On the namings of fundamental and organic sciences

[LifetimeLoser77]

Lately I have noticed a large trend towards mixing biology into all the fundamental sciences. In fact the year I graduated the physics department at Brandeis hired two new professors, one who studied cells and another who studied proteins (i think; i didn't really review their research) (2 longtime professors had just switched into biophysics from pure physics as well).
Now I don't deny there is a great value in studying cells and proteins in a mathematical way; or rather, in a way which uses more mathematical insight than the average biologist would tend to use. Or studying them with highly advanced tools such as the electron microscope (that tool itself created by advanced physics).
But on the other hand, I think whenever you go about studying biological phenomena, you should be using all tools available. The point is that someone who has a degree in physics who researches proteins is not really a "Biophysicist". He's just a biologist with a background in physics.
It has always been the case that mathematics, physics and chemistry are the foundation of organic science. Why is it acceptable to start mingling these words together into confusing terms like "biophysics", "biochemistry", "bioinformatics"?

[Metric]

My guess is that it's just a convenient way to advertize that "I really don't know crap about a lot of biology, despite the fact that I'm the world's leading authority on _________, which is more of interest to biologists than it is to physicists."

[madnak]

Because as the amount of total knowledge increases, the level of specialization must also increase. Chemists, physicists, clinicians, and even computer scientists are all necessary for the research going on these days. "Biology" is just a smattering of each, anyhow. I'm majoring in biophysics, and my major path is more rigorous than pure physics path and much moreso than a pure bio path. It involves something like 15 science courses, including a 6-course sequence in chem, organic chem, and biochem, the two-course bio sequence, five physics courses, and earth science. I'll also be taking various physics and biology electives, and probably averaging 3 science courses per semester. The math is also relatively heavy (certainly compared to pure bio). The idea that biophysics is just "bio lite" or "physics lite" couldn't be more wrong - it's more like bio and physics combined.

Of course, this is at the undergraduate level. I don't know much about PhD programs, I'm more focused on the med school part right now. But from what my professors tell me, these fields are becoming more and more specialized and sophisticated. In the future each individual "tool" may requires 10+ years of training, and expecting one person to master them all will really become unrealistic. It would also be rather foolish of scientists to stop making meaningful distinctions because the layman sees them as "confusing." I'm going to expect something different from a biochemist than from a biophysicist than from a biologist.

[LifetimeLoser77]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll also be taking various physics and biology electives, and probably averaging 3 science courses per semester. The math is also relatively heavy (certainly compared to pure bio). The idea that biophysics is just "bio lite" or "physics lite" couldn't be more wrong - it's more like bio and physics combined.


[/ QUOTE ]


LOL that's true but you sound like someone accused you of not working hard or something?
By the way, what the hell does that have to do with my original question.

[madnak]

It sounded like you were calling biophysics useless. As a biophysics major I got defensive. Simple as that.