Talk:Chemical biology

message: To anyone in the field, this article seems sort of self-promoting and rather limiting in it's definitions.
:ditto. Xcomradex 01:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: While I do not take strong exception to the well written definition in the opening paragraph, I would note: (a) it is without citation/attribution, (b) it is therefore unclear to the reader if the definition is in keeping with the major contributors to the field (certainly, initially, Prof Schreiber, but also the current premier journals in the field, Nat Chem Biol and ACS Chem Biol).  Moreover, (c) that it is unclear how this opening definition relates to the relatively "polyglot" content that follows in the article. 
I would add for consideration that the discussion of the history of chemical biology—once it is attributed clearly and defined self-consistently with respect to the whole of the article—needs to have as a point of its discussion the matter of "re-branding". E.g., use of affinity agents in identification of macromolecular targets did not begin with FK506 or other early modern targets, and in some early cases of affinity purification, chemical synthesis was required to provide the affinity ligand that was immobilized (though some careful looking at the international chemistry literature is required to see this). Hence, the matter of chemical biology's carving out for itself specific sub-specialities from existing disciplines, and rebranding the set as the new field, is worth mention for its broad interest. At the same time, the departmental affiliations of the founders and early proponents of the "new" discipline need to be touched upon (and thereafter the emergence of Chem and Chem Biol departments, per se), with interpretation in relation to CB's emergence as a the field of specialization.  
Finally, regarding the opening definition, I would call attention to a definition of inorganic chemistry that appeared in the introduction to the popular Inorganic Chemistry: Principles of Structure and Reactivity by JE Huheey—essentially, that inorganic chemistry is, simply, any chemistry that is of interest in research to inorganic chemists.  However seemingly trite and circular, this way of thinking about any rapidly changing discipline can shed light on why—referencing the strict, opening definitions—there are "biochemistry" articles routinely   appearing, e.g., in Nature Chemical Biology.  LeProf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.207.81 (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening definition of field—need for citation, and need for further thoughtful discussion 

message: Came to the site from Prof Schreiber's page, expecting in the lead or bibliography here, some of the definitive references that serve the basis for chemical biology's emergence as a field. A search for "Schreiber" on this page produces no hits. How can Stuart Schreiber not appear in the text or citations of an encyclopedia entry on chemical biology? This is utter nonsense, and an evidentiary low point for chemistry scholarship being presented in this encyclopedia. Between this and the organic chemistry article, there is little I can find to merit to send students to this site. LeProf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.244.80 (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Am sorry, am outraged at this nonsense 

message: I would want to know the history with reference to events like:
:the first departments formed
:the first professional societies formed
:the first conferences held
:the first journals established
:the first PhDs awarded
:the first research institutes founded
You know, stuff like: who, what, when, where, why, how.CountMacula (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic history of the field 

message: — Assignment last updated by CHEM 300 UBC CJA (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: CHEM 300