- #1
physicsuser
- 82
- 1
What is the difference between biology and biochemistry?
Samanthakrjx said:biology=biochemistry +...
Uhm that is what I want to 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 said:Uhm that is what I want to know... what is biochemistry and what is biology.
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...
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.
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.
Jikx said:I was always led to believe:
Molecular Biology = DNA, Genes
Biochemistry = Proteins.
Biology = Macro life processes
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
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![]()
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
2d protein gels you mean? You know how much work it is to analyze those?iansmith said: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:2d protein gels you mean? You know how much work it is to analyze those?
But that's not the biochemist's approach.quasi426 said:Although people may say they are studying a certain field such as biology or molecular biology or whatever. When it comes down to it, biology is just biochemistry or chemistry. If someone is in disagreement, please give me a specific example in biology that has nothing to do with biochemistry. Just to let you see where I'm going. Someone might say the ability to see. Well that's due to proteins in the eye that undergo a conformational change when a photon transfers its energy. The conformational change leads to signals to the brain...all these things are biochemistry.
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.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?
Biology is the study of living organisms and their interactions with each other and their environment, while biochemistry is the study of the chemical processes and substances that occur within living organisms.
An example of a biological process that involves biochemistry is photosynthesis, where plants convert sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide into glucose and oxygen through a series of chemical reactions.
No, biology and biochemistry are closely related and often overlap in their research and findings. Many biological processes cannot be fully understood without considering the underlying biochemical mechanisms.
Biology focuses on the study of living organisms at the cellular, organismal, and population levels, while biochemistry delves deeper into the molecular and chemical processes that occur within these organisms.
Yes, individuals with a background in biology can often work in the field of biochemistry, as the two fields are closely related and require a similar understanding of biological processes. However, additional training and education may be necessary to specialize in biochemistry.