SUMMARY

Biologists are very moved to simplify the model from plankton, and biologists also
claim that simplifying the model is not that easy and does not correspond to reality. It is
necessary for biologists and modelers to discuss the initial design of the experiments they will
carry out, and they also need to appreciate the complete data set without having to directly be
the result that will destroy the earth. If the journal does not provide awards, it is better to
require data stored in a better form for data mining and modeling. Maybe people ask whether
journals should accept modeling papers without the complete transcript code. It is easy to
omit details and show typographic errors in the description of traditional models. In papers
that make reconstructions, modelers need to be proactively involved together with biologists
in constructing the model, making joint decisions about simplifying the model. Biologists
must also be involved in the selection of model verification data selection, because it is feared
that there are data that are flawed or have serious problems in mining. Examples of trying to
model systems that have biologists make mistakes. A good example is when microalgae
attach to the walls of cultural vessels and make nutritional prepositions disappear. The model
thus may not fit the data, because the data is inaccurate or inadequate not because of a defect
in the model. It is best for biologists and modelers to study this interaction.To return to the
issue of complexity and simulation adequacy (Anderson, 2005), for each organism type
simulated we should ask the following:
(i) Is the form of each model component dysfunctional?
(ii) When run alone do model organisms always exhibit
sensible behaviour both with respect to what
they do and what they do not do?
(iii) What components of physiology have been
omitted, why, and has that omission been shown
to be safe under all realistic scenarios for which
this model may be run?
We must remember that the application of the occam razor makes us like cutting one's own
throat and must be careful. Biological features must be eliminated through consideration.
Finally, perhaps we should ask a more basic question.Should we study biology or population
ecology divorced from concurrent modelling activity? We would notdream of undertaking
biological studies without an eye towards the use of statistics, so why ignore models? If
statistics in biology can be compared to a lamp-post supporting a drunkard, then models can
be compared to the light helping to guide the way forward. However,it takes a biologist to
show the modeller in which direction the light needs to be shone. We need each other.