/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8729745

Due to the lack of funding for my research, I am looking for jobs outside my field (theoretical physics.) I realize that my profile might interest people on the medical sciences.

Some ads say
>physicists are welcome to apply
The reason, they say, is that they want people with analytical skills and knowledge of linear algebra
>tfw you realize linear algebra is not known by everyone

Researching a little bit about their research, I came to organize those ads in three categories:
1.- killing rats
2.- inverse fourier transform (trying to improve scanning, imaging, mri, or develop new techniques in related technologies)
3.- "Correlation implies causation"

This last part puzzles me the most. As far as I can tell, the research team just pic data, and try to find possible correlations. A working example is the HRT and CHD correlations (see wikipedia on "Correlation does not imply causation.")

This is what I really don't get: the very best research team in medical sciences just use powerful clusters (maybe even supercomputers) in order to find two possible correlations? They cannot be that stupid (I mean, Md can, but there's a reason why they hire mathematicians, physicists and people "who knows linear algebra"), can they?

As an example, take this link
http://www.nationwidechildrens.org/jayajit-das
The research interest, at first glance, just sounds like "we try to find correlations, but using more filters than the one used in "Nick Cage Movies Vs. Drownings.""

Anyone here that has a deeper knowledge of this kind of research can help to understand a little bit how they work?

BTW, I don't want to shit on this kind of research, just look at
https://arxiv.org/list/q-bio/recent
to see how interesting some things can be.