They might be stirring in their graves and preparing to rise to do battle. A medical researcher named Tai has published a method that he has called "Tai's Model", which is "a mathematical model for the determination of total areas under curves from various metabolic studies".
I think — now I am a mere biologist, so this might be beyond my feeble gooey brain — that I vaguely recall doing something sort of similar to this many, many years ago, as a way to approximate an integral, and it might be something like 350 years old. I guess we've forgotten.
By the way, I've discovered a marvelous and efficient way to multiply numbers together by adding logarithms; I'm thinking I should publish it as Myers' Method. I wonder if it's patentable?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Continuing with the tradition from last two years, I will occasionally post interviews with some of the participants of the ScienceOnline2010 conference that was held in the Research Triangle Park, NC back in January. See all the interviews in this series here. You can check out previous years'…
I'm pleased the Supreme Court has decided to reject the idea of patenting genes, as such case law would be restrictive to scientific discovery and also just feels fundamentally icky. From a legal perspective, as far as I understand patent law (not a lawyer here), it also seemed to fail on the more…
I've just finished reading Chris Mooney's and Matt Nisbet's Science article about communicating science to the general public. It's right on target.
When it comes to defending evolutionary biology, the success one will have is far less dependent on marshalling the appropriate facts than many…
My friend Razib, who is one of my
fellow ScienceBloggers sent me
href="http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/2009/01/is-evolution-sufficient.html">a
link to an interest attempt by creationist at arguing why evolution can't
possibly work.
I say interesting, because it's at least a little bit…