I may be wildly off in this, but I occasionally see hints that physicists -- and especially cosmologists -- sometimes regard any science that involves ooie-gooie wet things (chemistry, biology) as somehow inferior. It's a subjective hierarchy, not based on scientific rigor. Perhaps just my imagination. I thought it was definitely evident in the early days of Pons & Fleischmann's cold fusion.
You're not off on this. I know many physicists that think this way (mostly on the 'theorist' end of the spectrum). In my opinion, three factors contribute to this:
1) Physics theory requires a very high level of mathematical knowledge that other sciences don't require; many (wrongly) translate this expertise into a sort of 'superiority'.
2) Many experts in physics theory simply aren't aware of the level of rigorous statistical analysis that does go into biology analysis. I'm fortunate enough to have some very good friends who do biology research; from what I pick up in conversation, their use of statistics is as rigorous and ubiquitous as that in most physics research.
3) A lot of skilled physicists and mathematicians simply aren't that good at talking to people ('nerd' stereotypes persist for a reason) and inadvertently come across as condescending.
I do, however, think that this sort of condescension is a minority view in the profession; and one that is diminishing as biology (esp. genetic research) becomes a more omnipresent influence in cutting edge science. (Yeah, we gave the world the A-bomb 50 years ago, and that's pretty 'cool', but here comes genetic engineering to put us 'in our place'.)