[ QUOTE ]
Something tells me you don't work in a biology lab, if such a thing exists any more.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, the reason for my statement is that I have worked in a pharmacology and molecular biology lab and have been co-author on several papers -- I have also published papers in physics (my primary field). Quite frankly, there is no comparison of the relative importance, here. Quantum mechanics is used everywhere -- chemistry, nuclear physics, particle physics, solid state physics, cosmology. As mentioned before, a large fraction of the economy is directly tied to its application. Quite honestly, the most distance I ever got out of evolution in pharmacology labs (working directly with the Ph.D.'s) was fodder for lunchtime speculation. I understand it presents a unifying perspective, but in all honesty, how much do you need a unifying perspective to characterize the effects of a particular chemical on cardiac tissue?

The best cross-field analogy I can present (for evolution) is to cosmology. Sure, it's a "framework" in which most physicists think of the natural world, but it has very little impact on how a solid state physicist actually does his job, or on quantum computing researchers, particle physicists, etc. The same can in no way be said for quantum mechanics -- real physics IS quantum physics, in one form or another, and the need for it is everywhere. It is not just a background for speculation or a "unifying perspective." It is not a "context" for organizing thoughts -- if you don't use it (in any of these fields), you quite simply get wrong answers. Solid state engineering, modern chemistry, microprocessors, nuclear physics, NMR, MRI -- all gone.