banner
You are not using a standards compliant browser. Because of this you may notice minor glitches in the rendering of this page. Please upgrade to a compliant browser for optimal viewing:
Firefox
Internet Explorer 7
Safari (Mac and PC)
Post Archive
2017 (0)2010 (36)
December (1)

Adieu
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
November (2)

Payoffs of wasting time
Tuesday, November 23, 2010

DonorsChoose
Monday, November 1, 2010
October (12)

"Lessons from a Recovering Postdoc" on Benchfly
Thursday, October 28, 2010

Question about the Void: Guidelines for postdocs
Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Question about the Void: What *is* a postdoc?
Monday, October 18, 2010

Blown away!
Monday, October 18, 2010

Living in the Void: How much is a postdoc worth?
Sunday, October 17, 2010

The Tale of Mrs. T and the Rats
Wednesday, October 13, 2010

DonorsChoose: The Rat Race Is On!!!
Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Shock Week
Sunday, October 10, 2010

Science Bloggers for Students: The Prelaunch
Friday, October 8, 2010

Storytime
Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Repost: What's in a name?
Saturday, October 2, 2010

Method Madness
Friday, October 1, 2010
September (8)

A friendly warning
Friday, September 24, 2010

Thanks...
Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Lighting fires
Monday, September 20, 2010

Learning without teaching: A repost and addendum
Monday, September 20, 2010

The Changeup
Tuesday, September 7, 2010

I wish that I knew what I know now...
Tuesday, September 7, 2010

For Science's Sake, Pay Attention
Saturday, September 4, 2010

Saturday Morning Silliness: A Speech to Remember
Saturday, September 4, 2010
August (11)

#ACS_Boston: In my PJs
Sunday, August 22, 2010

Turning the Spotlight on Women in Science
Saturday, August 21, 2010

Give us something to talk about
Thursday, August 19, 2010

Roundup! Aug. 8-15
Sunday, August 15, 2010

Roundup! Work-life balance
Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Roundup! July 31-Aug. 7
Sunday, August 8, 2010

Blogging with substance-which substance, we won't say
Saturday, August 7, 2010

Living in The Void: Healthcare
Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Give and take
Tuesday, August 3, 2010

What some smart women have to say about balance
Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Viewpoints on Mega-Science
Monday, August 2, 2010
July (2)

Monkeywrenches
Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Surviving the game
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Rate This Post
Total votes: 2
Blogger Profile

biochem belle

Research-and careers therein-rarely follows a linear path. Instead, it is often a long and winding road. These are stories about science and my personal experiences on this road.

My posts are presented as opinion and commentary and do not represent the views of LabSpaces Productions, LLC, my employer, or my educational institution.

Blog RSS Feed
RSS Add to My Yahoo Add to Google
Recent Comments

Before I get the AHA grant, they definitely have been using that excuse (money is tight) to reject me. But now I have the AHA grant, which means they will have extra money once the fellowship start. . .Read More
May 31, 2012, 12:52pm
Comment by Brian Krueger, PhD in Living in the Void: How much is a postdoc worth?

A good start is to look at the NIH's recommended guidelines.  I'm in the same boat as you.  I've been working here for almost 3 years with no pay raise and that's real. . .Read More
May 31, 2012, 11:52am

I just got the American heart association postdoctoral fellowship, in which I'll be receiving my salary from AHA (not much, just 39K). I do think that I have been under-valued, and my institution i. . .Read More
May 31, 2012, 10:25am

Nashsaid: Fine, the most important issue with industry is that you don't have the complete freedom to r. . .Read More
May 06, 2012, 4:53am

Hi. I am living in Indonesia. Perhaps, scientist  would be a little bit suprise to know the truth, but yes this is the truth. Having givin. . .Read More
Jul 09, 2011, 7:54am
Awesome Stuff

Banner photo adapted from image by Alexander Baxevanis under Creative Commons license.

Avatar created at SP Studio.

Locations of visitors to this page

Blogroll
Nov 07, 2010, 4:50pm
Saturday, October 2, 2010

I initally reposted this on  There & (hopefully) back again, but I thought peeps over here might like to weigh in. For the October Scientiae Carnival, podblack asked bloggers to think about how things have changed or stayed the same in STEM since we started out and what we see for the future. I started out less than 10 years ago. Yet in that time, I've seen considerable dissension and contention about how certain fields are defined. Here's something I posted on the topic last year. With the announcements for the 2010 Nobel Prizes just around the corner, it seems fitting.

--------------------------------------

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet."

Thus says Juliet in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. Admittedly, it is possibly one of the most overused quotes of Shakespeare, but in a way (albeit, perhaps a strange and slightly creepy way), it basically sums up my view on the continuing debate of how we define chemistry, biology, and everything in between.

Although this has subject has been a matter of discussion for quite a long time, it has become the center of rather heated debate since the announcement of the 2009 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. The row has been highlighted in a number of blogs and journal editorials including this one in ACS Chemical Biology (a hat tip to Brent Stockwell for the tweeted link). Essentially some folks feel that understanding ribosome structure and function is not Chemistry at all, and it's certainly not the first time in recent years that the Chemistry Prize was awarded for elucidation of molecular functions/interactions of cell-derived molecule These folks feel that the Nobel Prizes in Chemistry are being "stolen" by biology. Of course, this is really about ruffled feathers and the debate over what "real chemistry" is.

In my opinion, if you're looking at how atoms and molecules behave, bond, and interact, then it's chemistry--whether it's propylene or a P450. Ergo, biochemistry (or chemical biology or biological chemistry or whatever else you want to call it) is chemistry. For that matter, a lot of toxicology and pharmacology are chemistry. Compartmentalization of core sciences (with reference to research) is becoming increasingly difficult--and that's not necessarily a bad thing. There is a continuous spectrum of work running from chemistry to biology to physics. To impose arbitrary divisions between these disciplines and between subfields of these disciplines implies that science is a static thing. It isn't!

Science is a changing, moving, dynamic entity. Admittedly my "world view" of chemistry has been shaped--and some might argue, skewed--by the environments in which I've studied and trained. My undergraduate study was in a "Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry", and even though my degree says B.S. in Biochemistry, there was a strong emphasis on the core chemistry curriculum. This is probably why I chose to apply to graduate programs in chemistry departments that were strongholds for biochemistry. I have a Ph.D. in Chemistry, but my graduate work focused on protein chemistry and enzyme kinetics. There was honestly little division between chemistry and bio-related studies at PSU. This was perhaps aided by the fact that the medical school campus--home to formal departments of biochemistry and pharmacology--adjoined the arts and sciences campus--home to formal departments of chemistry, physics, and biology. The alliance was further promoted by inter-/multi-disciplinary programs, centers, and institutes for structural biology, biophysics, and chemical biology (to name a few) that brought together investigators from the medical school and A&S. There was no sense of animosity that a chemistry professor was doing "too much" biology or that a pharmacology professor was doing "too much" chemistry. I daresay, most of them would be hard pressed to define where chemistry (or physics) ends and biology begins.

There is a dark side to the integration of biology, chemistry, and physics. Some have developed the attitude that if there is no biological application, then the work is unimportant. Poppycock! What utter nonsense. Much of our understanding of the mechanisms by which enzymes act was originally based on analogies to well-characterized chemical reactions. We must take care not to stray into this form of scientific elitism.

Chemistry, biology, physics... We cannot disregard the foundations for our interdisciplinary work. Nor should we attempt to segregate those branches of study that have successfully integrated these core sciences. Our disciplines have evolved an interdependence and, thus far, have thrived in it. There many exciting discoveries yet to come, which would be impossible in the absence of collaboration and integration.

This post has been viewed: 983 time(s)

Blog Comments

JaySeeDub
Dub C Med School
Rate Post:

Like 2 Dislike

This is brilliant.  Do you mind if I share this with some incredibly petulant Post-Docs I know?  While I don't have contact with them anymore, their constant reminders that they're doing "real chemistry" aimed at Biochem students has stuck and still irks me today.  I always found the idea of hard and fast classification of any field ludicrous, and their aspersions always came off as absurdist to me.


biochem belle
Rate Post:

Like 0 Dislike

JSD, go for it ;) ... though it will likely do no good. I knew a grad student who was acted the same way-would make a few compounds then hand them off to other people to test, yet another student who was making compounds and doing protein chemistry wasn't a "real chemist". The funny thing is many of the early chemical biologists were trained in what these people would consider real chemistry but saw the potential for applying the concepts and methods to biological systems and ended up with successful research programs.


Professor in Training
Rate Post:

Like 2 Dislike

I did my PhD in a department that had the word "human" in the title. My studies used animal and cell culture models only. Prof Blue Hair told me one day that she was planning to have words with my advisor because it wasn't appropriate that I wasn't doing any studies that involved human participants. I told advisor and he laughed so hard he almost fell off his chair.


Evie
Rate Post:

Like 0 Dislike

Cool post @Belle! I am all about interdisciplinary work, you really don't get too far without it.


Prabodh Kandala
Texas Tech University Health Science Center
Rate Post:

Like 1 Dislike

 

Umm... Chemistry has Physical, Organic and Inorganic as its main branches. Every branch has a relation with Biology just like all molecules in the cell have link at one place or the other.

No Chemistry, no Biology.No Biology, no chemistry.No Physics, no chemistry.None of them, then no Science at all.


biochem belle
Rate Post:

Like 0 Dislike

PiT, that's fantastic! Your adviser nearly falling out of his chair with laughter, that is. It's pretty amazing how territorial scientists can become. It's like, what percentage of my work has to fall into category x for you to consider me part of your club? If my name's to be associated with your department, would you rather I do good science in a different system/field or crap science in yours?

Evie, I'm with you on interdisciplinary work... though interdisciplinary is on Carl Zimmer's Index of Banned Word I recall in a conversation someone making the argument that the majority of research these days is inter-/multi-disciplinary, so use of that descriptor is redundant. Tongue out

Prabodh, yes. What can we say? People are ridiculous sometimes when they're favorite thing doesn't win the prize, Nobel or otherwise.


Evie
Rate Post:

Like 0 Dislike

Wow.. that is a long list.. and I like a lot of those words..


microbiologist xx
Rate Post:

Like 2 Dislike

Glad you reposted this. I've always thought of chemistry as central to all science since ultimately, everything boils down to chemical interactions. However, until I joined my post-doc lab it wasn't clear to me just how overlapping different scientific fields can become. The lab I currently work in began as strictly a biochemistry lab, but now it's much more diverse. The post-docs come from all different areas of science - microbiology, molecular biology, immunology, structural biology and of course, biochemistry.

Add Comment?
Comments are closed 2 weeks after initial post.
Friends