I'm not the only one who hates computational biologists:

Zhang et al. (11), Braunewell and Bornholdt (12), Ge et al. (13), and Okabe and Sasai (14) have presented stochastic models of the yeast cell cycle based on a deterministic Boolean model from Li et al. (15). The main concern of all of these authors was the robustness of cell cycle progression in the presence of intrinsic and extrinsic sources of noise. None of them compared their models to observed statistics of cell cycle properties in wild-type or mutant cells.

In sciencese, that's a major dig against computational biologists. You have these clever computer guys, and they don't give a damn whether their models are actually right. They've come up with some clever algorithm or theoretical analysis, and that's good enough.

I'm not saying that computational guys have to test everything themselves, but many of them are not even proactive about getting someone else to test them. They're just happy to move right along to the next project that will have zero impact on biology.

Deep down the problem is that these guys aren't biologists at heart. They don't care about, and cannot properly fomulate, genuinely interesting biological questions. They've been trained as computer scientists, and they care primarily about computer science. But then they're stuck in the worst of both worlds - they're not really contributing to fundamental computer science, and they're not contributing to biology either.