1 |
Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Macromolecular graphics tools I really consider biochemistry, so they |
4 |
> can go either way. But I more often hear biochemistry elongated as |
5 |
> biological chemistry than chemical biology. So if forced to categorize |
6 |
> one or the other, I lean toward chemistry. |
7 |
|
8 |
It all depends on the size of the molecules and the amount of |
9 |
specialization of the researchers, I think. We could go to the extreme |
10 |
of a category for each package if we were perverse enough. :) |
11 |
|
12 |
I'm just starting to explore the Bioconductor Project |
13 |
(http://www.bioconductor.org). When all is said and done, Bioconductor, |
14 |
though it's primarly a collection of R code for cancer and genetics |
15 |
research, is really applied math and computer science. For example, I'm |
16 |
using some of the routines in Bioconductor for computer performance |
17 |
engineering. |
18 |
|
19 |
Of course, my father was a biochemist and the correspondences between |
20 |
computer science, computational biochemistry and genetics were not lost |
21 |
on me. In short, my vote is for biology or biocomputing or |
22 |
bioinformatics rather than biochemistry or chemistry. |
23 |
|
24 |
Just on the off chance some of you are interested in the heavy stuff, |
25 |
the good folks in Seattle at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center |
26 |
are having an advanced R programming class in January. I've already |
27 |
spoken to the organizers and they've assured me that the course is more |
28 |
about R than bioinformatics and that computer scientists like myself are |
29 |
welcome. If I go I will be bringing a Gentoo laptop, of course. :) For |
30 |
more details, visit https://cobra.fhcrc.org/rforbioc/ |
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky |
34 |
|
35 |
http://linuxcapacityplanning.com |
36 |
|
37 |
-- |
38 |
gentoo-science@g.o mailing list |