rdfs:comment
| - But amidst all this chaos, there is one constant scientific truth about these noble researchers: Cell biologists are cooler than molecular biologists. There is ample data to support this finding. The data is both testable, repeatable, and consistent. Technically stated, on a scale from Rosie O' Donnell to James Dean, your average molecular biologist is about a Steven Seagal, whereas your average cell biologist is The Fonz. Hopefully, at this point, you aren't thinking "Well, Steven Seagal is kind of cool, isn't he?" He is not. If you are thinking that, you're probably a molecular biologist.
|
abstract
| - But amidst all this chaos, there is one constant scientific truth about these noble researchers: Cell biologists are cooler than molecular biologists. There is ample data to support this finding. The data is both testable, repeatable, and consistent. Technically stated, on a scale from Rosie O' Donnell to James Dean, your average molecular biologist is about a Steven Seagal, whereas your average cell biologist is The Fonz. Hopefully, at this point, you aren't thinking "Well, Steven Seagal is kind of cool, isn't he?" He is not. If you are thinking that, you're probably a molecular biologist. The coolness disparity between cell and molecular biologists was first discovered by Dr. David Friedman in 1953, and published in Science the following year, in an article titled "All the Guys who do Molecular Biology are Really, Really Lame". After decades of rigorous earmark-funded research, Dr. Friedman's observations have been confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt. A thorough and rigorous proof of the aforementioned coolness disparity is boring and somewhat beyond the scope of this article. However, examples of the indescribable awesomeness of cell biologists, and the abject lameness of molecular biologists, abound.
|