Bio::Blogs #9 has been posted at Public Rambling. In case you don't know, bio::blogs is a bioinformatics carnival.Speaking of bioinformatics, it's been on my mind recently since we are just now seeing the results of our first two classes of bioinformatics undergraduates. We talked about the best way of creating an undergraduate program in bioinformatics for over ten years before we finally came up with a collaboration between the Biochemistry Department and Computer Science [Bioinformatics and Computational Biology].
The final decision was to try and educate students to be competent in both computer science and biochemistry. I was not in favor of this approach since the two disciplines are very different—that's one of the things I learned from going to computer science seminars and sitting on their graduate committees since 1992.
I think it's hard enough for students to absorb the culture of one field. To learn how researchers think in two different fields is asking too much. So far, the only students we've attracted are those who were in computer science and want to broaden their horizons by learning about bioinformatics. As I expected, they are struggling with the science courses and it's not because they are stupid. Our biochemistry students, on the other hand, are picking up a fair amount of computer training on their own without getting into information theory, database design, or theories of algorithms.
Does anyone else have experience with undergraduate programs in bioinformatics?
4 comments :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/heart_and_soul.shtml
Have you heard this audio between Eugenie Scott (anthropologist, naturalist) and Henry Morris III (creationist)?
This is going to be mostly negative, outdated and probably besides the point of the factual situation.
The reason I once could do a small course molecular biology was that it was an merit option, and the reason the course was a meritable option was that the biomedicine faculty hypothesized that engineers studying physics had the easiest time to catch up on biology and remaining computing (as it was then).
It seemed to worked well, they had attracted one electrophysics engineer doing, IIRC, a PhD in modeling error corrections in biochemical pathways. AFAIK they though his grasp of math, materials and modeling contributed to their research. He certainly communicated with us engineer students as we where used too on his parts of the lessons. (Which was most of the point with his participation, I think.)
So the question is perhaps what the program is primarily intended for. If it is "research and teaching" it could possibly be a nonoptimal approach. My concern would be that an ability in using and developing computer systems is widely different from an ability to understand and do research of any kind.
If it is for industry, well, time changes and I don't really know the asked for requirements. Perhaps they want one or both of these student groups resulting skill sets.
"used too" - used to.
Hrm. Obviously break time. Where was the coffee mug again? [Mumble, mumble.]
I was a CS major and my university required a lot of physics for its BS degree. My elective choices were to choose 6 more hours of science classes to meet the science requirement. I wished at the time that there were other science options or concentrations (instead of mostly physics), especially with my interest in the field of artificial life at that time.
It sounds demanding enough to be a double major from the courseload you're describing.
Post a Comment