Chemistry or Biochemistry, Research

[Iota]

Can studying chemistry be just as good as biochemistry for going into cancer research after university?

 

I'm studying a chemistry degree which comprises all the main areas of chemistry in the first and second year, industrial placement in the 3rd year and a research project in year 4. I plan to take chemical engineering as an optional module throughout.

 

Also, where can I find the most recent literature in research belonging to the forefront of their respective fields?

 

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

To my mind, it would depend less on your undergrad experiences and more on your post graduate work. Though anecdotal, I had a professor in undergrad that was (and is) a leading plant biologist, despite having done his undergrad in quantum mathematics. Similarly, there's no reason why you can't get into cancer research through a chemistry degree; the two areas are very compatible with one another. I would even go so far as to say that doing a chemistry degree (while keeping a solid grounding in biology) would potentially be beneficial to you, depending on exactly what kind of research you wanted to get in to.

 

As for recent literature, I can tell you that for chemistry, most ACS publications are a good start, as are journals such as Agnewante Chemie and Eu JOC. I'm not so sure on other areas, though you might get a good idea of this by looking at a list of journals by impact factor and going from there.

[CharonY]

I agree with the relevance of post grad experience, but you also need some education on cell and molecular biology. It depends a lot on the area (e.g. cancer biology, diagnostics, oncology, pharmacology, etc.).

 

ACS for the most part are not terribly suited to learn about cancer (except for analytics). Better journals are more bio oriented (such as Cell) or medical (e.g. Cancer Research, Lancet Oncology etc).

 

Though for starters textbooks tend to be better,supplemented with current reviews (including from review journals such as Nature Rev Cancer).

[Iota]

I would even go so far as to say that doing a chemistry degree (while keeping a solid grounding in biology) would potentially be beneficial to you, depending on exactly what kind of research you wanted to get in to.

 

With what you said about postgrad in mind, I've looked into a number of courses. Most aren't all that specific about entry requirements, but it seems as long as your undergrad performance meets the minimum standard (e.g. 2:1 (Hons)), and your undergrad course has sufficient relevance to the course you're applying to, you'll be all right.

 

When you say keeping a solid grounding in biology, does that mean having some sort of qualification to show for it? I understand a PhD is completing supervised research (that's about all I know); will they bring you up to scratch in the areas where your knowledge is deficient?

 

Let's say I get a 2:1 or above MChem. Will that be enough, or will my lack of biology knowledge mean I will almost certainly fail as a PhD student and not be allowed on the course?

 

I agree with the relevance of post grad experience, but you also need some education on cell and molecular biology. It depends a lot on the area (e.g. cancer biology, diagnostics, oncology, pharmacology, etc.).

 

I've seen a PhD postgrad. course which says it generally covers the biochemistry involved in cancer, cardiovascular disease, and other areas. Cancer and cardiovascular disease, two areas I'm interested in potentially researching. The course says it needs a relevant science undergrad course... I suppose I'll have to get in contact to find out what those courses might be. How likely do you think it is that MChem would be sufficiently relevant?

[hypervalent_iodine]

I agree with the relevance of post grad experience, but you also need some education on cell and molecular biology. It depends a lot on the area (e.g. cancer biology, diagnostics, oncology, pharmacology, etc.).

Couldn't agree more.

 

When you say keeping a solid grounding in biology, does that mean having some sort of qualification to show for it? I understand a PhD is completing supervised research (that's about all I know); will they bring you up to scratch in the areas where your knowledge is deficient?

 

I meant that you should keep your feet in biology courses in undergrad, specifically molecular cell biology and biochemistry (as mentioned by CharonY). I'm not as familiar with the US system, but I know that in Australia that you wouldn't really need a piece of paper to say you have qualifications in biology, provided you have your BSc. If you have the relevant background education and better still, if you have experience working in molecular cell biology or biochemistry based labs, whether or not you have chemistry or biochemistry as your major shouldn't really matter.

 

 

Let's say I get a 2:1 or above MChem. Will that be enough, or will my lack of biology knowledge mean I will almost certainly fail as a PhD student and not be allowed on the course?

 

I'm not sure what you mean by your first sentence, so I apologise if I'm off base here. A lack of biology knowledge won't guarantee you fail, but it will mean much more effort on your part as well as making it harder to get into the exact research you want.

 

 

I've seen a PhD postgrad. course which says it generally covers the biochemistry involved in cancer, cardiovascular disease, and other areas. Cancer and cardiovascular disease, two areas I'm interested in potentially researching. The course says it needs a relevant science undergrad course... I suppose I'll have to get in contact to find out what those courses might be. How likely do you think it is that MChem would be sufficiently relevant?

 

It depends largely on what type of projects they're doing and how the group operates. MChem may well be enough, but the best way to find out would be to contact the supervisor of the group directly.