chembio: perturb and observe
biochem: wreck and check

biochem: the nitty-gritty chemistry of biological systems--this includes stuff like glycolysis and the krebs cycle (from high school), but it goes WAYYY beyond that as well. I think the other biochem stuff covered in high school was DNA replication, and transcription/translation. biochem focuses more on understanding how biological systems work, and then how we can use that knowledge for useful things--ex, if I know the pathway for repairing DNA damage caused by UV light, I can look at ways of stimulating this pathway to decrease the risk of skin cancer. There are more pathways involved, and it is DEFINITELY more biology-based. biochemists look at proteins' structures and how the structure affects its function.

chembio: how small molecules affect/interact with biological systems. this includes looking at the specific functional groups that make a molecule a good drug, and WHY these functional groups are effective. there is a lot of focus on synthesizing molecules for whatever purpose you want, as well as extracting very complex molecules from natural sources (these often make the best drugs). Proteins are useful to a chemical biologist as targets for small molecules--this often requires knowledge of the protein structure, and dealing with protein targets is the biggest way in which chembio and biochem/bio will overlap. For example, if I know an enzyme that interferes with the DNA repair pathway, I can find a small molecule to inhibit that enzyme to decrease the risk of skin cancer.

There is a great deal of overlap in the second-year courses for biochem & chembio, but third and fourth year are very different. chembio is CHEMISTRY, with a biological application. In practise (like, in research) chemical biologists and biochemists often work on the same problems, but with different approaches and often different methods.

Chembio is mostly 'perturb and observe', meaning we add a small molecule or something (perturb the system) and observe the effect.
Biochem is more 'wreck and check'--for example, irradiating a sample to cause a ton of different mutations (wrecking the system), and searching for/isolating the one with the effect you want.

Originally Posted by nerual

chembio: perturb and observe
biochem: wreck and check

biochem: the nitty-gritty chemistry of biological systems--this includes stuff like glycolysis and the krebs cycle (from high school), but it goes WAYYY beyond that as well. I think the other biochem stuff covered in high school was DNA replication, and transcription/translation. biochem focuses more on understanding how biological systems work, and then how we can use that knowledge for useful things--ex, if I know the pathway for repairing DNA damage caused by UV light, I can look at ways of stimulating this pathway to decrease the risk of skin cancer. There are more pathways involved, and it is DEFINITELY more biology-based. biochemists look at proteins' structures and how the structure affects its function.

chembio: how small molecules affect/interact with biological systems. this includes looking at the specific functional groups that make a molecule a good drug, and WHY these functional groups are effective. there is a lot of focus on synthesizing molecules for whatever purpose you want, as well as extracting very complex molecules from natural sources (these often make the best drugs). Proteins are useful to a chemical biologist as targets for small molecules--this often requires knowledge of the protein structure, and dealing with protein targets is the biggest way in which chembio and biochem/bio will overlap. For example, if I know an enzyme that interferes with the DNA repair pathway, I can find a small molecule to inhibit that enzyme to decrease the risk of skin cancer.

There is a great deal of overlap in the second-year courses for biochem & chembio, but third and fourth year are very different. chembio is CHEMISTRY, with a biological application. In practise (like, in research) chemical biologists and biochemists often work on the same problems, but with different approaches and often different methods.

Chembio is mostly 'perturb and observe', meaning we add a small molecule or something (perturb the system) and observe the effect.
Biochem is more 'wreck and check'--for example, irradiating a sample to cause a ton of different mutations (wrecking the system), and searching for/isolating the one with the effect you want.

That's a really good summary. I would also argue however that chembio 'wrecks and checks' as much as biochem 'pertrubs and observes'.

Originally Posted by kenneth526

That's a really good summary. I would also argue however that chembio 'wrecks and checks' as much as biochem 'pertrubs and observes'.

That's the overlap between the disciplines

Lol, the whole wreck & check/perturb & observe thing got fed to us quite a bit, mostly by Brennan

I'm not sure if people are still picking Level 2 programs .. but here are my two cents!
I just finished my third year of Chem Bio, and it was great. We really did have the best of Chem and Biochem. Like Lauren said, the chemistry we learn has a different spin on it than what the Chemistry students learn, and same with the biochem. The courses that are designed specifically for our program (Bio-Organic Chem, Biomolecular Interactions, Structure Elucidation and the Level 3 lab course) really get to the interface of chemistry and biology. I think Chemistry lacks the application to biology (which is a huge area of research right now), and Biochem shies away from real chemistry and underlying principles.
The workload in Level 3 ChemBio was definitely less than in second year - from what I hear, I think some of the Chemistry and Biochem specialization courses are very overwhelming, and it sounds like Biochem core doesn't have the same coherence as Chem/ChemBio. Some students in Level 3 and 4 are even selected to be peer tutors for the Level 2 Inquiry course.
ChemBio isn't a traditional program (which is great when you're comparing with your friends at other universities ) but it still gives you a lot of options. The workload is intense (at least in first term of second year), but it's totally possible to do well - the profs are not trying to make students do poorly. This summer, many of our classmates have research jobs and/or scholarships in this department and elsewhere. Coming out of ChemBio, you'd do well in a variety of grad and professional programs. In fact, some of the students in our class are starting medical school after third year. Being in a small program full of bright, well-rounded students is amazing, and is probably one of the best reasons to go into Chem Bio. The number of electives in second and third year may be an issue if you have a variety of interests outside of chemical biology, but on the other hand I kind of liked having my schedule very similar to my classmates (making groupwork easier, especially when a lot of your classmates commute to Mac), and it also makes course registration easy on SOLAR. Also, don't forget that courses and electives aren't everything - you can learn just as much from extra-curricular involvements.

Hey guys!

So no one is going to be choosing second-year programs anymore... but for anyone still interested (or for any future students), I'm going to say a couple of things.
First of all, before you go into a program, you need to understand what you're getting yourself into. When I say this, I'm basically telling you to look at the COURSES offered by the specific program, as opposed to asking the question of "What is chemical biology?".. to which my response is this:

In crude terms, chemical biology is a discipline at the interface of biological sciences and the physical sciences. As my time in the program goes on (I just finished my second year, but I've pondered this question quite a lot, trust me), it seems that everyone has their own definition of what being a chemical biologist actually is! This makes sense, seeing as Chemical Biology is rather broad in scope (despite commonly being referred to as a highly ‘specific’ program).
You may or may not have caught onto my use of the word ‘interface’ (a term that, in itself, is not very definitive at all). In chemical biology, we are not limited to a set of tools or instrumentation we can use to solve or approach a given problem. We are also not limited to the problems we are able to solve, either. Chemical biologists has been described before as being able to have “dreams” different from those of chemists or biologists. What does that mean? Scientifically-speaking, biologists live in a world with three dimensions: DNA, RNA and proteins... all these dimensions are clearly interconnected and the manipulation of one can, and will, have an effect on the other two. However, chemical biologists introduce a ‘chemistry-based’ fourth dimension (i.e. ‘small molecules’) which can regulate (OR be regulated by) the other three dimensions in a biological system. This means that we can introduce small molecules to modulate the biological system, OR we can use the biological system to make small molecules (which could in turn regulate the biological system... self-regulation!).

Why is the drop our rate so high?
The drop-out rate is 'high' because many people don't fully understand what they're getting themselves into. Or they realize that this program is not for them (maybe they don't like the tools/techniques which are being studied, or they would rather have a heavier emphasis on biology or chemistry exclusively). The drop out rate is so high because people don't ASK the same questions that you guys are asking!

Biochemistry vs. Chemical Biology:
It is not a simple matter of 'one is more chemistry-intensive than the other". Biochemistry and Chemical Biology often aim to solve the same set of problems; however, it is the manner in which the problem is approached which is different. A very brief summary:

Biochemistry. What is it? Chemistry applied to biology; studying the chemistry of biomolecules.
Example 1: The structure of the protein determines its function.
Example 2: On/off control of biological activity; mutagenesis of a gene could lead to a gene product (protein, or other) with a different biological activity.

Chemical Biology. What is it? Chemical techniques applied to investigate and manipulate a biological system. By manipulating a system (i.e. ‘probing’ it, with small molecules, etc.) you can learn a lot more about how it actually works by seeing the effects of different environmental stimuli, chemical modifications, and/or small molecules.
Example 1: The protein’s function is determined by its structure, chemical modifications, cell physiology, other proteins present, external environmental stimuli/conditions, etc.
Example 2: Modulation of biological activity; a small molecule can serve to alter the gene product’s biological activity in a dose-dependent manner.

In response to "I would also argue however that chembio 'wrecks and checks' as much as biochem 'pertrubs and observes'.":
Chem Bio is based more on the MODULATION of biological activity. Biochem is more of creating an on/off switch. So, YES both programs will effectively 'wreck and check', though I would argue that the methods of detection (checking) will be more similar than the methods of 'wrecking'. Though, in principle, both aim to 'wreck' with as little effect to the biological system, perhaps the following example will help you understand the difference between the two (haha, excuse my story-telling):
Say you've got a 'biological problem', where the problem itself is the over-expression of a given protein. Let's say that the over-expression of this protein leads to the manifestation of a particular disease. Your solutions to the problem could vary, of course! As a biochemist, you may be inclined to perform a mutagenesis study (alter the function of the protein) or do a complete gene knock-out (eliminate the protein in the organism, so no protein at all) wherein you investigate the effect that different mutations to the protein (or complete lack of it) will have on its biological activity and/or the biological system. So, you do some mutations, investigate the effects in vitro (in a test tube) and see that the protein is no longer capable of fulfilling its function. Success! Move into a real cell, but you find that although you have 'cured' the disease, your cell cultures still seem to die a little too quickly (though not as quickly as with the disease).
Oh no! What happened? Let's say that although the over-expression of this protein leads to a disease (too much of the protein can do many things), the under-expression (or lack of) this protein is also deleterious because it is required in another biological pathway, other than the one YOU are studying. Therefore, the under-expression, or complete elimination, of the protein is just as bad as over-expression...

Bring in the chemical biologist. Though this new person considers that the introduction of a particular mutation (biochemistry) might serve the same purpose as the introduction of a small molecule (chemical biology) to affect the protein target, they are more inclined to go with the chemical biologist approach (lol, obviously). So they design a small molecule which down-regulates the activity of the protein (or maybe the activity of another protein involved in this 'up-regulated pathway'). Or maybe a small molecule which down-regulates the transcription/translation of the protein? You see, with small molecules, you can choose a variety of targets in order to solve your problem. In this case, perhaps it would be best to down-regulate the amount of protein produced (so back down to 'normal' levels). Yes, there are still problems with how well the small molecules are 'taken in' by the organism (you need to consider this with anything that isn't native to the organism, of course!) but by reducing the amount of protein produced (not compromising its activity in OTHER biological pathways through mutagenesis, or completely eliminating the protein through a gene knockout!) you will probably obtain a solution to your problem which, in the long-term, is less detrimental to the organism itself.

I hope that the use of a 'real' example helped! Though the differences between Chemical Biology and Biochemistry are subtle, they are definitely there (and most apparent to people who are actually in the programs!)

Sarrah

A question for people in Chembio now... what GPA was required to be considered?

I believe it says a 9.5 is required for consideration but that varies from year to year. As well, it depends on how many people apply and how high their averages are. Apparently, having it as a first choice for your major mattered as well. So, I'd say you'd need a 10 for a chance to be considered and probably as high as you can get. Then again not a lot of people may apply next year or only people with 7's may in which case your 9.5 would probably result in you getting in. It depends on your competition so your best bet is having the highest grades you can.