I am sorry if I came off as disagreeing with your main points because I actually don't. Just to say a couple of things: At least from looking at such cross-func

I am sorry if I came off as disagreeing with your main points because I actually don't. Just to say a couple of things: At least from looking at such cross-functional bio/c.s. teams work here in Grad. school, I have seen two types: 1. Where the bio (in this case wildlife) people have extremely limited ideas about what happens during a simulation or modeling experiment, this leads to ridiculous attempts to say develop multi-agent models for hyena cooperation which if you read the paper make so many ridiculous assumptions that it doesn't really make sure what if any utility can be obtained as inferences from those models. 2. The other much more rarer situation where the bio people have a keen understanding of the basics of both C.S. and Math and are well aware of the limitations of what they are getting into. Such collaborations usually turn into using a C.S./Math (usually grad. student) person in order to delve deep into the technical specifics which the bio guy could understand with some help. Yuri's article is interesting and while I do agree that some cross pollination of ideas (such as is happening in systems biology) is useful. I am not so sure I am that enthusiastic as he is about drawing so much hope from the engineering analogy (because there is an element of silver bulletism to it:).