biology vs chemistry and physics

[foofighter]

i'm interested in understanding the different skills needed to succeed in these 3 natural sciences respectively. just from taking a few 101 courses at college, it seems biology is more rote memorization, while chem and physics are heavily based on critical thinking and problem solving. does this hold true at all, and if so, how far up the ladder towards more and more advanced study does this trend continue? is the division (if there is one) apparent in doctoral and postdoctoral learning as well? not to slight any biologists of course, but it just seems that chemistry, and especially physics, are a lot more demanding/intellectually challenging. or is it not a matter of one subject demanding more than the other, rather perhaps each subject simply demands a different set of skills, and one skill set isn't really superior to another in an objective light? any feedback is greatly appreciated = )

[Paralith]

Being a biologist myself, I'll put my bias out in the open and easily admit that I dislike the idea that chemistry and physics require more "smarts" than biology. That being established, let's move on:

 

I can't deny that biology, especially learning introductory biological theory, is a lot of memorization. However, a lot of advanced biological theory and especially practical biological research ends up involving a lot of chemistry and/or physics and/or math. After all, life at its basis is physics and chemistry, but in an organism there are layers upon layers of complexity of chemical interactions that result in the higher level functioning of that organism. We're talking about seemingly endless amounts of different phenomena, and trying to understand the governing mechanisms behind them, how they all interact with each other, their history, etc (depending of course on the specific sub-field you're talking about - biology is a ridiculously broad term and encompasses many specialties; though I'm sure chemists and physicists will say the same thing about chemistry and physics ) So yes, biology does involve memorizing a lot of things - but then you take this knowledge about all these many, many different things, and try to understand and puzzle out their interrelationships.

 

I currently work in a biomedical research lab, and the amount of work we do to identify, characterize, and verify a single relationship - say, the hypothesized statement that the gene Pitx1 is upregulated in and contributes to the disease FSHD - is really rather astounding. That relationship itself is interwoven into many others - how exactly does Pitx1 function normally, how does that function change as a result of upregulation, what about the disease triggers this upregulation, what other genes and environmental effects act on Pitx1, what genes does Pitx1 act on, what are the gross morphological effects of excess Pitx1 protein and do these effects match what we see in the disease, etc etc. By exploring all these things and comparing the knowledge we gather to previously gathered knowledge, hopefully we will slowly piece together what's really going on.

 

I don't know if the intellectual demands of physics and chemistry research are quantitatively more or less than this, but it's definitely nothing to scoff at.

[foofighter]

so it seems from what you are saying that the observation i made applies to the lowest echelons of science learning, and that in the upper-tiers the playing field is evened-out between the 3 sciences. part of me thought this would be so, and i'm glad to hear it confirmed from an actual biologist. thx = )

[hermanntrude]

the ideal scientist would have a pHd in all three sciences.

 

Although that in itself would make him or her non-ideal, since he/she would be about 40 years old when starting his/her first job and probably also on the brink of suicide.

 

No one science can stand on its own. I'm a chemist so i tend to believe that chemistry is the most important science, but i often find myself wishing i knew some more physics or biochemistry.

 

I remember I once saw a quote on a notice board which said this:

 

Know ye all who bow before the alter of chemistry, yours is nought but the physics of the outer electron shell

[thedarkshade]

The three belong to the 'exact sciences' and any choice you take would be fine. I mean, for those who really want to understand how we work, how our world works and how everything works would absolutely enjoy studying any ob the above.

 

Biology offer a very exciting world of understanding what is alive, how does 'alive' work, what really happens inside our organism, how are diseases caused, what really is aging, and the exciting world of genetics and molecular biology which is absolutely fascinating.

 

Chemistry tells everything about the composition, what are we made of, why the 'stuff' we are made of is so special, why do substances have the features they have, what is useful and what not for humans, by experimenting always tries to improve the conditions we live.

 

And physics, physics, physics the king of all. The philosophy of nature! What do we get from physics? Well, we get nature! Physics literally tells how our world works. I honestly find it hard to describe what physics provides us since it actually offers of everything. IMO physics is the king of all and 100% worth to study and get all the degrees existing in it.

 

 

Yet, like hermanntrude said, an ideal scientist would have all three!

[SkepticLance]

It has been said that the 20th Century was the physics century, and the 21st will be the century of biology. This is based on the practical benefits from those studies. From physics we got various forms of energy and work, electronics and computers, communications etc. Biology will give us medicines, agricultural productivity, biosynthesis of novel materials, longer life, and more human abilities. Of course, this difference is an over-simplification.

 

Biology at higher levels is very complex. It involves increasingly the use of complex mathematics, and complex chemistry. We are moving from the world of simple description to a world of complex genetics, which is ultimately mathematical.

 

At its simplest level, biology may still be descriptive, meaning that some memorisation is needed. However, that difference from physics and chemistry is rapidly disappearing at higher levels.

[NeonBlack]

Lance's last statement is very true; the smarter a biologist becomes, the more she becomes a chemist. Of course, there is a similar relationship between chemists and physicists.

 

PhDs in all 3 sciences? No. That would be terrible. General broad knowledge is necessary, but doing a PhD in all 3 would be an abomination.

[foofighter]

SkepticLance (Organism) 03-07-2008, 03:09 PM #6

It has been said that the 20th Century was the physics century, and the 21st will be the century of biology.

 

 

what would be the ideal educational route to take advantage of the biology century? would it be a bio major, biochem, or bioengineering? many of the courses at my college for bio deal with the macro, especially the upper-tiered courses, like surveys of the various kingdoms. should one focus more on the microscopic, or does the macroscopic serve a purpose to know as far as being prepared to get involved in the bio-revolution is concerned? thanks

[iNow]

should one focus more on the microscopic, or does the macroscopic serve a purpose to know as far as being prepared to get involved in the bio-revolution is concerned? thanks

 

This probably is not the answer you want, but it is valid all the same.

 

You need to spend some time learning a little bit about each, then, when one stands out clearly in your mind as more interesting than the others, that's the one you pick.

 

People always do better in subjects they find interesting. You need to find what's right for you.

 

The rest (like which will be most important in the coming century) is all speculation and prognostication. We're not Nostradamus or something.