Talk:Chemical biology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 18 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jajc1128.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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)[reply]

We really need a 1-2 sentence that explains how this is different from biochemistry. I'm in a damn "chemistry and Chemical Biology" department (grad school) and no one I've ever asked here can give one. Such utter bull shit. The difference is as meaningful as "Physical chemistry" vs. "Chemical Physics", except somehow people have bought into this. 24.58.20.254 (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opening definition of field—need for citation, and need for further thoughtful discussion

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)[reply]

Am sorry, am outraged at this nonsense

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)[reply]

Basic history of the field

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)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: CHEM 300

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2023 and 7 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bread6, Chmstr (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Fanaryne, Sylee00, Les42342, Icocci.

— Assignment last updated by CHEM 300 UBC CJA (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]