Skip to main content

Biology vs. CS : The Tale of Two Siblings

 Sometimes I feel like biology is the “Sharma ji ka beta” of science. You know the kid who does everything right, shows up when it matters most, but still gets questioned, doubted, or quietly sidelined.

Think back to the times where the mankind faced the most difficult times. Biology gave us rapid diagnostics, and the entire molecular understanding of how the bodyworks. It has given us therapies for cancer, insights into the brain, tools to edit genes. In short, biology has repeatedly proven its worth, often in life-saving ways. Yet somehow, it doesn’t always get the recognition or attention it deserves.

Computer science, on the other hand, feels like the favorite child. It gets the limelight, the funding, the hype. Every new breakthrough in AI or app development becomes a headline. People want to study it, invest in it, and call it “the future.” And to be fair it is dazzling. Algorithms, machine learning, and large-scale computing have changed the way we live.

But here’s the truth: biology and computer science aren’t competitors. They’re siblings. One is the quiet, dependable worker that makes sure the world doesn’t collapse. The other is the charismatic performer who captures the crowd’s imagination. When they work together, we get magic: AlphaFold predicting protein structures, AI accelerating drug discovery, and mRNA platforms scaling up at unprecedented speed.

The future of science isn’t about choosing one child over the other. It’s about recognizing that progress happens when both shine on the same stage. Biology brings the questions of life, health, and complexity. Computer science brings the tools to make sense of that complexity at scale.

Maybe it’s time we stop asking biology to “prove itself” again and again, and instead celebrate it with the same excitement we shower on computer science. Because in the end, the breakthroughs that change the world usually happen when the quiet sibling and the flashy one finally team up.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What actually defines you?

Few questions that I always ask myself  Is it the social intelligence that defines you? Is it the good looks that defines you? Is it the physical health that defines you? We have many ways to quantify intelligence,looks and physical health. Intelligence can be quantified with the help of so called I.Q (Intelligent Quotient), Looks can be quantified based on the Age/tone of your skin/your smile etc. Likewise, Health can also be quantified based on diet you follow / Exercise to keep yourself fit each day. All the parameters mentioned above not exactly define you.They are tools to assess you at that particular instant. Human minds are not static,they swing in different directions. Life is an integration of situations/instances that you face over time. Decision making is always difficult because the future of the curve is decided by decisions that you make. It is very hard to sustain your momentum going but when you choose different track you have to make sure that you f...
I still don't understand how people zero down to a particular subject without knowing about the subject.Students take up the specific subject as their lifetime career after finishing their school but how students have zeroed down  one specific subject without leaving a question to others? Do we need to live the life the way comes and go along with that? How people say that "I'm really passionate about this" without knowing the subject? all these questions kept me boggling throughout the day and night. Let's take my case I took up biotech as my career after my 12th still I don't know why? keep this apart,I don't think even after undergoing 6 months of lectures,assignments,exams,practicals....... won't provide sufficient base for us to develop interest.I still remember a famous saying by John Nash that-"Hours of lecture will make you dull and makes you averse towards that subject."I'm in a state of predicament where I can't find my i...

The dying soul

It startles me to see an article that draws an analogy between the cobra effect and academia - Interesting parallels. The emphasis on - how metrics like impact factor, h-index, grants, and tenure tracks have overshadowed the purpose of doing science is the central point of discussion. Towards the end, the article leaves you with a question of where collectively restructuring is required to enable real progress. But, how to do that? In other words, how to resurrect the dying "soul" of academia and get over "pretentious" science? Here are my thoughts: I think the answer lies in where it all started. Ask oneself the following question- What enabled the concept of doing a Ph.D.? Back in the day, the excitement to understand takes the front seat, which has been instrumental in the pursuit to discover things, and the by-product of this process is a Ph.D. What's happening now? Vice versa? Relatively speaking, we have reached a stage where every lab is equipped with en...