Since the editors of this volume have requested that I provide the summarizing remarks from a “physicist’s” perspective, I have taken on this assignment with express intent of sharpening the focus of the underlying feelings of the physicists during the conference with regard to how they should be involved in the study of the biological motions of relevance and significance. A corollary issue is how to interact with biologists in order to attain the most benefit to both.
KeywordsBiological Motion Laser Light Scattering Cytoplasmic Streaming Cervical Mucus Contractile Mechanism
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.H. Z. Cummins, N. Knable and Y. Yeh, ys. Rev. Letts. 12: 1501 (1964).Google Scholar
- 3.G. B. Beneedek, in “Polarization: Matiere and Rayonnement”, Les Presses Universitaires de France, Paris (1969).Google Scholar
- 5.B. J. Berne and R. Pecora, “Dyanamic Light Scattering”, Wiley, New York (1976).Google Scholar
- 6.H. Z. Cummins and E. R. Pike, Eds., “Photon Correlation and Light Beating Spectroscopy”, Plenum, New York (1974).Google Scholar
- 7.S.-H. Chen, B. Chu and R. Nossal, Eds., “Scattering Techniques Applied to Supramolecular and Non.-Equilibrium Systems”, Plenum, New York (1981).Google Scholar
- 8.D. B. Sattelle, W. I. Lee and B. R. Ware, Eds., “Biomedical Applications of Laser Light Scattering”, Elsevier Biomedical,Amsterdam (1982).Google Scholar
- 9.Lord Byron, in “Don Juan”.Google Scholar
- 12.P. Berge, B. Volochine, R. Billard and N. Hamelin, C. R. Acad. Sci. Ser D 265: 889 (1967).Google Scholar
- 13.S. Fujime, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 29: 75 (1970).Google Scholar
- 16.D. F. Cooke, F. R. Hallett and C. A. V. Barker J. Mechanochem. and Cell Motility 3: 219 (1976).Google Scholar