jacob wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 1:18 pm
Unlike physics which usually leads to the same grand unified theory end point, this problem goes in all kinds of still-not-well-understood directions and as a noob it's very easy to believe that one has understood the big picture whereas in reality one has just traveled one path down the google hole. => Structure is key in microbiology because it's not inherent to the field!!
Sorry for the long response when you just wanted some recommendations, but you've gone and made me think. So that's on you.
TL;DR - maybe look for a book on epidemiology? If you skim the first couple chapters and it seems Greek, dial it back to something more basic?
I think you've hit on something here. Maybe the best way to put it is that knowledge in biology is fractal. Here's what I mean: each level of knowledge, from superficial to deep to "cutting edge" (and there are
many levels in between), is its own world with its own introductory/survey level followed by increasing specificity of detail until reaching the next "level", when a specific narrow interest is expanded. And unfortunately, each level requires
at least the basics of the previous level (at least in the topics that are most adjacent to each other) as a prerequisite. Each level down is totally a rabbit hole, though, because while it continues along the path and is consistent with the previous levels, there need not be any point or reason or linkage to knowledge developed from the other rabbit holes out there. Biology is fun like that. This unfortunately means that there is no end to the amount of stuff you just plain have to memorize if you want to know it, and that the further you go down any single rabbit hole, more often than not, the more specific and generally irrelevant the details become with respect to other rabbit holes.* E.g. knowing the specific amino acids that make up the binding pocket on a specific receptor in a unique chemical pathway to organism X might be super interesting, but is almost certainly not generalizable beyond closely related species and is probably just "knowledge for knowledge's sake" for humanity - a fun little footnote in a paper no one will read. At least with physics matter is matter everywhere and energy is energy everywhere (But what do I know, I only took the 101 series in college!) Hope that makes sense.
*This other-rabbit-hole quality can even happen at the same level among collaborating colleagues as research teams have branched out to include dozens of diverse experts specializing in narrow techniques. That's been my experience any time statistics/probability/modeling gets used. The people that know the biology rarely have a deep understanding of the mathematics and
vice versa. Even fewer people know enough about both to see when this has become the fundamental problem.
So that means general reading recommendations are definitely going to be tricky because even "intro" texts are at different levels. E.g. it would be an exercise in frustration to try to tackle organic chemistry before "general" or intro inorganic chemistry. Similarly, biochemistry only really makes sense after some basic cell biology and organic chemistry.... and on and on. Unfortunately, developing a better understanding of infectious diseases/microbiology has similar "mid-level" prerequisites - equivalent to being about a junior-level undergraduate. That is, after basic cell biology (e.g. do you understand basic cell replication? the "central dogma"? the various organelle systems? membrane proteins?), after basic genetics (e.g. introns, exons, transcription factors, promoters?), a decent understanding of chemistry (e.g. the behavior of electrons in different types of reactions, understanding basic reaction rate math, thermodynamics), a basic knowledge of the immune system, etc.
All that to say, if you're at Wheaton Level 1 (e.g. "the mitochondrion is the powerhouse of the cell") or maybe Wheaton Level 2 (e.g. I can explain the basics of DNA transcription and translation without bungling it up too bad), then it would be a major investment of time to get there. In that case, trust the experts! I myself am not well-versed in microbiology, immunology, or epidemiology, but I'm way up there with cell biology and maybe Level 6-7 in my own tiny specialization (which is completely irrelevant to just about everything in daily life). I still default to the experts on this virus.* I know enough to know that the view from my rabbit hole is sufficiently narrow to make my own conclusions very sketchy. My 15 years studying and researching probably gives me few insights into this specific virus, although maybe a much greater appreciation of certain facts in the same way that an engineer might appreciate the work of another engineer in a related field.
*Which means get as close to the source as possible. Even good journalists - and I'm not bashing them I promise! - often rephrase something from an expert that had important nuance in it without knowing better.
And now having written all of that, I'm thinking (naively, mind you) that maybe the topic to focus on is epidemiology unless you've had a few intro biology/chemistry/physiology classes? I mean, what is required reading for an MPH? Seems like the Great Courses lectures were a great find. If you still want me to hunt down a book or two for you, let me know and I'll see what I can do.
I realize [and painfully at that] that biological matters fall within the [url=
)