Ask HN: Is there a SICP of biology?
More specifically: Is there a book on biology that requires little or no prior knowledge, emphasizes principles at the expense of real-world practicality, and requires considerable intellectual effort in exchange for a genuine, satisfying foray into the field?
7 comments
When I started out in a systems biology lab with a physics and CS background but no biology, they gave me this book:
Molecular Biology of the Cell http://www.amazon.com/Molecular-Biology-Cell-Alberts-Al/dp/0...
The description of the DNA --> RNA --> protein pipeline was really satisfying to someone with my background, full of codes, error-correction algorithms, and rate-limiting steps. I think of it as the Numerical Recipes of biology.
Molecular Biology of the Cell http://www.amazon.com/Molecular-Biology-Cell-Alberts-Al/dp/0...
The description of the DNA --> RNA --> protein pipeline was really satisfying to someone with my background, full of codes, error-correction algorithms, and rate-limiting steps. I think of it as the Numerical Recipes of biology.
Alberts is very often held as the "standard text" (much like Grey's in Anatomy, Atkins in Physical Chemistry, or SICP). I would also recommend "Molecular Genetics of Bacteria" by Snyder and Champness (http://www.amazon.com/Molecular-Genetics-Bacteria-Snyder/dp/...). As you'd expect, it's very focused on Bacteria, but it's current and goes all the way from the basic to the very in-depth.
Edit: Oh! And how could I forget Lodish (http://www.amazon.com/Molecular-Cell-Biology-Harvey-Lodish/d...)? Also very good...
Edit: Oh! And how could I forget Lodish (http://www.amazon.com/Molecular-Cell-Biology-Harvey-Lodish/d...)? Also very good...
Heh. "standard text"
So anyway, the journal asks why I'm citing Alberts so much and I write back, "Alberts is the standard text, editor."
So anyway, the journal asks why I'm citing Alberts so much and I write back, "Alberts is the standard text, editor."
Is there a reason you linked to the 3rd edition? Oddly, James Watson is no longer listed as an author in the 4th edition, and a bunch of other people are added.
Alan Kay frequently recommends that book too.
I would recommend 'Life: the Science of Biology' by Sadava Heller Orians Purves and Hillis. Absolutely massive book, starts with basic chemistry, goes on to biochemistry, then cell biology, and gradually works its way up in scale through ecology. http://bcs.whfreeman.com/thelifewire8e/default.asp has notes from all the chapters, interactive diagrams, and some interactive quizzes.
Can there be a SICP of biology, considering the vastness of the field !!
It's hard, especially at the molecular level where our knowledge is changing on a near daily basis. I have spent years in the world of structural biology, but know only a little about cell biology.
Having said that, Molecular Biology of the Cell (referred elsewhere) is a great book.
Having said that, Molecular Biology of the Cell (referred elsewhere) is a great book.
well - Computer science is pretty damn vast too...
But as vast as life itself?
It's pretty much required, as far as I know, for the SICP professor to thoroughly know the whole book, yet it is nearly impossible for any professor to do the same with Campbell and Reece, one of the more common intro to bio books.
It's pretty much required, as far as I know, for the SICP professor to thoroughly know the whole book, yet it is nearly impossible for any professor to do the same with Campbell and Reece, one of the more common intro to bio books.
Same question: SICP of neuroscience?
If not yet exists, it could be due anytime now, considering the explosive advancement of the field.
I found On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins very enlightening.
I found On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins very enlightening.
The ideas in On Intelligence are very interesting, but the writing style is sometimes repetitive and slightly condescending (I'll explain in more detail if requested). It seems to be aimed at smart teenagers, to inspire them to pursue work in neuroscience and AI.
I first took your Same question as Is there a, as you probably intended. But later this thought popped up: Would a SICP of biology and a SICP of neuroscience have to be one to qualify? (thereby implying: exactly same question :)
I see what you mean - I think there can be both :). For me "SICP of.." means "Thought-provoking, technically rigorous, enjoyable, somewhat comprehensive, and layman-compatible introduction to..", more or less.
Some books I enjoyed (but which don't necessary achieve that status) are:
- Theoretical Neuroscience by Dayan & Abbott (this has math - but it's quite polite about it, and remains readable if you skip the equations)
- Handbook of Brain Theory and Neural Networks:http://mitpress.mit.edu/0262011972
But those are more theory than biology - would be really interested in a "nuts & bolts" presentation of the brain that is readable and engaging (i.e. nice exercises spread throughout the text, if such a thing is possible)
Some books I enjoyed (but which don't necessary achieve that status) are:
- Theoretical Neuroscience by Dayan & Abbott (this has math - but it's quite polite about it, and remains readable if you skip the equations)
- Handbook of Brain Theory and Neural Networks:http://mitpress.mit.edu/0262011972
But those are more theory than biology - would be really interested in a "nuts & bolts" presentation of the brain that is readable and engaging (i.e. nice exercises spread throughout the text, if such a thing is possible)
Trappenbergs, computational neuroscience is really nice too if you're coming from a math/physics/c-s background it's got just enough bio to know what's going on while covering the basic computational features.
It's informally called "The Kandel's book":
Principles of Neural Science by Eric R. Kandel, J.H. Schwartz, and Thomas M. Jessell
Principles of Neural Science by Eric R. Kandel, J.H. Schwartz, and Thomas M. Jessell
This may not be a helpful answer, but the most SICP-like experience in my biology education was probably a paper-reading class.
I would take one for Physics too (specially optics) as I have exam coming up on Friday... :P
Sussman is one of the authors of Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics. Free web version online.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_and_Interpretation_of...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_and_Interpretation_of...
for general physics i'd suggest the feynman lectures:
http://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Physics-Set/dp/020102...
he pretty much covers every topic in that wonderful feynman way. For optics i'd also suggest hecht's book.
Also for a more theoretical coverage of physics, reading the first few books from the landau lifschitz series is highly recommended.
http://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Physics-Set/dp/020102...
he pretty much covers every topic in that wonderful feynman way. For optics i'd also suggest hecht's book.
Also for a more theoretical coverage of physics, reading the first few books from the landau lifschitz series is highly recommended.
Second recommendation for Landau-Lifshitz.
The Mechanics book most closely matched the experience I had with SICP. It uses a small number of powerful, primitive concepts to construct all the major results of mechanics. The book is extremely dense, but the writing is so elegant and lucid that it does not feel forbidding. The only prerequisite is comfort with calculus, though prior knowledge of physics will help, and make the book's achievement that much more impressive.
http://www.amazon.com/Course-Theoretical-Physics-Davidovich-...
The Mechanics book most closely matched the experience I had with SICP. It uses a small number of powerful, primitive concepts to construct all the major results of mechanics. The book is extremely dense, but the writing is so elegant and lucid that it does not feel forbidding. The only prerequisite is comfort with calculus, though prior knowledge of physics will help, and make the book's achievement that much more impressive.
http://www.amazon.com/Course-Theoretical-Physics-Davidovich-...