5 ms·

A key activity in bioinformatics is developing software tools for analyzing and interpreting data. If you have no knowledge of biology, you could still work as

by amitutk 14y ago

A key activity in bioinformatics is developing software tools for analyzing and interpreting data. If you have no knowledge of biology, you could still work as as soft engg. in this field. If you are willing to learn basic molecular biology (structure of DNA, central dogma, etc.), you can get a job as a bioinformatician, bioinformatics analyst, bioinformatics engg, etc. where you could be analyzing biomedical datasets.

barry-cotter 14y ago
Isn't bioinformatics like biology in that the minimum qualification to be more than someone else's staff/glorified lab tech is a Ph.D.?
- tom_b 14y ago
  No. I sit side-by-side with PhDs in bioinformatics and am useful because I can write crazy SQL, can munge data at the cmd line and with ruby/clojure, and simply don't care what format data comes to me in. I have some preferences, but I'll work with whatever - many of the bioinformatics PhDs will know a little scripting (Perl or R) but are more valuable doing other work rather than pounding out parsing scripts and doing data transformations. We do work that winds up in people's actual medical records - meaning that genomics analysis we do influences/directs actual medical treatment for patients. That said, I wish I knew more biology and statistics, which is just interesting to me. I'd feel a little "key" to the work rather than a "nice" addition to the team.
  - barry-cotter 14y ago
    Forgive me for being a status/autonomy whore but it sounds like you are a respected, professional, “part of the team”. Neither money nor more importa tly prestige flows that way. I have absolutely no doubt that the work you are doing is useful, relevant and a genuine contribution to society and the enterprise of science. But how many people who are “just” programmers or “just” bioinformaticians, no Ph.D. end up as first, second or third authors on papers? That is the coin of the realm, right? It certainly is in Chemistry, Biology and Big Lab/Group Physics, yeah?
    - njbooher 14y ago
      Papers can be published about tools that are developed. For example, NAR has a web server issue every year. http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/W1.toc http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/W1.toc
    - tom_b 14y ago
      No worries, I think you have the right read on the prestige issue. Of course in an academic research center, no one makes any money and prestige is reserved for grant-winners and first authors in Nature. Publications would be hard as a non-PhD. If you wanted to focus on that, I have found that PIs welcome outsiders into their research groups. I'm certain you could put yourself in a position to publish with the same amount of credit as a grad student on a team (not much?). Especially with good data hacking skills, someone will be willing to help you scratch that publication itch. I think it would be like having a major side-project in addition to a fulltime job though. Oddly enough, even though the work I do here is less technical than what I have done in the private sector, I seem to perceive a slight up-tick in respect from enterprise software groups.

by amitutk 14y ago

barry-cotter 14y ago

Isn't bioinformatics like biology in that the minimum qualification to be more than someone else's staff/glorified lab tech is a Ph.D.?

tom_b 14y ago
No. I sit side-by-side with PhDs in bioinformatics and am useful because I can write crazy SQL, can munge data at the cmd line and with ruby/clojure, and simply don't care what format data comes to me in. I have some preferences, but I'll work with whatever - many of the bioinformatics PhDs will know a little scripting (Perl or R) but are more valuable doing other work rather than pounding out parsing scripts and doing data transformations. We do work that winds up in people's actual medical records - meaning that genomics analysis we do influences/directs actual medical treatment for patients. That said, I wish I knew more biology and statistics, which is just interesting to me. I'd feel a little "key" to the work rather than a "nice" addition to the team.
- barry-cotter 14y ago
  Forgive me for being a status/autonomy whore but it sounds like you are a respected, professional, “part of the team”. Neither money nor more importa tly prestige flows that way. I have absolutely no doubt that the work you are doing is useful, relevant and a genuine contribution to society and the enterprise of science. But how many people who are “just” programmers or “just” bioinformaticians, no Ph.D. end up as first, second or third authors on papers? That is the coin of the realm, right? It certainly is in Chemistry, Biology and Big Lab/Group Physics, yeah?
  - njbooher 14y ago
    Papers can be published about tools that are developed. For example, NAR has a web server issue every year. http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/W1.toc http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/W1.toc
  - tom_b 14y ago
    No worries, I think you have the right read on the prestige issue. Of course in an academic research center, no one makes any money and prestige is reserved for grant-winners and first authors in Nature. Publications would be hard as a non-PhD. If you wanted to focus on that, I have found that PIs welcome outsiders into their research groups. I'm certain you could put yourself in a position to publish with the same amount of credit as a grad student on a team (not much?). Especially with good data hacking skills, someone will be willing to help you scratch that publication itch. I think it would be like having a major side-project in addition to a fulltime job though. Oddly enough, even though the work I do here is less technical than what I have done in the private sector, I seem to perceive a slight up-tick in respect from enterprise software groups.