Slashdot Mirror


Bioinformatics in The Economist

Erich Schwarz writes "Bioinformatics has gone from being an esoteric sub-field to being a business. The Economist gives a useful overview, while warning 'Bioinformatics is not for the faint of heart...'"

26 of 195 comments (clear)

  1. What I'd major in by SteweyGriffin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If I had to do it again, I'd definitely choose biology or bioengineering or something related.

    It seems as most everything in computer has "been done", and biology/chemisty/biochemical engineering seems to be where all the fun & excitement is these days.

    Anyone else agree? Just curious.

    1. Re:What I'd major in by coloth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think the amazing thing is how these two fields are merging.

      Whether you look at artificial life, prosthetics, advanced protein sequencers, electronic "noses", even robotic pets, it seems like at some point what we think of as electronics and computers, and what we think of as genetics or biology are all going to be part of a continuum.

      I don't think it matters what you majored in--these days you can cross over.

      --

      Machines take me by surprise with great frequency. -A. Turing

    2. Re:What I'd major in by El+Pollo+Loco · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, I don't agree. I don't agree at all. We are on the cusp of the biggest improvents in computing in my opinion. It's like cars. First 50 years there was huge improvements. But they didn't become really useful, commodity goods even, until everyone had one. Then the real useful work begins. Refinement. Same with computing. The largest gains in terms of speed, etc have probobly happened already. But now we have the golden age to look forward. Where computers, as useful as they are now, will become more useful(kinda redundant, but oh well). We will soon be able to have computers that don't crash, that work with everything. Moreso, everyone will be able to use them, like cars. And then, when most can afford to use, and most can use, is when the real fun and excieting stuff happens. Computers that do the work, instead of you doing most of it. Photorealic games, surgey from half way around the world. The golden age is coming.

    3. Re:What I'd major in by coloth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The golden age is coming.

      I agree, and I'd just go one step further. I don't think computing will ever reach a point of stagnation. Computing is about ideas, and as long as we are human, we'll always have new ideas.

      --

      Machines take me by surprise with great frequency. -A. Turing

    4. Re:What I'd major in by Bicoid · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It seems as most everything in computer has "been done", and biology/chemisty/biochemical engineering seems to be where all the fun & excitement is these days.


      The difference in modern computing and modern biochemistry/genetics/developmental biology is that bioenginnering is a good deal behind computing. 50 years ago, we were working on making computers work. We didn't really get to working on all the applications of computers until computers could be personalized and used in the home. Bioengineering is still at the point where it's being explored. It's all being done in labs because there aren't "do it yourself" genetics labs you can put in your home. Eventually there will be, but not right now. Therefore, if you want to fark around with DNA, you need a degree and a job. If you want to fark around with computers, all you need is to teach yourself some languages and get a PC.

      It's not that computers aren't as exciting as genetics is right now...there's a lot more you can do with computers than DNA at the moment. However, genetics is more exclusive because it is not as availible to the public.
      --
      If not all sentients are human, couldn't it be possible that not all humans are sentient either?
    5. Re:What I'd major in by BWJones · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think it matters what you majored in--these days you can cross over.

      When it comes to bioinformatics, this is certainly true. However, to be successful in bioinformatics, people need a basic knowledge of chemistry, biology, molecular biology, genetics, programming, medicine, comp. sci. and perhaps some library science to be proficient in bioinformatics and this combination can be hard to come by. Additionally, an ability to successfully communicate with folks from all of those disciplines is crucial and can be even harder to come by. For another article on some of these issues in bioinformatics (with an admitted bias towards the Macintosh) read this article I wrote for Scientia et Macintosh

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    6. Re:What I'd major in by coloth · · Score: 5, Informative

      this combination can be hard to come by

      I guess there'll be a few with outright credentials, some more who are smart enough to wing it while they learn what they're missing, and a lot of people who contribute as part of a team.

      If you haven't read Ship of Gold by Gary Kinder, about Tommy Thompson's life and eventual recovery of $1 billion in gold from the deep sea, I strongly recommend it, especially to any scientific or engineering-oriented person. Tommy's story is a case study in how to break new ground, think creatively, and form networks of expertise. It convinced me that credendials, and even past experience, may not be the best indicators of future success.

      --

      Machines take me by surprise with great frequency. -A. Turing

    7. Re:What I'd major in by GuySmiley · · Score: 5, Interesting
      As a molecular biologist, I steer interns out of biology. Blend bio with any other discipline. You will spend your entire life justifying the 90% of experiments that fail, justifying your existance to get grants, etc. Bio-business, bio,-programming, bio-sales, bio-anything. Lab rats at the bench make no money, get zero respect, get zero creative control and are this generation's ditch diggers.

      A decade of scientific failures is indescribably difficult to explain, but it is ungratifying. I have been taking Linux/SQL classes for the last few years trying to steer into the digital world, and thus mine and slashdot's interests are now intersecting.

      Yes, having interesting work can only go so far. You still have Senior management flushing the cool stuff you invent down the toilet or left on the vine to rot. At the end of the day , you still have a pile of bills to pay.

      looking for meaningful work in MPLS fleabag-at-covat-dot-net

      --
      Hey, leave comments about my mother out of this!
    8. Re:What I'd major in by coloth · · Score: 3, Funny

      and your home country would be... Pakistan?

      --

      Machines take me by surprise with great frequency. -A. Turing

    9. Re:What I'd major in by t0rnt0pieces · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As a molecular biologist, I steer interns out of biology. Blend bio with any other discipline. You will spend your entire life justifying the 90% of experiments that fail, justifying your existance to get grants, etc. Bio-business, bio,-programming, bio-sales, bio-anything. Lab rats at the bench make no money, get zero respect, get zero creative control and are this generation's ditch diggers.

      I couldn't have said it better myself. Here's something to chew on. Do you need a bio degree to do bio-sales, bio-business, bio-programming, etc? Most likely not. Biologists generally know nothing about business, sales, or programming, so they can't get jobs in these fields.

      I work as a lab tech and I agree that they are ditch diggers. I actually did go to grad school for a bit, I pretty much hated it. It's very unsatisfying. At least if you program you can design something *useful* that *works* and feel like you've accomplished something. Biologists go months without accomplishing anything, and the work is dirty. Who wants to be in a lab for the rest of their lives? Even the PhD's have it really tough. No one hires PhD's, they're overqualified. Most of them end up working long hours for years as post-docs making $30,000.

      --
      Karma: Excellent (In Soviet Russia, karma pimps YOU)
    10. Re:What I'd major in by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm a graduate student in mathematics and I find biology "hard". It's somewhat straightforwards, but there's too much crap to memorize. But all the biology people I know think math is hard, so it's obviously a matter of personal attributes and taste as to what is "hard" or "easy".

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    11. Re:What I'd major in by coloth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      would not even bother to read the resume

      I know what you're saying, and I basically agree in most cases. However:

      Tommy Thompson, through rigorous thinking, relentless networking, holistic design, etc... Achieved a scientific and engineering feat which far outdid the full resources of the US Navy, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, and, of course, countless treasure seeking dilettantes, while spending only a few million dollars from individual investors.

      He did not have a PhD, but spearheaded and managed a revolutionary project that led him to employ his former superiors at Battelle, a major defense research lab.

      When his team finally found the site of the SS Central America and saw her riches via his revolutionary deep water robot (late 80's), he wouldn't touch a coin before completely photographing and videotaping the site to preserve its archaeological integrity. Each coin of the thousands recovered was individually photographed in place and once retrieved by the robot, while some on the team groused at the delay.

      It is difficult to convey the holistic nature of his approach in just a few paragraphs. But I believe his example proves my point that in a new field (in his case, deep water exploration and recovery), precise credentials don't matter.

      If somebody thinks you can help him win the Nobel Prize, he'll hire you. If you use letters after your name and a resume to convince him of that, fine. If a 30-minute conversation does the trick--hey, that'll work too.

      --

      Machines take me by surprise with great frequency. -A. Turing

    12. Re:What I'd major in by the+gnat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But I believe his example proves my point that in a new field (in his case, deep water exploration and recovery), precise credentials don't matter.

      If somebody thinks you can help him win the Nobel Prize, he'll hire you. If you use letters after your name and a resume to convince him of that, fine. If a 30-minute conversation does the trick--hey, that'll work too.


      This all sounds great. There are two problems:

      1. Bioinformatics is a hot field, but not really a new enough of one to be a true meritocracy the way you describe. It's very important, but there are already many people actively doing research or getting their degrees. You can't just break into the field (unless you already have a scientific reputation). Barring a degree, a lot of publications helps- but that's going to take a while and involve considerable effort.

      2. You have to get to the point where you get the 30-minute conversation first. This is harder than it sounds. I was offered only one interview, and landed a job that was aimed at PhDs or really advanced people (I was not even through with college). However, all of the people interviewing me knew my boss personally. So I was aided by my connections, and it took a while to get those. Had circumstances been different, they probably wouldn't have bothered to contact me.

      (I ended up not taking the job- it would have forced me to wait much too long to attend grad school, and didn't quite pay enough to make that worthwhile. Though I confess I still wonder if I made a stupid mistake. . . most jobs for people at my level are along the lines of "database jockey" or "web monkey". These people wanted me as a scientist, probably the highest compliment they could have paid me.)

  2. The submitter is correct by SteweyGriffin · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Bioinformatics is really where it's out. Just glancing around at various newspapers, it's readily apparent where the future is heading.

    Is it really what we want/need as humans? I'm not sure. But I for one won't wager a guess until there's more research done in the area, so I say let's explore it more before we defame it conclusively or support it as a technological breakthrough.

    Some other recent news items:
    Nabda, Unesco Collaborate in Bioinformatics Training
    AllAfrica.com,Africa-05 Dec 2002
    ... Development Agency (NABDA) and the United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural
    Organisation (UNESCO), penultimate Tuesday held a two-day Bioinformatics ...

    Bioinformatics ahead for Danville
    Danville Register and Bee,VA-30 Nov 2002
    ... Developing these plants will involve both horticulture and bioinformatics and will
    be one major focus of Danville's Institute for Advanced Learning and Research ...

    The race to computerise biology
    Economist (subscription),UK-12 Dec 2002
    Welcome to the world of bioinformatics--a branch of computing concerned
    with the acquisition, storage and analysis of biological data. ...

    Observing Proteins And Cells In The Wild: Quantum Dots May ...
    Science Daily-13 Dec 2002
    ... Today it is internationally renowned for research and graduate education
    in the biomedical sciences, chemistry, bioinformatics and physics. ...

  3. Bioinformatics runs on Open Source by dan+dan+the+dna+man · · Score: 4, Informative
    So don't sit there saying its hard to get into :)


    Run, don't walk to bioinformatics.org and contribute!


    The first O'Reilly bioinformatics conference rocked. Shame I wont make the next one in San Diego - I get to go to Adelaide for the ISMB in June instead :)

    --
    I don't read your sig, why do you read mine?
    1. Re:Bioinformatics runs on Open Source by glwtta · · Score: 5, Informative
      Or go straight to bioperl.org, one of the absolute key projects for bioinformatics.

      In case you are wondering, there is a biopython, biojava, biocorba, bioxml, biruby, etc. but perl is really where 90% of bioinformatics is done (simply because, in the end, all it is is text processing)

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
  4. Viewpoints by VoidEngineer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hmmm. Seems like it would be easier to say that everything which has been done in computer science has 'been done', whereas everything that hasn't been done in computer science, 'hasn't'.

    Seriously, though, you may be mis-categorizing your subjects. Look at computers as computational entities, rather than disk drives, monitors, and so forth. In that case, an optical computer or a biocomputer operates on many of the same systems priciple as a 'digital computer', and there is therefore much to be done in the field of computer science.

    Absolutely. Optical computing is getting some great advances in Holographic Video at the MIT Spatial Imaging Group. And chemical computing is advancing nicely in Carbohydrate Chips at the University of Chicago.

    For my money, I'd bet on optical video cubes, 3D television, and biochips in the future... which are all applications of computer technology. Remember, 'computer' use to refer to the job title of a person.

    For my money, I think that the future has got SnowCrash, Cryptonomicon, Neuromancer, Count Zero, Mona Lisa Overdrive, and Johnny Mnemonic written all over it (and maybe a bit of Jurassic Park.

    1. Re:Viewpoints by Bicoid · · Score: 3, Interesting
      For my money, I think that the future has got SnowCrash, Cryptonomicon, Neuromancer, Count Zero, Mona Lisa Overdrive, and Johnny Mnemonic written all over it (and maybe a bit of Jurassic Park.

      Sure, the future has Neuromancer written all over it. But it also has Schismatrix written all over it as well. We're likely to see biological modification (including genetic alteration) in the future. Even if the majority finds gene-tampering taboo, there WILL be groups that will do it.

      The truth is, we're likely to see a combination of the two in the future. Yes, we're likely to see a computer-saturated world within the next few years (if you don't consider it computer-saturated right now), but that doesn't mean we won't see designed genetics as well. The two work together. It's not an either/or issue.
      --
      If not all sentients are human, couldn't it be possible that not all humans are sentient either?
  5. bad idea by g4dget · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Don't pick what is fashionable, pick what you are interested in. The biological sciences are very different from computer science and engineering. Chances are that if you weren't interested in the biological sciences when you picked your major, you still wouldn't be today.

    What you can do, however, is apply computer science and engineering skills to biological problems: work as a developer or engineer for a biotech company or lab.

  6. Re:after overhyping the Internet by BWJones · · Score: 3, Interesting

    now people are overhyping bio-informatics. Yes, it's an important field. It's been an important field for decades. And it's going to continue to make steady progress, not because of, but in spite of the attention and hype, and the stupid patents and opportunism that come along with it.

    Actually, bioinformatics is just starting out and the hype has not even begun. Just wait a few years. Additionally, bioinformatics is not decades old. It really started to come together about 15 years ago, and is still an emerging field at the nexus of computer science, chemistry, genetics, physiology, anatomy, pharmacology, epidemiology, medicine, engineering, virology, microbiology, pathology, mathematics, statistics, information management and molecular biology. All of these fields are contributing rapidly exploding amounts of information and making sense of all of this information and communicating the results is what bioinformatics is all about. In fact, because of the advent of bioinformatics, new fields like pharmacogenetics, or the tailoring of drug treatments to specific individuals are being created.

    For a number of reasons, the major contributor of information to the field right now is genetics. This is because genetic and protein sequences lend themselves to large-scale analysis in a much easier to encode manner and thus are easier to interpret than other types of data such as tertiary or quaternary protein structure, histology or biochemical pathways. This ease of management is because genetic sequences can be easily represented by letters which represent base pairs, and what one sees when examining a genetic sequence from DNA for example is an endless stream of the letters A, G, C, and T representing adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thiamine, the four nucleotides that make up DNA.

    You are probably familiar with the relatively recent announcement of the human genome being sequenced. What has been accomplished here is that all of the A's, T's, G's and C's in the human genome have been placed in roughly the appropriate places by a consortium of both private and public research groups. What all of these base pairs mean is another set of problems that needs to be unraveled. For instance, where do genes begin and end in these sequences of letters? What regions encode proteins and which do not? These are only two of literally millions of questions that can now be asked illustrating that this rough draft is only the beginning and it is only one genome out of many that has been sequenced which will lead to a more complete understanding of organismal biology. And this is just the mammalian stuff. The real money will be on advances made in agribusiness.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
  7. My $.02 on biological sciences by t0rnt0pieces · · Score: 4, Informative

    I graduated from Rutgers U. (decent NJ state school) in May 2000 with a bachelor's in biology. Back when I decided to major in bio, I really enjoyed studying the field, and (high school) teachers were telling me that molecular biology was the fastest growing job sector. So by the time senior year came around I began looking for a "real" job. I checked all the papers, company websites, monster, etc. and realized that there really are NO good jobs out there for biologists. There are a few bioinformatics jobs, but guess what, you need a CS degree for them, not biology. I ended up getting a lousy job as a lab technician paying around $14 an hour (which took several months to find, btw, and this was when the economy was booming), and I'm extremely unhappy. I've completely lost any love I had for this field. Say what you want about money not being the most important thing, but when you can't afford to do anything you want, your life gets miserable very fast, I don't care how great your job is. Biology jobs typically have zero mobility and are extremely underpaid. You think there's a flood of people graduating from CS? Biology is far worse. My CS classes have about 20-30 people in them. My bio classes had hundreds.

    Just recently I decided to go back to Rutgers for a second bachelor's in computer science. Not only are the job prospects better and higher-paying (even considering the dot-com collapse), I've always enjoyed working with computers and my grades are actually far better (although I was never a bad student). I'm actually having fun in my CS classes, I never had fun in bio. The classes were more like a chore. Another horrible thing about biology is that you really don't learn anything practical in college, you just memorize facts. At least with computer science you learn many useful tools to make you a competant programmer, which is actually a marketable skill. Nothing about biology is marketable. I highly discourage anyone from majoring in Bio unless they seriously, seriously love it and intend to get a PhD and devote their lives to research without regards to trivial things like money and job prospects.

    --
    Karma: Excellent (In Soviet Russia, karma pimps YOU)
    1. Re:My $.02 on biological sciences by freeweed · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wow, your story parallels mine eerily. I graduated in 1996 with my B.Sc., microbiology major. Jobs that paid enough to live off were just about non-existent (this is what happens when several hundred people graduate with your degree EVERY YEAR in a city of half a million people).

      Now, I'm 3/4 of the way through a CS degree, and enjoying school like I never have before. Sure, part of it is a little more maturity/experience, but I find now that I'm in something that I ENJOY, I couldn't care less if I'm learning about NP-Completeness today, or Java Beans tomorrow. Regardless, I'm about to enter a co-op work term that will pay $18/hr - and this is one hell of a lot above average salary around these parts (think closer to $12), even for people with university degrees (maybe $15 if you're lucky).

      Good money, really fun work, this is the life. It's certainly NOT what I experienced in the bio field. Ironically enough though, I'll be graduating with my CS degree just as 'bioinformatics' (they've changed the buzzword for this a few times since I was in high school) is supposed to hit the big time. Would be kinda neat to have that microbio degree be worth somethign after all :)

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  8. As a bioinformatics scientist... by smoondog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Bioinformatics is a fun interesting field. I worry however, that it may be a little overhyped. People who are interested in bioinformatics need to realize it is a very (albeit cool) specialized field. There aren't going to be a million more bioinformatics researchers in the world. The demand for these researchers just isn't there (and won't be there in the near future). For example, a search on hotjobs reveals only 51 listings for the keyword bioinformatics and nearly 900 listings for programmer.

    That said, bioinformatics is exciting. If a computer savy person is interested in getting into it, they should intern or work for a researcher/professor on a research project. You might be surprised, however, when you find that working as a programmer elsewhere pays 2-4 times more.

    -Sean (sdm@stanford.edu)

  9. Re:Bioinformatics, Genomics, Proteomics by spiro_killglance · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't think protein protien interaction is
    trivial either. Lets assume that both proteins say the same shape. Take one protein
    rotate it and move it around the other protein
    in all possible positions and orientations the
    relavent group action is R(3) tensor O(3), (the group transitions of one body in 3d, times the
    group of rotations in 3d:
    six dimensions. proteins are big molecules,
    for each of the possible orientations and positions you need to calculate the electrical and
    pauli forces between each atom on the surfaces of
    one protein with those on the the surface of the
    other protein to see if the there can be any chemical interaction between the two. This is a
    heavy ammount of computation. But its worse than
    that one protein can change the shape of another
    one making the calculations even more complex.

    Proteomics needs the folding problem solved.
    Protein Protein interaction solved.
    The inverse folding problem solved (for drug/DNA design).
    Then DNA-protein interaction, and the interactions
    with macro sugar molecules. Once you've done all
    that and have it tabulated in vest lookup tables
    for common problems
    and with computation on demand for rarer problems, then you can simulate a single cell.

  10. Don�t forget Chemoinformatics by Wdi · · Score: 5, Interesting
    While there is a real hype about bioinformatics, do not forget its sister discipline, chemoinformatics. Chemoinformatics is more concerned about handling chemical structures rather than genomes (but the boundaries are not that clear, and companies such as Accelrys 8cited in the article] are more a chemoinformatics than a bioinformatics company).

    An interesting overview about CI can be found at Nature.

    Still, you need dedication for this job: A Ph.D. in chemistry plus solid computer science knowledge is still the norm. But those few who qualify are really sought after.

    Disclosure: I am the Director of Chemoinformatics at start-up ChemCodes (www.chemcodes.com), so I know what I am talking about.

  11. Postdocs Jobs in bioinformatics and proteomics by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Want a high paying job in bioinformatics? there are several high paying postdoctoral positions ($59000 to $75000 starting salary) available at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

    goto www.lanl.gov and click on the 'jobs' tab then the postdoc link.

    here is one example:

    Summary: Postdoctoral Positions in Protein Bioinformatics and Structural Genomics: The Bioscience Division (B-2 Group) is seeking 2-3 highly motivated researchers for immediate openings to work with our interdisciplinary team of Bioinformatics and Structural Biology. Research activities will focus on the development and application of methods in Functional and Structural Genomics, including: 1) inference of function in proteins based upon structural and sequence information; 2) prediction of protein structure, protein binding, ligands, and active sites using both ab initio approaches and experimental information; 3) identification of signatures of pathenogenosis; 4) annotation and analysis of selected genomes; and 5) creation and curation of annotated protein databases.

    Required Skills:Experience in at least 2 of the following areas is required (more than two areas of experience is highly desirable):

    • Protein structure modeling or protein-ligand analysis or other related modeling
    • Background in molecular biology, or microbial pathogenesis, or related fields
    • Experience with the common sequence analysis tools for Blast search, sequence alignment, phylogenetic analysis, etc.
    • Drug design, or protein design or protein structure predictions or docking
    • Functional annotation of putative genes based on literature analysis
    • Curation of biological databases and web programming
    Desired Skills:Knowledge of one computer programming language (e.g., Perl, Python, FORTRAN, C++). Use of common molecular graphics tools such as Pymol, Xtal. Research in genomic sequence analysis or protein structure. Familiarity with SQL databases, unix, and XML is useful. Education:A Ph.D completed within the last 5 years or soon to be completed is required. Notes to Applicants:Starting salaries range from $59,300 to $67,300. For further technical information about the position and the project, contact Charlie Strauss at cems@lanl.gov (505-665-5838), or Murray Wolinsky at murray@lanl.gov (505-665-0952).
    Candidates may be considered for a Director's Fellowship and outstanding candidates may be considered for the prestigious J. Robert Oppenheimer, Richard P. Feynman or Frederick Reines Fellowships. Please see Special Postdoctoral Fellowships for further details.

    For general information refer to the Postdoctoral Program page.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.