| 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 |
Archives