Talk:Molecular biology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Signal transduction. |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| Top | This article is on a subject of Top-importance within molecular and cellular biology. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
Another quote on molecular biology:
"Molecular biology is the art of taking a fine Swiss watch, smashing it with a sledge hammer, and then trying to figure out how it worked."
Has anyone else heard it and know the source? -- Marj Tiefert
- Yes, I have. It comes from an outdated and wrong statement by a Nobel Laureate in 1937: "To improve a living organism by random mutation is like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and bending one of its wheels or axis. Improving life by random mutations has the probability of zero." -Albert Szent-Gyorgi, Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1937). Quote is highlighted about 60% down the page Szent-Gyorgi obviously didn't understand the concept of natural selection and how simple survival of the fittest could turn "random mutations" into the raw material of evolutiion. Smart people say stupid things all the time, we should not integrate those statements into an encyclopida. maveric149
-
- I had always heard that nuclear physics is like smashing a clock and then looking at the peices to figure out how atoms are put together. Gbleem 06:34 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)
-
- Smart people keep their mouth shut when they are not familiar with the subject, because they know it is very likely that they'll say something stupid. -- Boris 23:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- The quote of Laureate, if it is the source, may now be considdered dated, it was true at that time. My opinion is that the quote on top is dated now as well. If you consider electromicroscopy, the illustration for the bluntness of tools from a macroenvironment, which we use to influence a microenvironment, may be true. But several techniques used nowadays are in vivo, and use microenvironmental tools like plasmids. I think the primary problem at this moment is that the microenvironment is too poorly understood. How about:
-
-
- "Molecular biology is the art of repairing a rolls royce with a fork."
-
-
- Well oops, now I said it. -- Picobyte
I heard that this technique was used by Japanese manufacturers after WWII to reverse engineer Swiss watches. If a Timex runs less well than a Rolex, it may be because parts inevitably get bent in the smashing--a point Szent-Gyorgi articulated well, and which I think we should not be so quick to dismiss.168... 00:17 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)
--- What is the difference between molecular biology and biochemistry? Gbleem 06:34 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)
That's a good question, Gbleem, and one that this page unfotunately does not address. The definition of biochemistry as a study only concerned with "the molecules" in living systems is simply false. Both molecular biolgists and biochemists examine the intricacies of life processes, and both devote their efforts to the component molecules of these processes as well as the holistic big-picture in which they function. To say that biochemistry is somehow more focused on the small scale is a lie. Let's admit it, the fields of molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics all share a immense amount of overlap, and report on that fact here, as opposed to needlessly pigeon-holing biochemists.
- The difference is that you have biochemists, which for historical reasons tend to origin from a more chemistry-related study and molecular biologist from a more biology/medicine related study. These studies grow toward the field of interest, which is life sciences at this moment.
Contents |
[edit] I dont understand why this link is included
http://www.imcb.a-star.edu.sg/
Its not generally useful like the other link, seems more like advertising.
[edit] Rockefeller Institute
If Rockefeller Institute in the section History was wikilinked, this link would redirect to Rockefeller University. Is this what is referred to? In context, it seems more likely that it refers to another name for Rockefeller Foundation. / Habj 22:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] embryology
Does anyone happen to know any embryologists? I think Embryology really needs a lot of expert attention. would sympathtic editors consider a positive vote here? [1]Slrubenstein | Talk 19:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] protein purification removed
I just removed the section after western blotting that was dealing with affinity purification of proteins. Upon reflection, I really think it is more of a biochemistry technique than a molecular biology technique. If people think that protein purification is molecular biology, it certainly should be done in more detail than a single paragraph on affinity purification. Dr Aaron 11:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Link
A great resource for Molecular biology information Jojo556.
- I removed link, seems like advertising spam to me. Qandnotq 23:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
