I completely disagree with this.Samanthakrjx said:biology=biochemistry +.....
Uhm that is what I wanna know... what is biochemistry and what is biology.quetzalcoatl9 said:I completely disagree with this.
Biochemistry is not biology. It is chemistry. And furthermore, biochemistry is not a subset of biology.
Thats like saying calculus is a subset of physics. While one may have overlapping areas with the other, they are completely different areas of study. Biologists and biochemists don't even speak the same language, for Pete's sake!
So tell me then, Samantha: what is the difference between biochemistry and molecular biology?
physicsuser, i was replying to samanthakrjx's post.physicsuser said:Uhm that is what I wanna know... what is biochemistry and what is biology.
It isn't.Daevren said:I think biochemistry is part of biology.
quetzalcoatl9 said:It isn't.
If you go to a university, biochemists belong to the chemistry department, not the biology department. They speak a different language, they do different research.
We can argue whether you think biochemistry
should be considered a part of biology, but it isn't.
Is biophysics also biology? No, it is a branch of physics. If you go to a meeting you will find the biophysicists hanging out with physicists. If you read their papers, they are talking the language of physics, not biology, etc...
My friend would argue otherwise. She started biochem then switch to microbio. She said it was world apart and from my experience, there is difference between a biologist and a biochemist. It is all in the head of a person. My old supervisor was a biochemist and he said that bio and biochem are different.Monique said:I have studied biochemistry at college, this was part of the chemistry department (I studied biology & medicine at the biology department in the first year, but decided I rather wanted to do the biotech side of things and not the medical diagnostics part that was emphasized). There really is no difference, I missed pathology courses and medical diagnostics courses and did mass spectrometry and hplc courses instead: a bit more physical.
I don't think so, see:iansmith said:Also the course you listed, monique, only a few would be in biology/microbiology and it is usually where biology meets chemistry.
In the traditional sense that is true, but biology now reaches inside the cell and how cells interact to form an organism (or disease).. that's what modern biology is about.In my opinion, the biologist study the organism (and its environement) as a whole. The biochemist only study the chemical process of an organism.
i agree with this completely, you have put things well.iansmith said:My friend would argue otherwise. She started biochem then switch to microbio. She said it was world apart and from my experience, there is difference between a biologist and a biochemist. It is all in the head of a person. My old supervisor was a biochemist and he said that bio and biochem are different.
Also, most biology do not view biochemist as biologist and most chemist do not view biochemist as chemist. That why some biochemist created molecular biology. If you look at the definition for molecular biology is quite similar to biochemistry. It only forces the biochemist to do a bit more biology.
You're right, I don't know what route the monarch butterfly travels to migrate from mexico to canada.. so I am not a biologist in that ecology sense. I also don't know all the different species of pigeons, so I am not a biologist in that sense either.Jikx said:I was always led to believe:
Molecular Biology = DNA, Genes
Biochemistry = Proteins.
Biology = Macro life processes
These are not fields in biology. These things are reductionist in their view. That is why the genomics era has not solve any problems and has several short coming.Monique said:There are so many new fields of biology now: genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, structural genomics, functional genomics, pharmacogenomics, toxicogenomics, chemical genomics or chemogenomics, epigenomics, transcriptomics, ribonomics, proteogenomics, reverse proteomics, reverse genomics -- just naming the different -omics fields :tongue2:
And a biologist can also do biochemistry, all these fields combined allow us to understand an organism.iansmith said:These are not fields in biology. These things are reductionist in their view. That is why the genomics era has not solve any problems and has several short coming.
These are tools to be used by people doing biology. A biologist could do proteonomics, transcriptomics and metabolomics in one project.
I would not called genomics a revolution for biology. How much did our understanding in biology increased due to genomics? We are basicly at the same point.Monique said:And I'm not too sure about your comment that genomics has not solved any problems, genomics has been a revolution in biology and allows us to open many doors that were closed before (think for instance about comparing the mouse and human genome).
it is a tool! There are so many applications that I can think of. Ofcourse there are many levels of information, of which the genome is only one; knowing the sequence tells you nothing about epigenetics for instance.iansmith said:I would not called genomics a revolution for biology. How much did our understanding in biology increased due to genomics? We are basicly at the same point.
that might be the only aplication that can only come from genomics. However, you example only applies to human research.Monique said:I've done a whole genome scan, knowing the sequence of the genome and what genes lie on a region of linkage or association tells me what candidate genes to look at. Knowing what orthologues there are can give me information on gene function or gives me the opportunity to make animal models.
I only used whole genome sequence to point me in the right direction and make some prediction. However, I cannot rely on whole genome sequence. Most of the time the strain of bacteria I used is not published or not annotated. There sometimes significant difference between strains of bacteia and that lef me the "old-fashion" way to do identification. If it was such a revolution, would everyone relie heavely on whole genome data and would that data be reliable?Monique said:I've heavily relied on the published genomes for my various research projects. There are still compilation errors that can greatly complicate your work. Doing a linkage study while your markers keep moving across the genome can be frustrating, or doing a PCR and finding out that a contig is not compiled properly.
People used to do proteomics studies. I found more paper on protein profiles prior to 1995 compare to the genomic era. I find it hilarious people a re"dicoverying" proteomes. Proteomics would be much more advance nowdays if the genomics would not take such a large place.Monique said:How can we do whole genome expression studies without knowing the sequence of the genome. We can now predict whether a woman needs to undergo chemotherapy based on the genetic profile of her tumor! If that is not a biological revolution, then I don't know.
You construct a cDNA library from cell grown in the desired conditions, clone it upstream of an inducible promoter, produce RNA (some will be sense, some will be antisense) and then screen the clones for the desired phenotype. Once you selected the desired clone, you sequence the cDNA clone.Monique said:Or let's talk about shutting down genes by RNAi, how could we do that if we didn't know the sequences of all the genes. I'm thinking about setting up a research project to search for cancer drug targets using that technology. Without Venter and Lander this technology would not be possible.