Identity Crisis
Who Am I?
Biologist by Training, Chemist at Heart
Last Edited: May 27, 2004
Li Tai Fang

Calling myself a biochemist, am I a biologist or am I a chemist? I have been asked this questions for many times, by others and by myself.

As I was finishing high school, I wished to understand life. I wanted to understand how life works on the very basic level. My favorite and best subjects in high school were mathematics, chemistry, and physics, and in that order. Biology was a distant forth. I thought, quite naively, that if I understand chemistry and physics, I will be able to understand all the biological processes, because biology is nothing more than sets of complicated chemical reactions, which can be rigorously explained and predicted in terms of chemistry and physics, with mathematics as a crucial tool. Therefore, I chose to major in biochemistry, thinking that I would be able to understand how life works down to the molecular and atomic level in biochemistry.

Unfortunately, biology is much too complicated to be explained by our understanding of chemistry and physics alone. Many things are known to happen without the physical understanding of why things happen this way. At Berkeley, Biochemistry is a subdivision under the Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology. Most undergraduate biochemistry courses I took emphasize heavily on the biological facts, yet very little emphasis on the chemical and physical basis behind these known facts. Evaluation of these courses have been more or less reduced to the students' ability memorize and reiterate these facts. To me, this is all very disheartening. Very often, I felt as though I was out of place in my undergraduate biochemistry courses. I have a lot of ability in mathematics and understanding of physical science, yet the emphasis in detailed facts in these courses made me feel like a supersonic stealth fighter jet getting thrown into a guerilla war. I was not able to fully display my strength in science, because I despise memorization. I wanted to learn things they were not teaching, and many did not even seem to care about the questions I am most interested, namely, why and how. In his autobiography, Nobel Prize Laureate Aaron Klug wrote, "... in my second year, I took, among other subjects, biochemistry, or physiological chemistry as it was then called, which stood me in good stead in later years when I came to face biological material. However, I felt the lack of a deeper foundation, and moved to chemistry and this in turn led me to physics and mathematics." As I was reading this line, it echoed my own deeper voice. My primary interest lies in the understanding of life, yet the lack of basic fundamental science in my undergraduate biochemistry program is leading me toward a more traditional physical and chemical approach in my graduate pursuit. More than once I have wondered to myself whether majoring in Biochemistry at Berkeley is a mistake, due to its emphasis in facts and not so much so in physical concepts and principles. However, as Klug said, my training in biochemistry does stand me in good stead.

In fact, if I were able to, I would take more courses in physical chemistry, physics, and advanced mathematics, if not for the numerous breath requirement I had to complete in Berkeley's College of Letters and Science in order to graduate. That is actually one of my criticism of my college. After my major requirements and college general education requirements, I no longer had the time to take courses I would love to take. That left me a very unsatisfying taste.

I am still very much interested in biology and how life works. However, I do not think like a typical biologist. I am not satisfied in just knowing what happens. I want to know exactly why and how it happens, down to the atomic and molecular level. I want to explain biological phenomena in terms of chemistry and physics, not just a series of facts without reasons. I am a biologist by training, chemist at heart. I wish to pursue these interests in my future scientific career.

 

 

 

HOME