Things are pretty different from what I was taught in high school now, or perhaps just more detailed. Some examples:
Protein and ligand are like a lock and a key >>> Some proteins have no intrinsic shape and wrap around ligands or other proteins. Maybe there is RNA involved as well.
The cell membrane is like a soap bubble >>> Different lipids cluster together to form raft like structures with different content based on lipid composition.
DNA -> RNA -> Protein >>> DNA <-> RNA -> Protein.
We have a lot of Junk DNA >>> We shouldn't call it junk DNA, it plays a role in regulation of the exome, wrapping DNA around chromatin and probably plays a lot more roles on a larger scale, equally or more important than the exome even.
Optical microscopes have resolution a limit of about lambda[the wavelength of the used light]/2 >>> We have super-resolution optical microscopy now (ie STED, STORM/PALM, SMM probably more and better, I left the field 10 years ago).
The immune system plays no role in cancer >>> We're completely removing metastatic cancers by boosting the immune system regularly now.
Just to make you think, when I was 19 I did Sanger sequencing, about a day or 2 of hands-on work for 200 base pairs. Now I'm 39, we have an Illumina Nextseq 500 in our lab, we're sequencing 1200 billion (1.2e11) base pairs in one experiment (assuming 2x150 bp reads, 400 million reads). A Novaseq can do a lot more... Crazy.
Is sequencing 'hard' computational work? Could we use it for proof-of-work?