast numbers of variables. But many studies are performed based on best guesses, and previous discoveries, with CRISPR used to speed certain parts up, as well as be the buzzword that increases the chances of it being published. Sadly if you read a handful of papers on such studies, whilst very impressive and involved (read: I don't really know what they're on about) you can spot the wild speculation that's bait for media coverage and therefore, more funding.As you can probably tell, I think far too much about it. But I'm not bashing biology as a subject, or those who study it, just some of the 'habits' that have crept in in recent years. I enjoy electronics and software because, whilst it can get extremely complicated - it can all be broken down into smaller and smaller modules to the point where each part is very simple, I mean, that is really what engineering is. Unfortunately trying to 'decode' life doesn't always lend itself to the reductionist approach, so I will be happy to see efforts to try different methods/theories and see if they can provide better results. Alas, who will fund it? it doesn't take much to argue that the money would be better spent *improving* certain methods/treatments as that is a safe bet - it is known to work.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2016, 12:46:45 am
content: EpigeneticsOperonThese areNOTnew concepts. They have been well know and taught to undergrad biology majors at least since the 1980s when I was one.

author: Alex Eisenhut
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2016, 01:13:27 am
content: The genome is like discovering binary. It's the proteome that does all the work, and that's like finding the instruction set and datasheet for a modern CPU. And *each cell* in your body is that complex, and more.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProteomeThen add the genome/proteome of your gut flora, which has even more cells that human cells in your body.... We've only begun.

author: Seekonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2016, 01:36:38 pm
content: I long for the day when we have just a medical kiosk. I has an annual physical and the EKG machine was smart enough to print out 153BPM, tachycardia, ABNORMAL. He never looked at it. Three months later I'm asking, Why can't I get from my car to the front door. Response, I don't know. Finally a third doctor sent me to the emergency room with heart ans kidney failure. Heart was at 26%. There after three days I had to ask them to finally weigh me. Bottles were filled up all over the restroom never measured. Had to tell the doctor maybe he should stop because I was dropping below normal weight, lost 35# in less than a week. Went to see one doc and he gave me a new pill. I didn't like it and appointment next day another doc told me stop that pill will kill you.This was probably all brought on by sleep apnea. That test took 2 1/2 months and cost $6,000, like they cared if I lived. Premium price, do it yourself service. I later found out you can get an overnight test box for $250 that does exactly the same thing. The CPAP machines will figure out everything. It took less than 3 minutes to figure out how to get into the secret screens and adjust everything. Never go to a sleep center! You can pay for the test and a machine for less than the insurance copay. And those stethoscopes are just for show. Ten people listened to my heart and not one had a clue.

author: NottheDan
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2016, 03:36:57 pm
content: I'm not quite sure this is the right thread to complain about the quality of the medical professionals you seek out.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2016, 03:58:59 pm
content: Thanks for the PDF link!It was a very funny read, especially if you visualize the whole reverse engineering made in 'Petri dish' style, but I suspect the article was written by a pissed off engineer trying to get into biology.

author: m98
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2016, 05:13:00 pm
content: Quote from: Buriedcode on November 07, 2016, 12:45:53 amhttps://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/schbul/sbn093Just like many stories trying to blame every field of study outside of Mathematics, Physics or Engineering.

author: Buriedcode
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2016, 06:58:24 pm
content: Not sure I get you. Its not 'blaming' fields of study, just that the best approach is to get people who work on the boundaries between fields to prevent tunnel vision. The same should be applied to physics and engineering where fresh inspiration from 'other fields' helps it along. Someone to give a different perspective.The trouble is, if someone in say, psychology, wishes to measure something, they might well ask someone outside of their field, such as electronics engineering of software, but then assume that because they're using a new technique - 'new technology', that the data is much more relevant. That is to say 'well, we used a new statistical analysis app - therefore our results are more accurate!'. In those sleep studies, just because an FFT was performed on the EEG's, doesn't mean to say it magically makes results more accurate or more relevant, it is still down to interpretation, it is just a tool that allows vast amounts of data to be quantified faster and easier.Psychology is a grey area in that very few studies have been replicated, and those that have, few get the same results. And the same applies, often there is this idea that just because we can write complicated software with ever more powerful computers, somehow that means the results we get are more relevant. It doesn't matter how many numbers you can crunch, you can't get more information out than you put in. It is why many latch on to things we *can* measure objectively, like heart rate, galvanic skin response etc.. so they can claim because they didn't just use questionnaires (highly subjective) that its more scientific, and therefore, their interpretations are more valid. When in reality, its just as vague.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2016, 07:11:04 pm
content: Quote from: m98 on November 22, 2016, 05:13:00 pmI think it's a common scenario across many fileds. I know I've certainly been guilty of climbing "Mt Stupid" a few times.

author: vodka
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2016, 07:30:10 pm
content: Quote from: Buriedcode on November 22, 2016, 06:58:24 pmPsychology ? Maybe , you are referring to neurophisiology. Because i doubt that a psychiatrists get dirty the hands with these stuffs. They are like the informatic when the computer is broken . They turn off and turn on the computer with the hope that the trouble is resolved itself. But instead the switch is with a pills.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2016, 07:59:58 pm
content: As the article mentioned, engineers take an entirely different approach to problem solving. So, why don't they just turn the problem over to an engineer, get the answer and then write the paper?

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2016, 08:33:45 pm
content: The special point about a radio is that it is a designed device. It was synthesized using well understood theoretical principles and design rules in order to perform a certain function. It can also be assumed with some certainty that it contains no redundant parts.A biological system, in contrast, is not designed; it isdesignoid. Although it effectively performs a given function, the way it does it is an emergent property from an underlying chaotic system. No one really understands or can deduce the design rules in a systematic way, nor can anyone assume it contains no redundant parts.There are some good analogies with software here. I have read about experiments being done with self-organizing systems where software has been made to design itself using genetic algorithms in order to perform a specified function. Apparently in some cases a program has resulted that does indeed function as required, but nobody can understand how it actually works.Another analogy is with "dead code". When software gets refactored, sometimes there is redundant code left behind that no longer performs any function. Human programmers will go in and delete this dead code to keep things tidy and aid future maintenance (so that future programmers don't sit scratching their heads and wondering "what is this code for?"). However, nature has no such imperatives, and there is no reason to remove old, redundant parts of the system if they are doing no harm.