One could easily expand this question to encompass all life scientists, or perhaps all scientists, but in essence that is the question that Alex Palazzo tries to answer. In his opinion, biologists tend to be too molecule centric. That is certainly true, but his very doubt is a sign of the times.
Back in the day, we used to try and find out all we knew about a particular protein, and perhaps its “neighboring” system, since there was so much to find out about each and every protein. That was pre-genomics. In this day and age, the question we frequently ask is different. It is no longer enough to study a molecule in isolation. The context in which one studies molecules has becomes very important, e.g. the processes they are actively involved in. Perhaps the next generation of scientists will be experts at processes and not just on one of two constituents of a process. To some extent, I am talking about what Alex calls “Big Biology” and my interpretation of “Systems Biology”. How does everything interact, and what are the various functional pathways that they form. The body is complex and being able to understand how a change early in a process makes an impact 10 steps down is going to be critical to how we address and treat diseases. Before we can ask the question about the nature of an individual’s biology, we need to understand more general concepts and we have not reached that point yet.
This should, in theory, change the makeup of a lab. It is no longer sufficient to have a research group where everyone has similar skills. Labs need a mix of complementary skills and expertise, since it is very difficult for an individual to answer the complex questions that we need to address. The result will be a set of students and post-docs who are used to working in teams and are skilling in multiple systems and disciplines. That would be a welcome evolution of the life scientist.
Thanks for sending this my way. Sean is quite right, and I think some of what he talks about is implicit in being able to work in teams. Teamwork is not about over-specialization, and one could argue that a specialist is significantly hindering his/her own chances to succeed as a scientist. That said, one person can't become excellent at everything. The key is being really good at a subset of areas and having a general awareness of adjacent areas. That should result in efficient teams as well, as opposed to the silo-ed ones that specialization can lead to.
Is it enough to study individual molecules?
One could easily expand this question to encompass all life scientists, or perhaps all scientists, but in essence that is the question that Alex Palazzo tries to answer. In his opinion, biologists tend to be too molecule centric. That is certainly true, but his very doubt is a sign of the times.
Back in the day, we used to try and find out all we knew about a particular protein, and perhaps its “neighboring” system, since there was so much to find out about each and every protein. That was pre-genomics. In this day and age, the question we frequently ask is different. It is no longer enough to study a molecule in isolation. The context in which one studies molecules has becomes very important, e.g. the processes they are actively involved in. Perhaps the next generation of scientists will be experts at processes and not just on one of two constituents of a process. To some extent, I am talking about what Alex calls “Big Biology” and my interpretation of “Systems Biology”. How does everything interact, and what are the various functional pathways that they form. The body is complex and being able to understand how a change early in a process makes an impact 10 steps down is going to be critical to how we address and treat diseases. Before we can ask the question about the nature of an individual’s biology, we need to understand more general concepts and we have not reached that point yet.
This should, in theory, change the makeup of a lab. It is no longer sufficient to have a research group where everyone has similar skills. Labs need a mix of complementary skills and expertise, since it is very difficult for an individual to answer the complex questions that we need to address. The result will be a set of students and post-docs who are used to working in teams and are skilling in multiple systems and disciplines. That would be a welcome evolution of the life scientist.
Addendum
The Omics World lists a couple of papers that compare a reductionist approach to a systems approach. The papers are a must read
Technorati Tags: Biology, Learning, Science, Life Science, Molecules, Systems Biology, Synthetic Biology