Computational bioinformatics
Continuing on my previous musing about why "neuroscience" sounds so much sexier than "biology" even though both describe what I do, Spitshine offers alternative definitions of two words that at first glance might seem to be synonyms:
- Bioinformatician - A scientist with a background in biology or biochemistry who stopped generating data himself
- Computational biologist - A computer scientist or physicist who happens to use biological data
posted by Andrew @ 6:42 PM
5 Comments:
Once I went to a large wedding that I didn’t really want to go to since it was a long drive and I knew almost nobody there. So I made up various sexy sounding fields as answers to the usual and-what-do-you-do question. Some of these got people interested. But when they asked what it was, I always just said “lots of numbers”. Numbers must not be sexy since that pretty much cut off interest. Too bad I didn’t write some of these down. Oh well, there might be more overly large and overly long weddings to go to.
computers should be at least as sexy as brains, but they're just not. yeah, there are some smart-as-hell folks in the field, but they're surrounded by legions of fat guys drinking mountain dew. you have to take "computer" out of the description for sure to achieve job description sexiness.
biology includes people who count bugs and cuddle kitties for a living. not sexy. studying the brain? always sexy, and not so many unattractive behemoths in the field as yet.
well, off the to neuroscience institute i go!
biology includes people who count bugs and cuddle kitties for a living. not sexy. studying the brain? always sexy
I think you may have hit the nail on the head with the first sentence! Counting bugs is awesome and very important but it seems pretty clear that systematics doesn't elicit the same fascination in the general public as the brain...
With all these new terms coming out, its definitely easy to get confused. That said there are a number of good resources on Computational Biology & Bioinformatics (i'm still not clear on the difference myself). A good place to talk to people in the field is Siphs. I signed up for this site recently and its sort of like a high-powered forum. Might be worth checking out.
The latter, Web 2.0, is not defined as a static architecture. Web 2.0 can be generally characterized as a common set of architecture and design patterns, which can be implemented in multiple contexts. bu sitede en saglam pornolar izlenir.The list of common patterns includes the Mashup, Collaboration-Participation, Software as a Service (SaaS), Semantic Tagging (folksonomy), and Rich User Experience (also known as Rich Internet Application) patterns among others. These are augmented with themes for software architects such as trusting your users and harnessing collective intelligence. Most Web 2.0 architecture patterns rely on Service Oriented Architecture in order to function
Post a Comment
<< Home