Talk:Molecular scale biology

I really like the content of this page. However, I question a need to have a separate page on "molecular scale biology", which isn't as commonly used a term as simply "molecular biology". Although I can see that the page is attempting to address the combination of genetics, molecular biology and biochemistry, I still think most biologists would consider all of this falling under the rough rubric of "molecular biology".

My feeling is that the content here should be merged into either molecular biology or the biophysics page. Currently the molecular biology page mostly describes molecular biology techniques, and I can see why the author probably saw a need for a conceptual page on molecular biology, but I think the right thing to do is to make the content here the main/intro subsection on molecular biology and the current techniques sections at molecular biology a subsection of that page.

Thoughts? --Lexor 23:50, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think molecular biology would definitely be an appropriate place for this content. I didn't put it there originally because it doesn't seem to sit well with what's already written. Consider the issue of molecular biology having several meanings -- as a specific discipline (transcription, translation, etc); and as a broader field of molecular scale biology; and as a set of techniques. If someone can incorporate it, I think that would be appropriate. Biophysics would be less appropriate because that is often restricted to research with a physics approach. Rikurzhen 00:41, Oct 13, 2003 (UTC)

I like the idea of integrating it with molecular biology. I'm a little surprised you don't consider it apt for biophysics. I inserted biophysics into the article, because I saw the statement about the research in question being "quantitative." I think being quantitative is probably all that makes the approach of lot of biophysicists like physics. (What kinds of things were you thinking of, Rikurzhen, when you wrote "quantitative"?) Anyway, I think there's probably lots of biophysics that isn't molecular, and I think the content of this article is very apt to molecular biology, as I understand it...well, except for the quantitative part, again. I'd actually like that fleshed out, because if one gets too quantitative I think one's liable to end up presenting at biophysics meetings, just to have an audience. 168... 02:39, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I see what your getting at about quantitative. I mean that as compared to animal physiology or classical genetics, molecular biology is a more quantitative field. I point it out because someone who doesn't know that much about modern biology might the impression that it isn't a quantiative field because it traditionally was not. Consider genomics and bioinformatics.Rikurzhen 03:00, Oct 13, 2003 (UTC)

OK, since there seemed to be a consensus, the merge with molecular biology is done, I have tried to preserve the essence of the original article, and have included elements of the edits by 168.. and Rikurzhen. I also expanded considerably the section and restructured (somewhat) the original molecular biology article. --Lexor 10:16, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)