« Bring on the beer | Main | Don't sweat the small stuff »

Growing pains in chemical biology

Each month, Nature Chemical Biology includes an editorial; these typically center around an issue of general importance to chemical biologists and seek to raise questions that will be significant in the further development of the field. In the July issue, we talk about how universities and departments may support the development of chemical biologists . As science has expanded from the strict disciplines of chemistry, biology, and physics, certain challenges of redefining scientific borders and academic structure have been met. Yet the experience of researchers working in chemical biology suggests that they face a uniquely difficult task in finding a home for themselves and their work. Everyone involved would benefit from brainstorming on how the integration of chemical biology can be improved or made easier. As such, we would like to initiate conversation among our readers as well as those who have gone through similar fundamental shifts in scientific organization.

Some of the thoughts on our mind:

What is your experience in starting a lab/changing fields/getting funding for chemical biology research?

Are there specific changes that your university has made or could make to support you?

Do you think chemical biologists can continue to work within the confines of diverse (other) disciplines, or do you support the move toward chemical biology departments?

How can we find common ground when self-identified chemical biologists work on extremely disparate topics or use widely varying techniques?

It is our hope that, by sharing ideas and concerns, we can improve the overall understanding of and support for our growing community.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.nature.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/854

Comments

I'm not a chemical biologist, but speaking as a postgrad in organic chemistry at the University of Cambridge, the growth of a Chemical Biology Centre within the department has been one of anguish. Other sections feel the pinch of funding being split even more thinly across a greater spread, and lab space has dropped yet again. The other feeling is that it dosen't fit - but that's only because their work can seem so different to other practical chemist. I asked a friend in one of the chemical biology groups whether he felt like their research should be conducted in a chemistry department or a biochemistry department, and it seemed that neither was ideal. But what institution will be willing to stump up for a new building for such a new field?

Post a comment

Comments will be reviewed by the editors before being published. You can be as critical or controversial as you like, but please don't get personal or offensive. We strongly encourage you to use your real, full name. Email addresses are required: this is in case we need to discuss your comment with you privately, or notify you in case we decide not publish your comment. Email addresses will not be made public on the blog.


Please enter the numbers you see below - this helps us to cut down on spam. If you are having trouble with this system, you can instead e-mail a comment to 'thescepticalchymist at boston dot nature dot com '.

Subscribe

Subscribe to this blog's feeds:

[What is this?]

Recent Comments

Out of 805 total comments,
the most recent were:
Powered by
Movable Type 3.2