Biology Research

[afton]

I've just finished my IT degree but I'm not enthusiastic
about it. I have a dream to become a biology researcher.

My intended area of specialisations are: marine biology (I love underwater
life), DNA (a mysterious intelligent code), neuroscience (biological basis
of consciousness), or maybe some practical fields such as oncology.
Applied fields are okay I guess, but I'm much more interested in "pure" science, discovering something that has not been discovered before. There's an immense sense of satisfaction to do that. I guess that what most scientists crave, the Eureka moment, the intense sheer of joy of finally discovering something after frustrating months and years of being stuck with a problem.

Anyone here works as a researcher in biology field? and
what do you think about your job?

[PromiscuousMind]

I've just finished my IT degree but I'm not enthusiastic
about it. I have a dream to become a biology researcher.

Were you considering getting some type of biology degree in order to pursue this dream? I don’t think IT is very relevant… though I’m not quite sure exactly what that degree entails. From my experience (admittedly not very broad) you will be severely limited in what you would be allowed to do without a relevant degree. As in – you’d probably be stuck as a lab tech (making buffers, restocking dry supplies, and the like). Something to keep in mind, I guess. There are aspects of bioresearch that are more computer/computation oriented, such as biostatistics, molecular modeling, and various imaging applications so that might be something to think about since you have a computer/programming background.


My intended area of specialisations are: marine biology (I love underwater
life), DNA (a mysterious intelligent code), neuroscience (biological basis
of consciousness), or maybe some practical fields such as oncology.
(Interesting choices… I know you didn’t ask, but I’m gonna share my musings anyway.)

Marine biology: If you are interested in large scale research (Boating on the ocean with cetaceans! Or sharks!), there are a huge number of people who want to do this compared to the amount of funding available. More likely, marine research will instead involve indoor lab work with smaller species (sea urchins, crabs… and on down to the itty bitty critters). I’m pointing it out because… I know it was not the first image I had when I considered being a marine biologist.

DNA: This isn’t really an “area” to specialize in. As a molecule, I think DNA is pretty well characterized. There are lots of areas of microbiology research that include working with DNA. The most DNA-centric research I can think of includes the groups working on deciphering genomes for various species (the human genome plus the genomes of a number of common model species are already “finished”, but there are still plenty of groups working on others). There is also the opportunity for important/exciting research concerning transcription (making RNA from DNA) and its regulation. Of course, since DNA ultimately codes for protein, even protein labs end up working with it at some point in order to make the stuff they need to study. Personally, I think RNA is a much more “mysterious” molecule – it has both coding and catalytic functions.

Neuroscience: I also find neuroscience fascinating, though it isn’t my “area of specialization”. It seems to me that more then any other microbiology field, this is one where you need to specialize in it from the beginning. Research in this area, I believe, pretty much starts at cell culture on the small side and then goes up to relatively complex organisms.

I don’t know that much about oncology in particular, but pretty much all research is somehow “important to further the understanding of…” cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, ageing, etc. That’s how stuff gets funded.


Applied fields are okay I guess, but I'm much more interested in "pure" science, discovering something that has not been discovered before. There's an immense sense of satisfaction to do that. I guess that what most scientists crave, the Eureka moment, the intense sheer of joy of finally discovering something after frustrating months and years of being stuck with a problem.

Anyone here works as a researcher in biology field? and what do you think about your job?

One thing that has really struck me about research – nothing you do really comes out of the blue. I don’t know if that “Eureka” moment is ever quite as profound as we like to make it sound when we share our results with the world. Research is a lot of climbing up on the shoulders of others to add one extra little bit of knowledge. Usually, the coolest stuff you find is the result of a mistake, some connection that everyone else failed to see. Although it is still satisfying I suppose – knowing that you caught something when other people may have just dismissed it as an artifact.

Anyway, I do like research a whole lot more then any “normal” job I’ve had. If you get into the right lab, you get to work at your own pace on your own time with intelligent coworkers. Sure, it’s often tedious and repetitive – frequently on par with shoving fries into a cardboard envelope I'm sure. But at least you have the satisfaction of knowing that the big picture is a lot spiffier. And sometimes, if you’re lucky, you get to play with mutagens and radioactivity. Who could pass that up!?

[afton]

Were you considering getting some type of biology degree in order to pursue this dream?

Yes, but I just don't know when I'll be able to do that. I don't think
there's such thing as doing a biology-related degree part-time (cmiiw).
Because usually a lot of labwork are involved, which I guess are mostly
in the mornings (and I'm already start working now).
Different from say, accounting or computer programming, which mostly
can be studied by your own, at anytime.

[PenguinHunter]

I dunno, most labs I've taken are offered at all times of the day. You could take 3 courses a term or something like that and work as well... shouldn't be too stressful as long as you are willing to live a bit modestly.

[nonsequitur]

I'm currently a biochemistry/chemistry double major, and I'm definitely enjoying chemistry far more than biology because it involves far less memory work. From my POV, the biochemistry that i'm currently doing is to give more applicability to my chemistry specialisation later on. Biology is only fun when it's not in too much detail. At the college level, it's really a lot of work, which has resulted in my decision not to continue studying it beyond the undergraduate level. Research has always been my goal, but I realised that I enjoyed studying concepts far more than memorisation, which biology seems to require. the study of DNA (Genomics) is pretty much rote work, though there seems to be a lot of potential in the study of proteins (proteomics), which is still highly underdeveloped. I don't know, maybe I have too short an attention span to study biology.

[Serotonin]

One word: bioinformatics.

[Hexchild]

If we were to find a way to modify a newly created cell to specify what part of its DNA it should be paying attention to, I believe we could potentially grow native* replacement organs for fatally injured people and cancer patients. Has any progress been made in this area?

* as in having the same DNA as, and perhaps even growing within the body of, the person who is in need of the new organ.

[nonsequitur]

If we were to find a way to modify a newly created cell to specify what part of its DNA it should be paying attention to, I believe we could potentially grow native* replacement organs for fatally injured people and cancer patients. Has any progress been made in this area?

* as in having the same DNA as, and perhaps even growing within the body of, the person who is in need of the new organ.

That is generally in the arena of genetic engineering. Biochemically, it is possible to induce certain cells to specialise, however, these cells are stem cells, and we all know US policy on that. Only the zygote is totipotent (can specialise into anything) and the few cells after that can specialise into most types. This type of stem cell research (therapeutic cloning) also carries with it the stigma of reproductive cloning. More education needs to be carried out to convince other people about the benefits of this type of research.

Currently, it is possible in the lab to grow certain cells (if i'm not wrong, liver cells like hepatocytes have been cloned before) but this is highly complex, because even within an organ there are different types of cells that are specialised differently.

[Hexchild]

That is generally in the arena of genetic engineering. Biochemically, it is possible to induce certain cells to specialise, however, these cells are stem cells, and we all know US policy on that. Only the zygote is totipotent (can specialise into anything) and the few cells after that can specialise into most types. This type of stem cell research (therapeutic cloning) also carries with it the stigma of reproductive cloning. More education needs to be carried out to convince other people about the benefits of this type of research.

Yes, the idea of using stem cells is already known to me (although I'm hardly an expert). My intuition tells me, though, that since every cell contains the full DNA string it should be possible to modify an ordinary cell of any type such that it would produce another type of cell once it divides. That's what I'm getting at. Would this not be possible? (eg. using nanotechnology)

[nonsequitur]

yes, it is theoretically possible. however, at this point, we are limited to using biochemical means to manipulate cell division, which is highly limited. There are some methods of reversing cell differentiation, such as by starvation, but there's (again) limits to how far you can reverse it - usually one, maybe two stages prior to that actual form of the cell. the DNA contains all the genetic information, yes, however, certain portions of the chromosome are deactivated during cell division, and are never "switched on" again except in the gonads. This form of cell division (the non-reproductive form) is known as mitosis, where one cell makes another cell exactly like it. I'm not very familiar with the process of cell differentiation during pregnancy, but essentially, when you are born, you have most of the cells differentiated to the point where it is almost impossible biochemically to reverse the process. Nanotechnology at this point is still relatively primitive, and it remains to be seen if the cells can respond to non-biochemical means, since cell signal transduction occurs by protein/substrate/hormonal pathways.

[Hexchild]

the DNA contains all the genetic information, yes, however, certain portions of the chromosome are deactivated during cell division, and are never "switched on" again except in the gonads.

Do we know how this "deactivation" is implemented? DNA itself is just a molecule that acts as a medium for information storage, right? Does the change happen within this molecule? If so, then DNA is not identical for all cells in the body, which also implies that transplanting DNA from an earlier cell would unlock some of those deactivated portions. Is there some other part of the cell that "knows" what parts of DNA to use? How does the reactivation happen?

Is any of this known?

[nonsequitur]

Do we know how this "deactivation" is implemented? DNA itself is just a molecule that acts as a medium for information storage, right? Does the change happen within this molecule? If so, then DNA is not identical for all cells in the body, which also implies that transplanting DNA from an earlier cell would unlock some of those deactivated portions. Is there some other part of the cell that "knows" what parts of DNA to use? How does the reactivation happen?

Is any of this known?


I know how the extra X chromosome in women is deactivated, and I suspect that the other chromosomes follow a similar pattern of deactivation, and/or mainly a balance between mRNA promoters and the horomonal interactions. The way DNA acts as a source of information storage is that certain parts of the chromosomes are transcribed into proteins (the short version). It is essentially the proteins that control what happens in our body. The changes generally happen as an interaction between proteins and the molecule, which blocks this process for certain genes where the specialised cell does not need the product. However, each cell does contain exactly the same genetic information. It is just which portions are being used to make the cell have specialised properties. The way that the cell knows which type of protein to make (which is monitored and controlled by other proteins secreted by other cells) is called signal transduction and regulation. This maintains homeostasis, or a balance in the body. With the different cells making what is required and not more.

I don't think the cells in the gonads are "reactivated" as much as not deactivated. During puberty, hormones secreted by other cells will induce the cell division type of meiosis to take place, but I think before that, the cells are in a state of quiescence, or perhaps take place at a negligible rate.

[Hexchild]

The changes generally happen as an interaction between proteins and the molecule, which blocks this process for certain genes where the specialised cell does not need the product.

This seems to imply that removing or replacing these proteins could potentially "unblock" the DNA or reconfigure a cell to block other portions.



The way that the cell knows which type of protein to make (which is monitored and controlled by other proteins secreted by other cells) is called signal transduction and regulation.

So in fewer words, nearby cells work together to keep each other from doing the Wrong Thing? By the way, the proteins being secreted and used to block DNA would be built directly from DNA code as well, right?



It seems to me that with nanotechnology, we might be able to construct nanomachines that hold and activate short DNA strings. With these we could mass produce specific proteins. Assuming I understand this correctly, the next step would be to remove any unwanted proteins from a cell, and then synthesize and inject the proper ones. And once the growth is underway there'd be no more need for intervention on that level.

[nonsequitur]

This seems to imply that removing or replacing these proteins could potentially "unblock" the DNA or reconfigure a cell to block other portions.

Yes, that is true but very difficult. For example, in some tumour cells, some of the DNA that codes for repressing cell division is mutated, and the suppressor proteins cannot bind properly to the portions of DNA that activate cell division. This causes uncontrolled division, and voila! cancer. However, these proteins are not very well known, and few have been identified. (Hence the suggestion of entering the field of proteomics instead of genomics)


So in fewer words, nearby cells work together to keep each other from doing the Wrong Thing? By the way, the proteins being secreted and used to block DNA would be built directly from DNA code as well, right?

Nope, not only nearby cells. Cells far away (e.g. certain synapses in the brain secrete growth hormone) can affect the cells of, for e.g. bones in the legs or the spermatocytes in the testes. Also, you are not considering chain reactions/cascades where one type of secretion can affect many different types of cells in the body that in turn affect one another. Regulation and control is highly complex. Yes, the proteins being secreted to block the transcription of DNA also comes from the code itself. From the e.g. of cancer above, that's why a mutation in the protein that blocks growth can cause unregulated growth.


It seems to me that with nanotechnology, we might be able to construct nanomachines that hold and activate short DNA strings. With these we could mass produce specific proteins. Assuming I understand this correctly, the next step would be to remove any unwanted proteins from a cell, and then synthesize and inject the proper ones. And once the growth is underway there'd be no more need for intervention on that level.

Like i said above, that is theoretically possible, but current nanotechnology is still very primitive with respect to its abilities. The "removal of unwanted proteins" and "mass production of specific proteins" is, again, theoretically good, but practically very difficult to achieve and predict. Enzyme cascade reactions (one step of reactions affecting many thousands later on) could make the situation worse than it was initially. Also, every new cell carries the same genetic code, so unless every single cell had the nanotech ability, the new cells would be diseased as well. It may be possible to modify one cell, but the possibility of getting millions of cells (e.g. in the liver) to take up such technology without any ill effects is very small. Also, the possibility of the nanotechnology interfering with other reactions in the cell is also rather high.

I read a book that employed nanotechnology as an idea to "solve" cell death, and therefore prolong life indefinitely, but it seems, at this point, still highly improbable and limited to science fiction.

[Architectonic]

One word: bioinformatics.

And why would we wish to study bioinformatics?*





*And if you make it sound really great, I might actually choose to study it. :banana:

[Nighthawk]

I find the combination of IT and biology very alluring. One of my most favorite gigs involved working on a pay-per-view genomics site where we conducted DNA sequence matches find out what kind of organisms they were. Unfortunately, the gig was all too short and it was back to mundane financial software ... which is mind numbing, but pays the bills better.

A close friend of mine is a marine biologist who worked in the IT field for many years. He loves both fields, but his preference is definitely towards biology. Unfortunately, when he jumped back into biology and bioinformatics, he took a massive pay cut ... from 90K down to 30K annually. It is a shame that biology does not pay better.