Biochemsitry or Biological Engineering

[Xittenn]

I have always wished to be a Tissue Engineer. In saying this I mean that I have always wanted to develop solutions to the human need for replacement tissues. I am looking at my current pathway into University at the moment and I kind of have two choices.

 

The first choice would be to enter into the Faculty of Science and into Chemistry to then specialize in Biochemistry. At UBC, the University I am trying to get into, there is a further specialization of Biochemistry called Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology. This program seems to fit the description of what it is I wish to do and it can be followed up with a direct placement into the Doctor of Philosophy in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (PhD) program.

 

Now on the other hand the Faculty of Applied Science offers the program Chemical & Biological Engineering, this sounds rather ominous to me. UBC is revered for it's Engineering department. Getting into this program is going to be hard but I think that I have a chance that is much better than average. This program can also follow up with a direct placement into an equivalent PhD program.

 

To get into the BSc program all I will be required to do is to take a year of College and my credits will apply for first year and I will enter into the second. To get into the BASc I will have to upgrade my existing Chemistry and Physics at Kwantlen Polytech University College and then do their first year transfer program. The second option is about 10x harder than the first and in this option I will have to fight for my seat every step of the way.

 

I guess the question is would it be worth it to fight for the glam of having a BASc from UBC? Would the BASc even be the right program? I want to develop solutions internally to the problem more than externally. I wish to develop models and new materials for use as a solution. I assume here that the Engineer would do more work in developing the method of implementation as opposed to the actual material itself? I would much like to develop artificial substitutes as well!

 

Chemical & Biological Engineering

 

 

Chemical & Biological Engineering provides you with an opportunity to combine interests in life sciences with engineering. This option is concerned with biological processing in the fields of biotechnology and biomedical engineering.

 

 

Molecular, Cell & Developmental Biology

 

 

This program provides you with comprehensive training in molecular, cell, and developmental biology. Core courses ensure that you will obtain the most current information pertaining to the fundamental nature of cells, as well as their molecular and developmental mechanisms.

 

 

Maybe someone has seen the light better on the other end of this tunnel?

 

o.o

[Horza2002]

First of all, this is a very interesting topic if research that you want to get into...good for you doing all the research and knowing the best places to do it.

 

In my opinion, I would advice you to do the Biochemistry one and not the engineering one for a couple of reasons:

1. Diversity - A degree in biochemistry will give you a larger knowledge base than doing a Chem/Bio engineering course. You would learn not only the intergral parts of chemistry and biology, but also how they are interlinked. From what I've read about the engineering option, you would only learn the "working knowledge" of how chemistry and biology work. You might not get taught the fundamentals that are essential for fully understand certain processes
   
2. Specilisation - A Chem/Bio engineering is a very specalised area which could cause you issues in the future. If, 10 years down the line, you decide that you don't actually want to do work in that area, you might find ir difficult to change to another subject area. In contrast, a biochemistry degree will open alot more avenues for you. I would also imagine that using the biochemistry as a basis, then you should be able to move into the engineering subject much easier
   

 

In my experience, it is much easier to move from a broader subject to a more specialised subject than the reverse.

[Xittenn]

I'm thinking you are very much correct. I would much more prefer to have extensive knowledge of all of the details that make up Bio-Molecular Chemistry than to have some integrated knowledge of Life Sciences.

 

The Science Degree would also be more relevant to my preferred professional activities upon completion and that is to develop an independent research facility. I would be more readily capable of acquiring the necessary licenses from the government with a proper degree in Chemistry. I can always maintain my working knowledge of the current technologies relevant to my field on my own. If I did feel the need to develop new technologies or tools relevant to my research I'm sure there would be accessible means to formally do so.

 

Thanks for the opinions Horza2002

Edited March 20, 2011 by Xittenn

[farmboy]

Hi Horzaa dude, could you just clarify for me which of the options you were advocating there. You seem to be picking the oposite options to me but for the same reasons. I'll state what I think towards the end, and then you can clear up for me anything I am getting mistaken.

 

Sorry, also to the OP, is my understanding of the degree progression you are hoping for accurate? It seems to me that for choice one you would first get a qualification as a biochemist (specialising in molecular, cell and developmental biology), then you would like to go on to do your phd. The second choice would be to do a course in Chemical and Biological engineering and you would presumably still go on to do a phd?

 

 

Assuming that is accurate (and horzaa you can probably ignore my statement to you as I now think I know what is going on lol) I probably wouldn't go directly down any of the routes you suggestted. It is great to see that you have such a clear idea of where you want your career to go at this early stage (I am starting my phd next year and I'm still not too sure lol), but in my experience it is often a bad idea to chose such a rigid path this early on. You can allow yourself quite a bit more freedom in science without doing any damage to your career. People I know who did the really specialised courses at undergraduate often discovered that they hate them later, but at that stage it is too late to move into another related area (as there are none) and you have wasted your degree. With the more basic sciences (you could do chemistry, or biology or what I'd suggest just regular biochem) you can see what it is really like studying in the area you are interested in and if you hate it you have a dozen other fallback points. Like with me I wanted to do pharmaceutical/medicinal chemistry but changed to pure chem at the last minute and thank god I did. Found out that madicinal chem bored me arse off in practice and that I actually love inorganc chemistry lol.

 

Getting back to you, you will be able to do your degree in biochem, and you are maybe thinking that this will harm your prospects of a successful career in your chosen field, but luckily it just won't. You plan to do a phd anyway and so you will be able to do a phd and maybe even a masters too working in the area that is important to you. This will actually be better in terms of jobs I think. You will have a broader all round knowledge, plus if you are working in research the employeers will be far more concerned with you phd experience/post doc projects than the difference between a few forgotten modules at uni lol.

 

 

 

So yeah just to summarise, best to do your BSc in a broader subject area like biochem giving you a wider knowledge base and the chance to change specialisation without any repercussions (something many of my friends wish they had done lol). You are perhaps thinking that this will hinder a job in the area you specified, but after a phd in a relevant area the employeers will likely not even know. You will also get a chance to learn about and maybe even practise the engineering techniques that the 2nd course might have provided. And that is my logic lol.

[Horza2002]

Basically thats what I meant: I would advice against doing such a specilises subject so early in your education. I would advice starting with a broader subject area and then specialise afterwards once you get to the PhD level. If anything, I would say that having a wider range of subject knowledge would actually help your career because it shows you are veristile and can do many things...not just one set subject. You will also be able to look at the same problem from multiple angles....something that is very useful indeed.

 

There are PhD's currently working in the same lab as me (I'm a synthetic organic chemist/microbiologist) who have come to this area of research from a maths background with no scientific training whatso ever. I would say that a biochemistry degree would be far more useful to you now, than having such a specilised subject.

[Xittenn]

Very much so farmboy! I will be taking first year common Chemistry at a College or Polytechnic University as I have been graduated High School for fifteen years now. I agree that I should keep my options open, as you suggest, in terms of specialization. I do however have to choose right now if I am going to go for Bio-Engineering or Chemistry and it would seem that you are also suggesting the BSc.

 

I have had a long time to think about this and really everything I have done in the past fifteen years has been related to this matter. I have focused on learning technologies and more the aspects of Engineering, but my concerns in this were supplemental to my desires to be working in the field of Bio-Molecular Chemistry and Tissue Engineering. And this is the main reason why I am still asking myself this question is because Tissue Engineering suggests a degree in Engineering, but the reality is, if you read any of the material in the field currently, these are not Engineers but are in fact Biochemists.

 

I am just trying to make sure I am not making any mistakes in this. I wish to do work with replacement and artificial tissues, cells and potentially organs. I am not entirely concerned about implementation and the technologies necessary to making such products viably marketable to the public; although such knowledge would also be beneficial. In the end I hope to gain the ability to apply for proper licensing through the government to be allowed to conduct research in the lower mainland.

 

I will be meeting with a few academic advisers over the next few weeks but I don't think these questions will be readily answered by these individuals. My appointment with the advisers is mainly to ensure that I am enrolling in the appropriate first year transfer program and that I have all of the requisites to complete a proper application into these programs. I am still at least a year away from entry, I have really done myself a bit of a disservice in having not stepped up for so long.

 

Have fun with your PhD farmboy

[Horza2002]

Tissue engineers will not be engineers int he convential sence...they will be biochemists....just to clear that up for you

[Xittenn]

Thanks Horza!

 

o.o

[CharonY]

Actually, it depends on what aspects of tissue engineering you are looking at. Individual mechanisms (e.g. proteins) pertaining to adsorption and cell-cell interaction are closer to molecular biology or chemistry, however in the broader and areas cell biological and cell cultivation knowledge are higher on the list. Other elements include biomaterials and biomechanics and, especially for the applied part, medical sciences.

[Xittenn]

Well I would like to focus on things like isolating centrosomes for study into how they could be synthesized and specialized into new and higher forms of technology. How such knowledge could be applied to the development of synthetic cells and replacement tissues and maybe also applications in Cancer research. Enzyme use and synthesis as new and emerging technologies or sets of methodologies that could be used directly in techniques related to tissue, cell and nerve regeneration. Knowledge of scaffolding would be nice but the study of new means of self generating synthetic forms of ECM would be preferred.

 

I guess you could say I am curious about what could be and not so much interested in just fixing what is; I am not coming into this from a practical point of view. If a replacement heart is being developed it should not only integrate into the existing system but it should also represent an enhancement to the system as well; such knowledge will only be gained through abstract research, in my opinion. I would like to do research in areas of that which is not, but with my education, still be an asset to the mainstream of society and capable of completing practical tasks. I know the Engineers are often more employable after receiving their BASc but this is not my highest concern and I am striving here to attain a PhD inside of eight years.

 

I know at this point that I am way ahead of myself and that I will most likely be in a far different place when I get there. These are simply the goals I have had in mind, and really, since I was a little kid. I just keep building on what I know and I am pretty sure if I take the BSc Biochem/Biomolecular route I will be well on my way to pursuing my goals, even if I am the slowest scientist ever. \o/

 

[Adams Baker]

I would like to suggest you to opt Biological Engineering rather than Biochemistry. Because the goals of Biological Engineering is to provide a fundamental understanding of biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics and engineering and to apply this understanding to design devices and processes related to biosystems. Graduates have an excellent understanding of the complementary aspects of biology and engineering and work as professionals capable of implementing new ideas and technologies in complex biologically based industries.