Not quite: it's more interesting than that. The Nature Biotechnology paper referenced in TFA goes into more detail.

A simple version: the anthrax bacterium makes a particular protein complex - the anthrax toxin - that disrupts cell membranes. This toxin has seven-fold symmetry, meaning that it is made up of seven identical subunits. There are various peptides that bind to each subunit and inhibit the anthrax toxin, thereby protecting cells.

What this group has done is to make liposomes (fat globules, not antibodies) with different concentrations of these peptides on the surface. When the density of inhibitory peptides on the liposomes roughly matches the density of target sites (one on each of the seven subunits) on the anthrax toxin, the inhibition is much more efficient. (This means you need much less of the peptide to protect cells.)

This general idea - of putting lots of inhibitory agents on one particle or compound - has been done before. The big advance here is that this is an easy way control the number & density of the inhibitors. Pretty slick.

Now it depends on the program and the school of thought. Anyone who's ever worked with a physicist in the tech business (they crop up from time to time) understands that the guys with the PhD in Phyiscs is almost always better than the guys with Masters in CS, it just works out that way. Physics and Calc are one in the same when you get through all the BS.

That's like comparing a water-mellon to a grape. A person who has a PhD is bound to have much more research experience that guy with a Masters. A better comparison would be between guy with PhD in theoretical CS and a PhD in Physics.

Everyone knows that physicists are better and so there is a desire to teach the tools that they use. That's just a theory I have, nothing to back it up other than everyone knows how Einstein was and everybody has an idea who Hawking is and nobody knows who Turing was or Euler was or Galois

You're really clueless, aren't you? Popularity is absolutely no measure of how smart a person is, or how profound their work is. So just because Einstein is well known, doesn't make him the 'bestest' mathematician (physics and theoretical computer science are a subset of mathematics. So I'll call call the people who practice them just mathematicians). If you were to take a survey of people who understood the work of both Galois and Einstein, I think the results would surprise you. The insight that Galois had, and the profundity and extreme elegance of his work is one of the greatest achievements of contemporary mathematics. But this is getting tangential.

The link between linear algebra, abstract algebra and discrete math is pretty easy to see as you're doing it. The bridge between discrete and continuous math is a bit more complex but it's really undeniable when you see it.

Yes, the link of algebra to other subsets of algebra is obviously easy to see. The fun comes in when you try to use algebra the way it was meant to be used - i.e: as tool to study number theory (among other things). Study this link (that is: study arithmetic geometry and algebraic number theory) and tell me if this link is more or less complex than the "bridge between discrete and continuous math".