Is There a Difference?

[foodchain]

Is there any difference in regards to molecular biology and biochemistry? Could a person basically view them as the same field really overall.

[ecoli]

looking through google definitions, molecular biology seems to be a biologist studying chemistry and biochemistry is a chemist studying biology. I think the difference is subtle, but I think the focus in biochemistry is organic reactions within organisms, which molecular biology seems to care more how these things affect biological systems as a whole.

 

That may be off, though, so feel free to correct this.

[Sigthror]

looking through google definitions, molecular biology seems to be a biologist studying chemistry and biochemistry is a chemist studying biology. I think the difference is subtle, but I think the focus in biochemistry is organic reactions within organisms, which molecular biology seems to care more how these things affect biological systems as a whole.

 

That may be off, though, so feel free to correct this.

 

I concur. I think both areas overlap greatly, but biochemistry more specifically studies just the chemical reactions within living organisms while molecular biology will actually apply those reactions to show how proteins and genes are regulated/created and such.

[fredrik]

I agree with the others. Judging from my different textbooks there is clearly a huge overlap, the but IMO it's mainly the focus and perspective that's a bit different (at least judging from textbooks).

 

Molecular biology has more the organism perspective, and studies the topic from the point of view of life. Like cell physiology.

 

Biochemstry is more the opposite (chemistry of life, rather than life of chemistry). You try to reduce life into chemistry and analyse it in detail. I don't know if it's a conicdience but in the books I have the chemistry parts, regarding reactions steps, enzyme analysis and stuff, is more detailed in the biochemistry book than in the molecular bio book, but OTOH it lacks parts on the connection to life. Which is the reason I have several books even though big parts of the two books are redundant.

 

/Fredrik

[foodchain]

I agree with the others. Judging from my different textbooks there is clearly a huge overlap, the but IMO it's mainly the focus and perspective that's a bit different (at least judging from textbooks).

 

Molecular biology has more the organism perspective, and studies the topic from the point of view of life. Like cell physiology.

 

Biochemstry is more the opposite (chemistry of life, rather than life of chemistry). You try to reduce life into chemistry and analyse it in detail. I don't know if it's a conicdience but in the books I have the chemistry parts, regarding reactions steps, enzyme analysis and stuff, is more detailed in the biochemistry book than in the molecular bio book, but OTOH it lacks parts on the connection to life. Which is the reason I have several books even though big parts of the two books are redundant.

 

/Fredrik

 

I have an intense interest in the natural sciences, which I guess is a good thing being I want to end up in graduate school for environmental studies. My problem comes from selecting a major based on other interests I hold. Personally I think that I agree with the views being presented, that molecular biology is closer to being able to link such up with biology while biochem looks really just to study chemistry still, which is fine.

 

So basically it would be safe to say that molecular biology is an extension pretty much of biology on studying the reality of life while biochemistry is still more just about the various reactions present in life, or a huge extension of carbon or organic chemistry?

 

Its starting to get close to crunch time for me in regards to declaring a major, so I am basically looking for help by people that have already been there.

 

 

Thanks to all that posted also.

[tyciol]

While it's semantics and they have always seemed to cover the same area, maybe the words have something to do with it. 'Molecular biology' could study the molecular composition of biology, whereas 'biochemistry' could study how those molecules interact? Though really you need each to study the other usually.

[Dak]

yet another way of saying it would be that molecular biologists start at the top and work down (studying biology, and then the chemical interactions that go on in life-forms), whereas biochemists start at the bottom and work up (studying chemistry, and then how chemicals interact to drive life).

 

Its starting to get close to crunch time for me in regards to declaring a major, so I am basically looking for help by people that have already been there.

 

I'm not sure what a majour is, but bear in mind that what you want to do might play a role in determining you're choice. eg, if you want to be a genetisist, then molecular biology is a better choice than biochem.

 

otoh, my degree had lots of what i'd call biochemistry (lots of stuff about entropy, free energy, activation energy, linking reactions via ATP, creb's cycle from a chemical POV, electric potential gradients, and stuff on basic formation of poly-peptides and sugars/polysaccharides) along with the molecular biology stuff (all the enzymes involved in DNA replication/maintanance/regulation, the DNA macromolecule itself, transmitting signals through receptor/ligand(?) interactions, etc), so there's no reason why you can't study biology and chemistry, and then try to get a handle on both biochem and molecular biology (molecular biochemistry?).

 

of course, not forgetting it after you've learnt it is another issue. i think i'm gonna go revise some

[Prewitt]

i didn't read all the posts in this thread so maybe i'm missing something. but there is a difference. biochemistry focuses on proteins. molecular biology on nucleotides. you could also say biochemists use acrylamide gels and molecular biologists use agarose gels most of the time - metaphorically spoken. there is no distinct border of course.

 

to prove this thesis, i cannot name you any english textbooks because as far as it involved english literature i just read protocol books (eg. the red book) but if you consider a more schoolish kind of literature the difference is apparent (eg. books of the "experimentator" line - it's german i know but see above )

[Genecks]

Anyone think it could be a "discover vs. invent" scenario? The chemist invents and the biologist discovers. I mean, yeah, we all have to study it; but in the end you'll have to invent or discover something for the field. I'm thinking the biochemist will invent something to affect something discovered. The molecular biologist will discover something.

 

What does biochemistry mean to me?

 

If it were on an exam, I'd probably put this down:

 

The subject of chemistry within biological system, which involves the chemical interactions between biological species. That would be how ions, compounds, and more are exchanged, altered, created, and more within a biological system. Example: The breakdown of sugars.

 

What does molecular biology mean to me?

 

The subject of chemical composition of biological components, which involves understanding how biological species are composed, maintained, and formed. That would be how proteins fold, DNA is created, and more. Example: How mRNA is turned into DNA through chemical processes, or how a biological molecule is chemically composed: DNA is composed of chemicals.

 

I don't think molecular biology ever goes into depth about the chemical relationships like biochemistry does. It's simply an overview. I've viewed biochemisty and molecular biology that way. One teaches you about all the things you could study into depth, and the other goes immeditately into depth but takes a long time to cover everything.

 

That's from an on-the-spot assumption. I could be wrong about it, so correct me if I'm wrong.

 

As an aside, be careful about what you study in a university. If you want a four-year degree, many universities give you a choice: a degree in biochemistry, chemistry, or biology. Unfortunately, you're not allowed to obtain a degree in biology after getting a degree in biochemistry. Some universities are odd about things like that. I'm not saying that applies toward all universities, just some.

 

 

If you learn how to "hack" these things, you can get a full book. It's simply suggested you don't provide people with the code to make it a systematic book:

 

1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=stryer.TOC&depth=2

2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=mboc4.TOC&depth=2

[foodchain]

This is directed to people in general that posted in this thread as there happen to be many.

 

Personally, I hate how segregated they make the fields really. For instance, I could be reading on a subject in biology, this will take me to reading up on it in chemistry, and also physics, and then somehow I am reading on some subject in geology because of it. Personally it just annoys the heck out of me. I personally view myself as someone that wants to be a theorist and an experimenter or someone that takes theory and attempts it in an applied fashion. I would like to study cell populations of prokaryotes as much as I would like to study nebula formation to really wanting to study sub atomic particles. I really cant decide on a major, and I know for the sake of being human that segregation of majors exist for a real purpose, in that so much knowledge exists in a certain field, entomology for example, that is takes a real solid focus on just it to grasp such really. I just cant fully decide on one.

 

I mean looking at life at a chemical/molecular basis is drastically exciting, such as in the realm of environmental chemistry, the understanding of rna for example, or simply making a periodic table of elements to describe the evolution of life, such as an appearance of a certain protein for example, I mean such would be a grand prize to me to be able to do research on in the real world, then again I could say that about understanding fully why the sea floor spreading process functions fully. When it comes to studying something, I really cannot make up my mind. I know overall that currently in the world environmental awareness and conservation to me seems paramount anymore, and to go outside of my own selfish desires to study and learn about everything, that’s where I should try to help evolve knowledge really. The university I plan to end up at and am about a year away from has a masters in environmental studies and such, so in the meantime I think for being able to basically be able to study nature/reality in general I will probably choose physics or applied physics really. I think in a general sense it does not preclude me as much as other fields would, and its more extreme in the use of observations or being exacting in relation to the use of the scientific method, which I think would only aid in attempting to describe the natural world in total, such as a forest for example, from a QM perspective even to large scale collections of matter and energy interactions. Its still open though, as in a year I will start doing calc/physics stuff, if I cant hack it I am sure I will end up in biology/ecology, but then again I do find so much of it interesting and I find math relaxing, so I hope it will help.

 

Thanks to people that posted in this thread, I am still confused but I am farther along then when I started it.

If anyone wants to give some advice, such as people already working in such, that would be great also.

[Prewitt]

you can listen to me or not but if i post something you can be sure i am quite certain of it. to underline my point you can consider the most famous molecular biology book with is the alberts ("cell") it exculsivly deals with dna, rna and the cell's work on these. still can't name an english textbook for pure biochemistry though. don't let the school books fool you: they're named "biochemistry" but include both. why? cuz they were started back in the days of good old protein chemistry, before taq and the like made their way into the lab.

[foodchain]

you can listen to me or not but if i post something you can be sure i am quite certain of it. to underline my point you can consider the most famous molecular biology book with is the alberts ("cell") it exculsivly deals with dna, rna and the cell's work on these. still can't name an english textbook for pure biochemistry though. don't let the school books fool you: they're named "biochemistry" but include both. why? cuz they were started back in the days of good old protein chemistry, before taq and the like made their way into the lab.

 

Right, I read some stuff on protein chemistry. I have a dictionary of biology, and a dictionary of chemistry. In them, biochemistry is a term that covers molecular biology and related disciplines. I have read up on such in wiki also, and on other sites. I just don’t see a concise separation, save for the most part I think molecular biology does take more of an approach from studying such in the context of DNA/RNA for example, though of course the field is not limited to such in any regard overall.

 

Its just sort of annoying because these fields are the more quantifiable really, or much more objective. For instance, when sexual reproduction is involved, how many chemicals are present in the midbody and what happen to be the purpose. Last time I checked over 500 play a role in just that arena alone. Have you ever ventured to the tree of life site, its all on phylogeny really, I think having different versions of that to represent the physiochemical basis of life would be neat, or one for the chemical side, and one for the physical side, and then of course the relationship. The problem to me is the fields somewhat segregate really in education, I don’t know so much for the real world. Such as if it were just protein chemistry, you really would end up having to work with a lot more then just amino acids.

[Prewitt]

i said there aren't distinct borders. I've been working in the institute of biochemistry here for 7 years and in a molcular biology lab for 4 years now. the difference lies on the point of focus, not on the methods itself.