Anon

not to mention Roland Fryer's GF...

Brian

Looks like she might be the 'Jessica Alba of Biology' too...

BlueCarp

So the article is misleading? It's Esquire, not the New England Journal of Medicine. The others doing similar work probably aren't as cute as Dr. Michor.

www.BlueCarp.blogspot.com

Radman

for the record, she is not cute, she is a hottie.

S. Heaton

So is the point of this NYTimes website a platform for Levitt to trumpet the work of one of his buddies? Some days it seems like every other Levitt post has to do with one of his friends winning an award. Again, not to discredit the work of these clearly great people, but it all gets annoyingly self-referential after a while. There exists good work outside of the Harvard community and I'm personally tired of this website being a dedication to those tied into the harvard circle.

Also, I am sure that while she's perfectly attractive, Michor probably doesn't feel great about people commenting about her beauty in response to an article about her intellect.

S. Heaton

I should reiterate that her work is very interesting, so take my comment as a light criticism.

J Norton

Kinda makes me wonder if everyone would be all hot and bothered if she was still as smart and accomplished, but weighed 250 lbs, instead of being a "slip of a thing at about 100 lbs."

S. Heaton

Anonymous - very good points, indeed. As an experimentalist, I can completely empathize with your points. There have been so many elegant theories out there that end up amounting to very little.As a matter of personal taste in research, I am driven by the observation of "real phenomena."

That said, I can't exactly say anything about the relative ease of writing a mathematical model, because for me, that is actually something that I find to be very hard. In fact, I owe modelers a great deal of gratitude because they are often responsible for providing the clarity of thought that allows me to design a *relatively* clean experiment.

If only I could do both! :-)

Dan

She's not entirely blameless for that nickname; check out this interview from 2005, where she compares what she's doing to Newton's work: http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/08/beauty-of-math-vs-cancer.html
Her papers with Yoh Iwasa are very nice, though.

Adam

Although I'm sure she's a very smart person who is doing very good scientific research, this article is more than a little misleading. It seems to intimate that there's no one else doing any mathematical biology research. Besides the fact that there's a whole field called biophysics, there's also the closely-related field of Theoretical Biology. Many people are doing mathematical biology research including plenty of mathematicians!

Ashlie

Wowsa! I am impressed. An eighteen wheeler drivin', cancer curing cutie. And? Only a quarter of a century old. Geez.
Off to my Molecular Biology class, I have some catching up to do!

Ashlie @ www.sixexits.com

Ki Adi Mundi

Wow- such a very high honor, and to have it happen at 25??? Most awesome!

Anonymous

J Norton and S. Heaton: touche. You both make excellent points. I would add that while her work is interesting and I don't doubt her intellect one bit, it is comparatively easy to do sexy, provocative work in mathematical modeling of disease pathogenesis as opposed to the very uncooperative world of real-life laboratory-based science (and perhaps comparatively easy to be labeled a "genius").

It is also much easier to get big papers published because the field is very new, therefore making it easier to find things not already done by others. Studies are much cheaper (to say the least) doing mathematical rather than in vitro/in vivo modeling, much quicker, much easier to de-bug, and free from all manner of organic roadblocks.

All that's fine-- it's great to try new approaches to conducting science-- but a lot of these studies are so far removed from the *actual* disease that they do precisely nothing to further cancer research. It can be somewhat like a president flying over a disaster area at 1000 feet and peering out the window with a deeply furrowed brow for a photo op. This is not meant to be a slight to Dr. Michor in particular; I'm just saying the the burden of real-world "proof" required in this field as a whole tends to be pretty light.

It's easy to get excited about these studies without waiting around a bit to see if any of it really ends up mattering.

Read more...

Anon

not to mention Roland Fryer's GF...

Brian

Looks like she might be the 'Jessica Alba of Biology' too...

BlueCarp

So the article is misleading? It's Esquire, not the New England Journal of Medicine. The others doing similar work probably aren't as cute as Dr. Michor.

www.BlueCarp.blogspot.com

Radman

for the record, she is not cute, she is a hottie.

S. Heaton

So is the point of this NYTimes website a platform for Levitt to trumpet the work of one of his buddies? Some days it seems like every other Levitt post has to do with one of his friends winning an award. Again, not to discredit the work of these clearly great people, but it all gets annoyingly self-referential after a while. There exists good work outside of the Harvard community and I'm personally tired of this website being a dedication to those tied into the harvard circle.

Also, I am sure that while she's perfectly attractive, Michor probably doesn't feel great about people commenting about her beauty in response to an article about her intellect.

S. Heaton

I should reiterate that her work is very interesting, so take my comment as a light criticism.

J Norton

Kinda makes me wonder if everyone would be all hot and bothered if she was still as smart and accomplished, but weighed 250 lbs, instead of being a "slip of a thing at about 100 lbs."