subgroups

[Chris Day]

I have set up the Biology Workgroup page and also transferred the list of priority articles. As more people arrive we can use this thread to discuss how we wish to subdivide the biology fields into logical groupings.

[David Goodman]

I am not sure about others, but I have listed my field (general zoology) in the expectation that many others would be better able to deal with some of the other topics. But I am very willing to defer here, and move wherever else I can,  depending on who has joined and what the relative fit of our knowledge may be.

[Chris Day]

I am not sure about others, but I have listed my field (general zoology) in the expectation that many others would be better able to deal with some of the other topics. But I am very willing to defer here, and move wherever else I can,  depending on who has joined and what the relative fit of our knowledge may be.

I guess we just wait to see who shows up.  The main thing I was thinking is we probably do not want too many subgroups. I suspect most of us have quite broad interests despite our own expertise in any given field. For example, I would feel comfortable looking at cell, biochem, botany, molecular, genetics and evolution articles. Maybe that should be one sub group? I would be less comfortable in systematics, ecology and taxonomy but they might be a natural fit too? Evolution is one that might be a field included in all the sub groups since it is so overarching? Just a few thoughts to kick off with here.

[David Tribe]

Hi I'm having trouble with the syntax of joining a working group via a category at my user page.

Im trying to join Biology WG and Agriculture

My expertise is in genetics, biochemistry, microbiology biotechnology, and agriculture, but not in wiki hacking it seems.
cheers
David Tribe

[Chris Day]

See you talk page.  i just made a few changes.  It looks like you had the right idea.

[Robert Lowry]

For example, I would feel comfortable looking at cell, biochem, botany, molecular, genetics and evolution articles. Maybe that should be one sub group? I would be less comfortable in systematics, ecology and taxonomy but they might be a natural fit too? Evolution is one that might be a field included in all the sub groups since it is so overarching? Just a few thoughts to kick off with here.

I agree that the subgroups should try to stay relatively large. When I looked at your splitting up of the groups it seemed to not quite fit at first. Maybe I just don't know enough about biology to even know what all the different areas are completely and see their connection, but it seems like there would be people torn between groups. While there will always be people split, it seems like there could be a more natural division maybe?

I just though up this quickly:

• botany/zoology (plants & critters)
• cell/biochem/molecular/biotech (tiny stuff, tiny life, tiny technology)
• ecology/evolution/genetics/systematics/agriculture (systems, behavior, etc)

Of course, that's just an example. I just thought I'd throw that in here.

[Chris Day]

I just though up this quickly:

• botany/zoology (plants & critters)
• cell/biochem/molecular/biotech (tiny stuff, tiny life, tiny technology)
• ecology/evolution/genetics/systematics/agriculture (systems, behavior, etc)

Of course, that's just an example. I just thought I'd throw that in here.

Those three splits look good.  The reason mine looked weird was i was lumping botany into the tiny stuff section. Indeed this would be accurate since botany covers the vast spectrum of biology for plants and even includes fungi. As such, botany will be represented in all three grouping, although individual botanists would probably narrow themselves to one or two of the three subgroups you propose above.

[David Goodman]

Considering what people are likely to be competent in, we might do well to separate zoology and botany. (and perhaps microbiology)
That gives us
Botany
Zoology
Microbiology
Cell & molecular
Ecology & evolution
--a nice traditional breakdown

(Genetics to me is a subdivision of molecular biology, so there are going to be some borderline issues, but most of the actual genetics articles in WP seem to me to have  written from the ecology/evolution/systematics side of things)
(Microbiology is logically parallel to zoology and botany but  looking at some of the present articles, they range from taxonomic to molecular to applied)

[Chris Day]

That gives us
Botany
Zoology
Microbiology
Cell & molecular
Ecology & evolution

This also seems like a good break down.  Animals, plants and micro are natural breaks and most biologists would go with one of those subgroups.  Likewise the other two represent natural grouping based on the scale of study i.e. Sub cellular and ecosystem.  i think it might be wise to have an organismal grouping too, that would represent a scale between sub cellular and ecosystem.  Topics such as anatomy and physiology would fit better into such a group. Thus, most biologists would classify themselves into at least two subgroups.  One based on the organism and one based on the scale of study.

[Nancy Sculerati]

There is a pragmatic consideration that is pertinent to the self-trained expert. There are individuals who are true experts about a species of plant or animal. For example, there are people who breed tropical fish and are very widely read on, say, cichlids, knowing their biological classifications etc, as well as aspects of their natural history. Some such auto-didacts are true experts about their subject and we would all benefit from having them as editors. The subgroup classification as proposed so far in this thread is a great fit for academics and professionals, but does not really help with these sorts of experts. I'd like to propose a restricted form of Biology editor for a type of plant or animal where this fits, say [[Category:Biology Editors|cichlids|Last name, First name]]. There are very dedicated prople who are working at this time on the pilot who have done as much work as anyone who are not presently listed as an editor because of lack of broad academic qualifications in biology, but who are well qualified with their subject. I am bringing this up in Executive Committee and would appreciate your input.

[David Goodman]

Although the original qualifications for editorship in academic subjects required academic knowledge, I think this should be seen as merely the general rule. I think the intention wasthat once the initial group of editors was established, they would subsequently deal with the certification in their subjects, and would be expected to have the judgment to make exceptions.
I see no real need to limit this formally to a specific aspect. All editors in this and other topics are in truth limited to some aspects. Based on what we know of each others'  backgrounds, there are none of us able to cover the whole range. Thus , when we have an article of a very general topic, it is limited in detail to what editors feel comfortable with. 
I would not claim the ability to edit & approve articles on any fish , general or specific; any author would be quite justified in objecting if I tried to assume such a position.  And similarly in the other direction, I would not accept an fish specialist as editor of an article on ribosome structure and evolution--unless of course that person also had  sufficient knowledge there.   In biology this mixture does happen: James Watson almost became an ornithologist.

[John Moffett]

Hello all,

Sorry for joining this discussion so late. My areas of expertise are in neuroscience and immunology, with special interests in cell biology and the origins of life. I went through the list of sub-headings in biology and noticed that neuroscience and immunology were missing.

I know that many folks think of immunology as a medical science, but in fact, almost all immunology research is done by biologists using animals or tissue culture. Almost none of it is done on humans, even though human health is the ultimate goal.

My suggestion would be to have neuroscience and immunology as branches of biology, like ecology or cell biology, whereas under human health we could have sections on human diseases (pathogen-induced vs. genetic, for example) and how those relate to immunology, endocrinology etc. In fact, endocrinology might be another useful subgroup in biology.

In this way, for example, discussions on nerve cells and synaptic transmission would be in the biology section under neuroscience, whereas brain imaging as applied to brain tumor diagnosis would be under human health.

Currently listed “subfields”:

Anatomy | Astrobiology | Biochemistry | Bioinformatics | Botany | Cell biology | Ecology | Developmental biology | Evolutionary biology | Genetics | Genomics | Marine biology | Human biology | Microbiology | Molecular biology | Origin of life | Paleontology | Parasitology | Pathology | Physiology | Taxonomy | Zoology


Let me know what you think.

JRM