Jun 22 2012 Published by under Careers

Omics, omics, more freaking omics. To many people in the biomedical sciences seems to have this pathological need to carve out their own little corner of biology and give it a name ending with -ome. We have genomics. Fair enough. Proteomics. Fine. Metabolomics. Really? Connectome. Ummmm. Allergenome. For real?

The tumor that is omics has metastasized. We now have "ironomics." Are you kidding me?!?!?!?

Freaking omics.

10 responses so far

  • DrLizzyMoore says:

    Dude, don't leave out Lipidomics, it's my favorite of all the -omics...although some file it under 'metabolomics', but whatev's. It's all still systems biology fuckwhittery to me.

  • Pika says:

    Believe it or not, there is also "culturomics":

  • Uh oh. They're going to have some major problems with the ionomics crowd.

  • Jim Thomerson says:

    How do -omics relate to -ologies?

    • Odyssey says:

      The big omics - genomics and proteomics - could be said to cut across several ologies. Most of them however, are pissant little sub-sub-sub-sub-ologies created by people who appear to have inflated senses of importance.

      In case you hadn't noticed, I don't particularly like the omics explosion.

  • Zuska says:

    What we need is more work like this in blogonomics to truly highlight the -omics crises.

  • Its so bad in my field one researcher (won't name names Mats) coined the phrase the DNA Repairome. When he uttered those words at a Society meeting it took all I had not to rush the stage and beat him with my shoe.

  • Sorely Hairbrush says:

    All of these efforts are driven by technical advances that allow researchers to obtain and analyze very large sets of data. Primarily this involves DNA sequencing and/or mass spectrometry based analytical methods for proteins and small molecules. A consequence is that the cost of this kind of research (both instrumentation and manpower) is significant. Its certainly worth questioning if the cost justifies the outcomes but dismissing this kind of research as "fuckwittery" conducted by "pissants" seems a little narrow minded to me.

    • odyssey says:

      I've said nothing about the research itself. My beef is with the apparent need to give every little sub-sub-sub-sub-field it's own -omics title. "Ironomics", for example, is just a sub-sub-subset of proteomics. Is there a need for naming it? Absolutely not. Is the study of iron in biological systems important? Of course.