If physicists and biologists were pitted against each other in a deathmatch..who would win?

Question

Both sides are accompanied by expert engineers who can build any weapon of mass destruction that relates to the respective team's field of study (for example, physicist's team engineer can build ICBM nukes while biologist's team engineer can build ICBM e. coli missiles).

And lastly, both teams are within at least a continent away from each other.

This matchup seems to be favoring the physicist's side but please think of a reason why you think a certain team would win.

Fight!

Answer 1

The vast majority of physicists and biologists would not consider death a suitable objective.  They would tell you that your view of science is seriously warped.  They would prefer to compete on the basis of who could make the contribution which would most benefit mankind.  They would urge you to redirect your thoughts accordingly.

Answer 2

Either team is quite capable of wiping the other out and both types of weapons are essentially impossible to defend against.  That's why both bio and nuclear weapons are called weapons of mass destruction.  Maybe a more interesting question is which group of survivors would have an easier time rebuilding after the war.  Would the residual radioactivity from the cobalt-thorium G superbombs be worse than the lingering pockets of superplague?  

Some say the world will end in fire,

Some say in ice.

From what I’ve tasted of desire

I hold with those who favor fire.

But if it had to perish twice,         

I think I know enough of hate

To know that for destruction ice

Is also great

And would suffice.

-Robert Frost

Answer 3

By virtue of your own rules, and given that rockets are working along physic principles, not biological ones, then the biologist's engineers should not be able to build the ICBM needed to launch biological weapons.