HyeongJu Kim
Contents
Principles of Bioinformatics
Bioprogramming
Genomics
Genomics is a way of interpretation for genetic information and the link between genetic information and any other traits of organism, including phenotype, genetic relationship and so on.
Origin of genomics
The term "genome" was created in 1920 by Hans Winkler1, professor of botany at the University of Hamburg, Germany. Because -omics refers to a field of study about it follows, genomics was coined referring to a field of study related to genome.
History
The history of genomics is well described in Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genomics#History
Methods of engineering genomes
Methods of genome engineering are in various categories, like sequencing, acquisition, analysis of DNA. To be specific, PCR is used to amplify the amount of DNA sequence, Microarray is used to acquire the amount of RNA in cells or tissues and so on.
There are a lot of methods for genomics study, and you can find more detailed list in here:
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/genomics/methodslist.html
Future of genomics
Researchers have studied intensively on genomes, but still we have a lot of unsolved problems and questions. For me, the greatest success genomics would achieve will be DNA programming. Particularly, it means that we will be possible to construct a new functional protein, a cell and eventually, an organism from the genetic information, DNA. The created organism is analogy to a robot with organic materials. But to achieve the goal with DNA programming, we need a breakthrough in multiple areas including Artificial Intelligence, Proteomics, Systematic Biology and so on.
Transcriptomics
Proteomics
Epigenomics and Phenomics
Canceromics and Geromics
What is cancer?
What is the origin of cancer?
How do you detect cancer?
How do we cure cancer?
What is aging?
Why do we get old?
How do we meaure biological aging?
Additional Materials
What's real?
As traditionally accepted, human beings have 5 senses - sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch. All human can imagin are based on perceptional information from these sensors. We, human beings, construct our own real world by using these sensors and believe that the world is real. But if the reality is defined as the state of existence, are our senses enough to prove existence of something? I doubt it.
Existence in here is the state of one's presence in the objective and independent way from any perception. But there are tens of examples that the reality is actually very small portion of the existence and even distorted part of it.
The endless discussion we had in classroom was because of this disconnection between what we think real and the existence. We can see, touch or even aggressively hear, taste and smell C. elegans to justify our conception of reality about this tiny buddy. For a C. elegans in the cyber world, as far as we saw in the class, we could tell so much discrepancy between our perceptional information about a real C.elegans and the cyber one like whether we can touch or not. However, what if we cannot tell any difference between them, by the improvement of technology. Not taking any additional knowledge except our perception into account, we must admit that the cyber one is real.
I mentioned "any additional knowledge" which some of classmates made their refutation based upon. These knowledges could be that the cyber one is made of electrical signals while the "real" one is made of atoms and molecules. But note where the knowledge is coming from. Human being's own perceptual world! Though human beings have tried to expand the range of perception using sensors like microscope, telescope, analytic methods and so on, still the constraint is remaining. For an example, can you be really sure that a water molecule is same as the one in your mind?
In short, all of our knowledge we use to define reality are based on our perception. In addition, the knowledge is not enough evidence for the existence. Therefore, we cannot define the reality as the state of existence but the results of our perception. Then I can say that the cyber C. elegans is real if we cannot find any difference from the "real" one. However, we know the C. elegans is in the cyber space, which is different from the "real" world, so I insist that it is not real.
Note:
1. I rephrase the definition of "Existence" from wikipedia.
Science articles proven wrong
First of all, I want to share an article regarding scientific studies proven wrong.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/sep/17/scientific-studies-wrong
It says that scientific studies can be proven wrong but this is how science works!
Reference
1. Winkler, HL (1920). Verbreitung und Ursache der Parthenogenesis im Pflanzen- und Tierreiche. Jena: Verlag Fischer.
