What sets biology apart from biochemistry?

[philthechemis]

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?

To u guys who think that biochemistry is not a branch of biology, I'm sorry but that is just plain ignorance! For instance if you look up both 'biology' and 'chemistry' on wikipedia, biochemistry exists as a branch for both these sciences. Add this to the fact that highly regarded dictionaries such as the oxford subjects dictionaries and the henderson dictionary of biological terms all class biochemistry as a major branch of biology. Of course biochemistry is also a branch of chemistry btw, not arguing with that. As with a lot of sciences these days they are all very interdisciplary subjects. It is not true to say that biochemists and biologist do not speak the same knowledge. Real professional biologists should all have at least some adequate knowledge of biochemistry up to first year/second year level at college. The fact is that biochemistry is a very specialized field so of course it would be hard for a biologist trained in let's say conservation biology to talk to the biochemist. But it is also equally true that life can be studied of levels, from cells(cytology) to bodies(anatomy/physiology) to ecosystems(ecology), and biochemistry simply probes deeper into the fundamental nature of life. So therefore biochemistry is undoubtedly a major branch of biology with profound influences in almost all other fields of biology, medicine and other health sciences.

 

[philthechemis]

biochemistry rocks cos of its huge scope and ability to influence both fundamental reseach and perhaps more importantly applied research in biology, chemistry and medicine namely. Along with knowledge drawn from organic chem, inorganic chem, physical chem and other life sciences, it has given us better grasp of the basis of life. Now we can make better vaccines, medicines, help in the process of defeating some forms of cancer and potentially increase our life span and health and well being which is the most important thing of living in my opinion haha.

 

[Cincinnatus]

This thread highlights what we've seen in some other threads lately. The names of these different fields all mean very different things to different people.

 

[epenguin]

To give the idea, if you are a student thinking of doing biology at universtity don't even think for a moment of not doing biochemistry. Not that you will be allowed to. There will be at the least numbers of courses on it that you will have to do, but it will infiltrate practically everything else.

Modern biology is hightly integrated. If you near anyone burbling about 'interdisciplinarity' they are probably out of date, because it is so taken for granted. E.g. I remember having had occasion to go to a conference on Molybdenum enzymes that involved inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, physical organic chemistry, crystallography, molecular biophysics, genetics and genetic engineering in agriculture, microbiology, evolutionary relationships, medicine and medical and population genetics, and I don't remember what else. And they exchanged intensely and no-one batted an eyelid at it - maybe one or two older generation mentioned it as a bit difficult for them to keep up with their students! It was only when I got back from it and some benighted fools asked me was it interdisciplinary? mnya mnyah we want to encourage interdisciplinarity you know, that I reflected on what is taken for granted. It would have been the same in other themes.

Quite a fuss is made of labels here. When you are researching you will rather forget what you speciality is supposed to be - oversimplifying slightly. The labels are moveable. E.g. starting in the 1960's 'biochemistry' began to be considered an old hat label; ' molecular biology' was more fashionable and seemed to get you more grants and students (the young turk mol. biols. liked to refer to biochemists as 'the old-style piss-boilers' ); 'chemistry' is even older hat, unpopular label so anything with chemistry in it played down (associations: stinks, pollution, hard work and difficulty, so bad PR!). So you will get them in the courses, played down in their names and labels. Often these days you will have 'integrated biology' courses, of which the first 2 y or so are strongly chem and biochem.

I'm doubtful about those who say biochem is mostly done in chem depts., maybe local perspectives. In Europe chem depts. have been closing down (including notoriously Kekule's old dept.), giving the biol depts. a teaching problem.

For a student in school aimong at biology or medicine in future I'd strongly recommend getting maximum chemistry, both theory and lab. Those without that are clearly always at a disadvantage at univ.

 

[peterish]

I think biology is a much wider concept, with a lot of branches. Biochemistry, is just a part of chemistry + a part of biology. You can read some books over here, and then get the tips.