Not sure that this case is a good example of your point, but in general what you say is true. It's interesting to consider why this is the case. Biology probab

Not sure that this case is a good example of your point, but in general what you say is true. It's interesting to consider why this is the case. Biology probably has more in common with the study of history than it does with physics or chemistry. The difference I think lies partly in the power of abstractions relative to each field of study. Abstractions in biology are generally pretty useless I think, whereas in physics in particular they are incredibly powerful. It seems that we pursue knowledge in biology under certain misleading assumptions - that what we find in one system has some universality; that the dynamics of the system are not that important; that the functional elements we discover (or invent?) largely have one function. So we like to say that Gene X does this, then publish it. Actually Gene X does many things that vary depending on the context of the cell, the organism, the environment etc, which we neither understand nor have the ability to control very easily. The knowledge is mainly in the details rather than any abstraction about it's function. We are confusing the issue by trying to think this way. It's like trying to understand the empire of Genghis Khan by looking at ancient Egypt - there are some broad similarities, but what is interesting and informative are the specific details in each case. The problem comes with making predictions about the perturbation of biological systems. With faulty abstractions and no understanding of the important assumptions, predictions inevitably fail miserably. Biologists work out the next experiment with their heads. Even the simplest bacteria or virus has been around for billions of years, shaped by interactions with countless other organisms. How can one human brain possibly comprehend the important details that are known, let alone everything we don't know, to make a valid prediction?