If one were truly amazed by science, nothing would be in ones way to becoming a scientist; the knowledge is all there, the tools are all there (reactants, catalysts and conditions for illegal materials notwithstanding), and if you are indeed one of these people who are destined to be a scientist ("he who seeks knowledge"), rather than an engineer ("he who wants hands-on") then there is nothing to explore than the minds of your own, or the minds of others (by means of scientific databases, readily available online).
So how would you go about learning LC-MS/MS and applying the various separation techniques to small molecules or proteins?
Instruments start at 250k and many in universities are decades older than what is currently used in industry. For small molecules, the most challenging (and exciting) library's of compounds are owned by third parties.
It is my opinion that science, much like programming, one has to do it to learn it. There are limitations to the knowledge you gain without being hands on. See E.O Wilsons musings of the impact his formative years and post grad school wanderings in the south pacific. He is certainly a scientist but much of his knowledge and insight is due to the hands on approach he used to to gain that knowledge.
I obviously don't know your background, but a statement like this: "If one were truly amazed by science, nothing would be in ones way to becoming a scientist" expresses the kind of sureness in the motivational power of joy and wonder that one I mostly hear from non-scientists (or non-literary people: replace "science" with "literature" and you'll get something similar).
The ones I know who are actually grad students or professors tend to take a much more pragmatic view.
I wrote this in another thread: "'Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it.' -- Albert Einstein" -- from Philip Greenspun's Women In Science: http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science .
