Lesley Perg wrote:
> As an undergraduate at the University of Arizona, I chose geology over
> biology because of the differences I perceived in research style between
> them. I saw biology as a large group endevor, with the PI's acting as
> managers. In geology the PI's were engaged in their own research, as well
> as overseeing a small group of one to about seven students. I also saw
> the geosciences as being more integrated than biology, since many lines of
> evidence from geology, geochemistry, geophysics, and other fields of
> science are neccessary to support a theory. I had the impression that
> biology had diverged into specialized subfields that did not have as much
> communication with each other.
Sorry I don't have anything constructive to offer, but what you wrote
above seems contradictory. First you say "I saw biology as a large group
endeavor...," but then you say "I had the impression that biology had
diverged into specialized subfields that did not have as much
communication with each other." I'm a bit puzzled by this.
My "take" on the subject is that biology is exactly as you described
"the geosciences" - perhaps things were set up differently in your
"To stay awake all night adds a day to your life."
-- Stilgar (Frank Herbert)