Almost, you scale by their metabolic weight. It's about 7 times higher for mice than for humans.

I'm not a scientist (heh) so the best explanation a quick google search gave was an article on CLA from the jn - journal of nutrition:

"The relationship between basal metabolic rate or energy expenditure and body weight in different size mammals is described by the function Y = aX0.75, where Y is basal metabolic rate (kJ/d), X is body weight (kg) and a is basal metabolic rate per kg0.75 per day, which is ∼300 kJ/ (kg0.75 · d). Thus, the basal metabolic rate in different size species is proportional to the body weight raised to the 0.75 power, the so called metabolic weight."

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/131/7/2067.full

That's a really charming synonym for 'scientist'

What, "experimentalist"? That's not a synonym for "scientist", it's a subset.

At least in physics, the main categories are "experimentalist" and "theorist". You'll sometimes find intermediate categories like "phenomenologist" (people who apply basic theory to make detailed predictions for experimental measurements) or "computational(-ist?)" (people who measure experimental-style results from simulations of basic theory).

I think we should add a third category, 'modeller', as in someone who runs experiments in silica. It's not really an experiment, and it's not really just theory.

Assuming I understand you, that's what I was getting at with "computational" scientists as a separate or intermediate category.

The theorists disagree with you, and I'm sure they have a long paper with lots of equations explaining why.

(it's a joke)

Not quite. Scientists also come in the Theoretician variety.