Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Question for lifescientists

Wolfram - 6-10-2004 at 05:32

Which will be the most expansive and profitable areas of lifescience in the future?

My guess is bioinformatics.

chemoleo - 6-10-2004 at 05:53

And on what do you base your guess? (if you desire meaningful answers)...


Wolfram - 6-10-2004 at 06:02

Computers can generate new biological information from existing inormation much faster than anyone can perform experiments. The ability to analyse and organise information is the key to success in most areas of human activity.'
Ofcourse my guess is based on indications and I can be wrong. You maybee have another guess than me dear Sir? I would be happy to know your view becouse two brains analysing the reality sure are better than one.

[Edited on 6-10-2004 by Wolfram]

[Edited on 6-10-2004 by Wolfram]

[Edited on 6-10-2004 by Wolfram]

Esplosivo - 6-10-2004 at 08:22

Computers have the ability to generate more data than a human being, but only if the required variables are given to it. Unless AI is involved, I suppose that most of the work will still be done by humans, that is lab work therefore I see no special focus to be placed on bioinformatics.

Proteomics would be a hell of a subject to work on, that is after we have solved all the problems regarding genetics. Proteins interactions are far more complicated than gene interactions, and therefore we're talking about an infinite relations to be studied. Just a thought anyway.

[Edited on 6-10-2004 by Esplosivo]

Wolfram - 7-10-2004 at 05:42

What do you mean with proteomics is "hell of a subject"? Do you consider it complicated, lucrative or expansive?
I have the possibilty to do a exam project in proteomics should I go for it?

Esplosivo - 7-10-2004 at 06:07

Well I consider it to be beautiful but at the same time complicated, very complicated. As I think you well know proteomics is considered to be the second step after genetics. This is because while the genome is somewhat constant in its expression, the proteome is always changing through its interactions with the genome, which changes not only between different species, but also between different tissues/organs in the same organism itself. The latter also varies according to the part of the life-cycle the cell is in at the particular moment.

All this IS extremely complicated, but at the same time it gives one an infinite number of possibilities on what to start studying. I mean that if the genome created such a scientific boom, then I would guess proteomics would follow with a larger one.

Edit: Btw, I found this brief intro. quite to the point for those who would like to know the basics of proteomics:

[Edited on 7-10-2004 by Esplosivo]


Wolfram - 7-10-2004 at 06:13

Yes but I dont understand why its not good to analyse protein levels by DNA-microarray? As I have heard m-rna levels doesn´t allways correspond to protein levels but why??

Lugh - 7-10-2004 at 08:35

Do you have to do a practical project or lit review kinda thing? I would be carefull of picking a proteomic project, how much time do you have and what cells will you be dealing with.
I did work on proteomics using Tcells, it took me almost six months to fine tune the procedure inorder to get meaningful data. Then there was the protein identification and the database searching and getting to know the functions of those identified.
Indeed it is a facinating subject, but it can be very frustrating... in one of my best gels I identified about 900 protein spots, of those about 200 could be identified by MS and of those about 80 could be positively identified with a known function.
Most of these were house keeping proteins and of little interest to me at the time. God I'm getting depressed just thinking about it.
So I would think carefully before choosing it. But then again there is always the possibility of finding somthing new that will change the world;)

Thank you

Wolfram - 7-10-2004 at 12:27

Thank you Lugh
For your advice about proteomics could you say something about the future for bioinformatics??

unionised - 7-10-2004 at 14:06

"Which will be the most expansive and profitable areas of lifescience in the future? "

The illegal drugs trade, followed by agriculture.
Because they currently are, and I don't see how it can change in a hurry. (Not sure about expansion, but the profits will be there)


Wolfram - 7-10-2004 at 14:18

Agriculture is profitable but not as profitable as pharma. The problem with beeing illigal is that you can be arrested and put to jail. When you become a major criminal you have to worry all the time not to be betrayed and arrested, this worry can make your life miserable even if you get much money. You also have to watch your back becouse, criminals dont use to follow normal rules and can kill you becouse they dont like the way you are looking at them. One thing more: If you are your self producing narcotics its easy to get addicted to them yourself since you know how to do them you can always get more and soon you are on the highway to hell.

[Edited on 9-10-2004 by Wolfram]

IvX - 10-10-2004 at 19:52

Drugs definatly - sheer profit.

Wolfram, those things can ofcoure happen(and sometimes do) but as you can see the sheer greed is quite a good incentive.

Legally though medicine is probably the winner(second to drugs plus legal).

Lugh - 11-10-2004 at 11:28

I think, and this is a personal opinion, that diagnostics is the one to watch in the future. Tests are already used for genetic conditions and I am sure it will spread into proteins as more about the proteome is known.
One area I'm not too sure about is the manufacture of specific drugs for patients, talior made as it were. We hear a lot about this in the media, but I reckon it's a lot of hype to get more grant money. May be I'm wrong.


Hermes_Trismegistus - 11-10-2004 at 12:39

Pharma-ceuticals, nutra-ceuticals, gene-therapy....etc.

research and careers will follow the money.

When you compare illegal drugs to legitimate medicine, dope comes off looking like pez candy.

In Pharma, the money is bigger, profit margins are higher, and there is a much bigger market.

Dope tries to avoid the lawmakers and enforcers, pharma owns the lawmakers.

dope is a multi-billion dollar industry, medicine is a multi-trillion dollar industry.

We are all addicted to life. The most mild-mannered librarian will deep-fry a living puppy for just one more moment of life when she feels the cold clammy hand of death gripping the back of her neck.

The nastiest bad-ass gangsta' will plead for his mommy when the grim reaper comes for his due, likewise a hardened soldier.

People will pay anything to save thier own lives or the lives of those they love(often these are one and the same). Always have, always will.

So.....that is the future.

Biology and chemistry merge into pharma.

Two careers you'll never go broke in, medicine; and undertaking.


JohnWW - 11-10-2004 at 14:38

"Two careers you'll never go broke in, medicine; and undertaking. "
But they are very costly to get into, and you definitely have to have "connections" in high academic places to get into a recognized Medical School against the competition for limited entries! There is no getting away from the fact that it takes money (and connections) to make money..