Misplaced Pages

Talk:Genetic engineering: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:52, 2 March 2015 editJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits →14 year old source: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:08, 30 October 2024 edit undoVsmith (talk | contribs)Administrators272,534 edits Restored revision 1216779988 by Tom.Reding (talk): Eh? noTags: Twinkle Undo 
(215 intermediate revisions by 66 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{GA|21:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)|oldid=810851066|topic=Biology and medicine|page=1}}
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{Vital article|level=3|topic=Technology|class=C}}
{{Controversial}} {{Controversial}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=GA|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBanners|1=
{{WikiProject Genetics|class=C|importance=Top|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=}} {{WikiProject Molecular Biology|importance=Low |genetics=yes |genetics-importance=Top |imageneeded= |unref= |MCB=yes|MCB-importance=high}}
{{Chemical and Bio Engineering Project|class=C}} {{WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology|class=C|importance=high}} {{WikiProject Engineering|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Engineering|class=C|importance=high}} {{WikiProject Invention|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Invention|class=C}} {{WikiProject Food and drink|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Food and drink|class=C|importance=high}} {{WikiProject Transhumanism|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Transhumanism |class=C|importance=high}} {{WikiProject Science Policy|importance=high}}
{{WP1.0|class=C|category=category|VA=yes}}
}} }}
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|}}


{{User:MiszaBot/config
== Isolation Section ==
|archiveheader = {{aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 100K
This section is poorly written, it jumps from isolation to using a PCR. PCR is used to amplify pieces of genetic material and has very little to do with the isolation of genes. Then the final sentence jumps to inserting it into a bacterial plasmid, again this has nothing to do with isolation. This really needs to be re-written or removed. ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 22:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
|counter = 2

|minthreadsleft = 4
== Vandalism ==
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
Citation 65 says "Genetic modification is evil and against god. New virus-built battery could power cars, electronic devices" The article is simply titled "New virus-built battery could power cars, electronic devices." <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
|algo = old(30d)
:Well spotted. Thanks for pointing it out, I've removed it. ] (]) 17:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
|archive = Talk:Genetic engineering/Archive %(counter)d

}}
== Comparison with digital revolution ==

I would like to point out the line "Genetic engineering makes the whole digital revolution look nothing. Digital technology changes what we do. Genetic engineering has the power to change who we are." as being rather close to bias/opinion. What the digital revolution looks like in comparison is debatable, as well as digital technology being capable of altering more than "what we do". Maybe I just don't like the way it's worded, but either way, I vote bias/opinionated on it. Come to think of it, upon reading the article critically I do feel a little bias in terms of the words "immeasurably" being used, and a general positive attitude towards genetic engineering. For the most part the article is well written, and I'm for GM of organisms anyway. It would be nice to see further improvement of this article. - <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: I've removed that from the article as it was a copyright violation, having been copied and pasted from the reference. It didn't make much sense anyway to be honest. Feel free to work on improving the article if you can. ] (]) 23:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

== List of companies ==

engaged in GM would be nice. ] (]) 14:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hello, ] redirects here but there is not any mention of this term in this article. Could you delete redirection or only mention this term and its definition? ] (]) 07:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
:Biogenetics seems to be used to describe anything relating to genetics within biology from anthropology and evolution to genetic engineering. From it appears to describe cloning and genetic screening as well. Maybe some more information needs to be put into the biogenetics article or it could just redirect to ] instead ]&nbsp;] 07:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
::A redirect to ] is probably best as it covers the whole field. Incidentally is the bio- part of biogenetics necessary? I wasn't aware that anything outside of biology had genes! ] (]) 11:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
:::Done. Only link to the redirect came from ] and it included Biotechnology and Genetic engineering under ''other branches''. I therefore removed biogenetics from this article. ]&nbsp;] 09:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

== Recent Edits ==

I have added quite a bit of information recently. Most of my knowledge concerns plants so the recent edits are a bit weighted towards that aspect. I will add more info on animals when I can (if no one else does).

:I added some information on gene targeting and other site-directed genetic engineering techniques. I also modified the intro to be consistent with this new material. The new information doesn't fit into the current outline perfectly, but I'll leave any major rearrangements to the people that contributed the majority of the material since this is my first edit of this article. I'll also try to expand the somewhat stub-like "opposition and criticism" section when I find the time. ] (]) 18:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Also:
* ] is closely linked to and overlaps in many places with ]. Would the article benefit from having another italicized statement at the top?
:eg ''For information about the products of genetic engineering see ]''
:: Added GMO's early in lead, might not need the hatnote ]&nbsp;] 04:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
* I think the '''advantages''' and '''opposition and criticism''' sections should be removed. Advantages refers just to GM food, while there is currently no information within the opposition and criticism section. Advantages could be copy/pasted to ] if necessary. There is already an article titled ] and the ] article is half controversy already. I think the broad criticisms could be dealt with in the body of the article and linked where appropriate.
:]&nbsp;] 07:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
*The news external links probably do not need to be there either. They only refer to a single event, many are out of date and they can be used as inline citations if appropriate. ]&nbsp;] 08:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Not sure about the Greenpeace petition either, a link to their page on genetics would be better.
::Trimmed ]&nbsp;] 04:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
: The edits look good and I agree that the ELs could be trimmed. Looking at the advantages section, everything after what is currently reference 41 looks to be extremely theoretical - e.g "Genetic engineering can also increase the genetic diversity of species populations, especially those that are classified as being endangered" - I've never heard of this before and it seems pretty unlikely - where are the new genes going to come from? Likewise "the modification of a tree's genes could perhaps increase the root systems of these organisms reduce the damage produced by flood phenomena through flood mitigation." AFAIK the only GEd trees were poplar that were engineered to be easier to process into paper and these were uprooted by protestors. I think there definitely needs to be a mention of the potential benefits and problems of using GE - although most are related to GM foods, there are other things like the ethics of designer babies that should really be included in this article. Like you I'm more knowledgable about the plant side of things, so can't be of much use. ] (]) 10:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


::The benefits and problems should be mentioned, but I think that should be in their particular section. Designer babies under the Human subsection and GM foods under Agriculture. The only problem might be where to fit in criticism of genetic engineering as a whole, but the only one I can think of at the moment is 'whether humans have the right to interfere with nature'. The ''opposition and criticism'' section has been here for over a year now and nothing has been added except see alsos and like Smartse points out the ''advantages'' section contains a lot of theory and opinion. ]&nbsp;] 23:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

::Intellectual property arguments could also fit in the ''opposition and criticism'' section. Maybe it should stay. ]&nbsp;] 09:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


== See also trimming ==

Removed some links from the see also. ]&nbsp;] 00:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
*] & ] articles had multple problems and the article on ] covers this already.
*] ] ] & ] are now linked to in the article. I left ] & ] however.
*] did not seem useful
*] not really about genetic engineering, more appropriate for conventional farming practices
:Removed some more that were included in the template. Added some info to the others. Not sure what to do about ] and ]. Leave as is or put in template? ]&nbsp;] 04:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

== External links ==

Removed these ELs as being out of date. Put here in case anyone wants to use them as inline citations ]&nbsp;] 04:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
*
*
* - 01/12/06
*

Hi,
I want to see a link to current issues with GM or a summery.

http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2504
Monsanto genetically modified corn harvest fails massively in South Africa


http://current.com/shows/upstream/91945333_monsantos-genetically-modified-corn-causes-organ-failure-in-rats.htm

http://www.naturalnews.com/028388_GM_crops_kidney_damage.html

http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/04/16/6524765.html
The researchers discovered that animals that eat GM foodstuffs lose their ability to reproduce.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/05/pests-bite-back-at-genetically.html

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/genetically-engineered-cotton/
Monsanto's genetically engineered (GE) cotton varieties sold to Colombian farmer failed in 2008-9,

http://www.naturalnews.com/027058_crops_food_GMO.html
A 43-page study released by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) reveals that since the inception of genetically modified (GM or GMO) crops, no significant increases in crop yields can be attributed to them.

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/WhoBenefitsPR2_13_08.cfm
GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) CROPS INCREASE PESTICIDE USE AND FAIL TO ALLEVIATE POVERTY, REVEALS NEW REPORT

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/2142.htm
In the experiment that went wrong, an engineered mousepox virus acquired the capacity to damage the immune system and killed all the mice involved.

I want to see a balanced wikipedia. I think this deserves it's on wikipedia page with links from other pages on GM foods and animals.
My bias is even if it was totally safe it would take the control of our food supply out of the hands of farmers and put it in the hands of corporations who's main concern is to make money, not our health and well being. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::Hi ]: I'm sorry no one responded to your request. I think this is a good idea? Do we all agree to add all of these articles to the page? ] (]) 08:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
:::Most sources on that list are not considered reliable at all (e.g., Natural News). It's been over 4 years since this post, so there hasn't been any agreement or consensus to add them. ] (]) 09:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
::::Many of the edits here are done on GMO articles are done without obtaining consensus first. Without objection, it is assumed that there are no problems. The question now is: Is there any objection to adding this material? You said Nature News is unreliable. You made some vague statement about the others--that's not very helpful. I plan to add all of the others unless for some reason there are some legitimate objections to so doing. ] (]) 16:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::If you do many of them will likely be reverted. Please read ] and in particular ]. Please also note the topic of ''this article.'' Thanks. ] (]) 17:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

== More even-handed treatment required ==

I feel that the article, while generally well-written, is mild boosterism of GMO and genetic modification/engineering. There have been some outstanding failures and that should be mentioned:

* Calgene's Flavr Savr tomatoes were withdrawn from the market for a variety of reasons, including expression of unwanted compounds not found in naturally bred tomatoes, poor flavour which was rejected by consumers, and low yields;

* The transgenic potatoe in the UK that caused a number of lethal changes in the internal organs of test rats;

* The high incidence of insertion of genes in incorrect locations by the gene gun approach which, while producing the desired protein, also produce other known or completely new proteins with known or unknown unwanted effects.

Owing to the rather loose certification procedures of the FDA, where manufacturer's test results are over-relied on, many questionable organisms have been released, for example, transgenic cotton seed expressing undesirable proteins which is used primarily for animal meal.

I am not a biologist and am not competent to edit the article itself, but I refer an editor who is competent to Marie-Monique Robin, ''The world according to Monsanto: pollution, politics and power'' (Original French title: ''Monde selon Monsanto''), New Press, New York, 2009. A page that could almost be cut and pasted into this article exists at .

] (]) 08:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

:Thanks for your comments, it looks like they would apply more to ] though rather than this article. Responding to your points, 1 - no it was because calgene did not have experience in selling tomatoes, they where accepted by consumers until the transgenic potato study you cite scaremongered people into thinking they weren't safe - see ]. The potato study discussed at ] is not sufficient to say that all GM food is dangerous. Lastly things have moved on a lot in from using the gene gun, and even if genes are inserted with it, breeders will only grow on specimens where they have checked that it doesn't interfere with other processes. The book you cite doesn't sound particularly neutral and I'm not going to go and buy a copy. The info in the link is probably already covered in the GM food article. The most recent scientific review in this field is . I think it is free, but if it isn't register an email address and I can send you a copy. ] (]) 11:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

:: Actually the argument that it was because calgene did not have experience selling tomatoes is not completely invalid. I would recommend reading an account from one of the researchers who worked at calgene entitled "First Fruit" (Which the author admits her position as being pro genetic engineering). Obviously that is not the only reason but it was a component. Second with what you said about the potato study, determining something is dangerous is pretty vague and any study would be hard pressed to resolve such a question. Now if the question was more specific such as would it have undesirable environmental effects, which could also be considered dangerous, is more easily resolvable. Which is why I don't think the intention of that study was ever to determine if ALL GM food is dangerous but rather a single food. What you are doing is attempting a straw man argument, the research never made the claim you are saying it doesn't meet so of course it doesn't meet your arbitrary requirements. Organisms produced with the gene gun are actually being grown and sold so your claim is invalid because it does not matter if new technology has been developed if the older technology is still in use. For example the Papaya being grown in Hawaii that is resistant to spotted ringspot virus was produced using the gene gun. Also your claim that breeders grow crops is absurd, as breeders produce crops which seed companies sell to growers. The amount of testing required to check safety is arguable, and even under contention between geneticist. What are your credentials to make the claim that there has been enough testing? ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 22:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Just a typo ==

In reference #1, "The European Parliament an the council of the" should read "The European Parliament and the Council of the".

] (]) 19:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC) Nick
:{{done}} Thanks ]&nbsp;] 20:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

== Multilateral Agreements ==

Examples of multilateral Agreements <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Updated url for Zaid, A; H.G. Hughes, E. Porceddu, F. Nicholas ==

Under 'Further reading', the glossary by Zaid, A; H.G. Hughes, E. Porceddu, F. Nicholas (2001) is provided. The URL for the glossary was recently changed from http://www.fao.org/biotech/index_glossary.asp and is now http://www.fao.org/biotech/biotech-glossary/en/. Also, translations of 5 other languages are now available at that site, so the text could read
Available in English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, Russian, Polish, Serbian and Vietnamese.

10 October 2011 <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Edit request on 14 March 2012 ==
{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
Genetic engineering is a relatively new and expanding field of technology. Because it is so unfamiliar to many, there are a number of moral issues that arise when considering genetic engineering procedures. Different religions, mothers, scientists, a variety of political parties, and everyday people all have a wide array of views on the rights and wrongs of this technology. Genetic engineering brings up debates over individual autonomy, moral obligation, savior siblings, and pre-human versus human.
The argument concerning autonomy focuses on the child being born. Some believe that the individual merely knowing the fact that they are a genetically engineered child will effect their freedom and view of themselves later on in life. Others feel there is no such thing as self-causation and that said child will not change their autonomy solely due to the fact that they’ve been genetically engineered.
Moral obligation is a rather complex argument that comes about. There are people who believe that if genetic engineering will help the unborn child, improve its life in any way, then it is our responsibility as humans to help another life. Some feel it should be government regulated, others, such as liberals, believe the government should not be involved at all because it violates our freedoms.
Because it is our responsibility as humans to help another human, when does one life become more important than another? What if while performing one of these genetic engineering procedures it puts the mother at risk. Who is the most vital to save, the mother or the child? When is the child considered to be a “living being?” These are the types of questions that arise when addressing pre-human versus human. One must decide whether putting another life at risk is worth saving the other life.
Another issue that comes up with similar questions is savior siblings. Savior siblings are those genetically engineered with a certain blood type or genes that can be donated to their sibling. Typical this occurs in families that have a sick child, they decide to have another one that can donate blood, marrow, and organs to their sick sibling. At this point there is a concern for the safety, well being, and overall lifestyle of the savior sibling. Is it fair to them to be brought into this world solely to go to surgery after surgery to save their brother or sister? But at the same time is it right to just let the sick child die when there is something that can be done to save them? One must decide which life has more value.
Though genetic engineering itself seems complex the argument surrounding it are even more. With this growing field it will be a long time, if ever, before the morality of genetic engineering is settled, how much of it is right and which parts of it are wrong.
<!-- End request -->
] (]) 21:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
:It would be great to include that! What's the reference? ] (]) 21:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
::Please reactivate the request when you answer Dru of Id's question. Thanks, ] (]) 23:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

== Opposition/Criticism Rebuttal ==

In the example of GM plants (herbicide resistant) spread in the wild in North Dakota, the original article notes that most GM plants were near the side of highways. The high level of GM plants found may be a sampling error, that is herbicide resistant plants will only have a selective advantage near roads where herbicides are sprayed. The study may have overestimated the incidence of GM canola in the wild by only sampling the roadside, where GM seeds can fall off trucks and may not necessarily spread in the wild. In the absence of herbicides the wild-type plants will outcompete GM varieties.

However, of course, some GMOs are harmful to the environment and should be considered on a case-by-case basis. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Comment on lead ==

The second sentence of the article says, " involves the introduction of foreign DNA or synthetic genes into the organism of interest." This seems overly specific - first, I think it is misleading since it implicitly excludes the removal or modifications of existing genes (while this often involves the insertion of ''some'' kind of DNA I don't think that's what most people will think of when they read that statement). Besides, removal of genes can be accomplished by protein transduction of zinc finger nucleases or similar proteins without using any DNA at all. (I'm writing this here because I'm not sure what specific changes I would make to address this.) ] (]) 08:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
::Great point! addressed.] (]) 02:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Genetics/GMO_articles}}

== Long term Roundup herbicide or Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize extremely toxic & carcinogenic PMID 22999595 ==

Séralini GE, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, Hennequin D, de Vendômois JS.

PMID 22999595

Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize.


Food Chem Toxicol. 2012 Nov;50(11):4221-31.

doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005.

Epub 2012 Sep 19.

Abstract

The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1ppb in water), were studied 2years in rats. In females, all treated groups died 2-3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls, the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5-5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3-2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600days earlier. Biochemistry data confirmed very significant kidney chronic deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered parameters were kidney related. These results can be explained by the non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, but also by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences.


PMID 22999595

Full Free Text:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637

http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf

--] (]) 19:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
:'''Main discussion at ]''' ]&nbsp;] 20:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


==Natural GMO's==
== improper sentence ==
Can't we mention that genetic modification isn't just man-made, but also occurs in nature. New research suggests this:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/04/14/1419685112
] (]) 17:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
:Maybe it would fit better at another article. This is supposed to be an overview and I am not sure that is generic enough for inclusion here. I am also not sure it fits in with our description of Generic Engineering. Natural genetic engineering commonly occurs with bacteria, but this more focuses on the human directed manipulation of genes. Saying that feel free to be bold and try to fit it in if you wish, it may well work in this article if given correct weight and context. ]&nbsp;] 09:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


::They classify sweet potato as "naturally transgenic" but I don't think anyone has called it genetic engineering - engineering implies that it is ''not'' naturally occurring. '']'' and ] are better places to discuss it. It's already at ] but not in the agrobac article. ] (]) 10:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The sentence, "He was later successful at created a recombinant ice-minus strain."
should either be: He was later successful at creating a recombinant ice-minus strain.
or: Later, he successfully created a recombinant ice-minus strain.


::: Mentioned it at ] instead
Thank you for considering my request.
] (]) 16:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


== Look a little bit closer, see, roses really smell like: NPOV (4U) ==
--] (]) 19:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
:{{done}} thanks for spotting this. ]&nbsp;] 20:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


Hello about 1/10th of this article discusses the negatives of genetic engineering, and it has been placed right at the bottom of the article. Perhaps it'd be good to allow other people to submit information without the censorship? Cherry picking what edits are approved just because you disagree with the content could really be seen as a little bit fascist (on a good day). Either way, feel free to bury your heads in the sand and hide people's minds from the realities of the big bad world ... because either way, it ain't gonna save you! :) ] (]) 22:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
== Regulation + Controversy Sections??? ==


No censorship is happening here. Anyone is free to contribute to this article provided the contribution complies with Misplaced Pages's core rules, notable among which are ], ] and ].] 12:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I know there are people who rage at the mention of GMO or anything genetic. I accept that but I don't think we need to pander to them. Yes there are regulation, controversy and potential problems with Genetic Modification. There are also a lot of rules and regulations on swimming pools and other things associated with water. Yet there is no regulation or controversy section on the wiki page on water. Any topic could be associated with controversy and or regulations.


Censorship doesn't make people fascist. Many ideologies favour censorship. ] (]) 11:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
The 2 paragraphs that currently exist do not provide the user with any real information, nor are they relevant to the general discussion of Genetic Engineering. There is a "see also" section of this article, we should use it to link any possibly related articles including articles about Regulation and controversy. So I suggest deleting the last 2 sections on regulation and controversy.. ] (]) 07:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


== ] ==
== Two new sentences about Human Engineering ==
I have not had time to investigate this closely, but this is coming from the general press and it seems to lack convincing verification. Should this be mentioned in the article at this stage or should we wait for better verification it has occurred? If it is suitable for mentioning how should it be worded and should it be mentioned in the lead? Any other question/comments welcome. {{ping|Drbogdan}} who added the current version. ]&nbsp;] 21:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
:{{reply|Aircorn}} Thank you for your comments - the news item seems worthy - perhaps even without current verification, since there seems to be so much international press attention, based on ] (including "]"<ref name="MIT-20181125">{{cite news |last=Regalado |first=Antonio |title=Exclusive: Chinese scientists are creating CRISPR babies - A daring effort is under way to create the first children whose DNA has been tailored using gene editing. |url=https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612458/exclusive-chinese-scientists-are-creating-crispr-babies/ |date=25 November 2018 |work=] |accessdate=28 November 2018 |dead-url=no|archive-url=https://archive.is/zhPMe|archive-date=27 November 2018}}</ref> and "]"<ref name="NAT-20181127">{{cite journal |last=Cyranoski |first=David |title=How the genome-edited babies revelation will affect research - Some scientists worry the startling claim will lead to knee-jerk regulations and damage the public's trust in gene editing. |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07559-8 |date=27 November 2018 |journal=] |accessdate=28 November 2018 |dead-url=no |archive-url=https://perma.cc/F6BG-DKLA |archive-date=27 November 2018 }}</ref>), at the moment - if interested, a discussion on the news claim, re "In The News" (ITN) on Misplaced Pages, is currently underway at the following link => https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Lulu_and_Nana - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) ] (]) 22:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
::I agree that it is notable enough to mention if it has occurred. I just worry that we are jumping the gun a bit here. It is also supposed to be an overview article so we have to be careful about recentism and weight. I am not necessarily opposed to mentioning it at the moment, although I am not a fan of the ] or mention in the lead yet. ]&nbsp;] 22:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
:::I've been concerned about ] too just picking up on this. I'm still catching up on things, but my first impression is that I'd leave it out of the lead too while leaving the content in the body at most. I have a bit more preference for leaving things out entirely for now at this article until there's more verification (unless I missed something), but I'm not super picky on the latter option either since it's just a single line. ] (]) 22:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
::::I agree that the fact we aren't sure whether the claim is real or not yet affects how we should cover it here. If it's true then in time the will be better sources and it would probably be worthy of mentioning in the lead. For now though, I think it belongs in ] after "moratorium on inheritable human genome edits" and yes - no need for numerous refs - MIT and BBC would be fine. ] (]) 23:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


*Given the feedback here I removed it from the lead, moved it down to the medicine section and trimmed the cites with edit. ]&nbsp;] 22:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I made this . I had already said in advance above I had intended to include the material and got no objection, other that it *might* not be an be an reliable source. Is BBC not a reliable source? I was told that it might be reverted--but not given any valid reason for it. Jytdog and Kingofaces43 both made good on the promise to revert and did so 3 times , and without discussing on the talk page, and gave no valid reason for the deletion, which I think is a collaborative violation of the 3RRR. I see no reason it should not be restored. Please work collaboratively rather than being obstructionist like this. ] (]) 19:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


== 14 year old source == == Insert/delete/edit ==


I'm not seeing consistent handling of the relationship among "genetic engineering", "base editing", "prime editing", etc. Is the genetic engineering limited to inserting trans genes into target organisms, or does it include making modifications (delete/edit) to genomes that do not involve trans genes? I have no opinion, except that we need to agree. ] (]) 03:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
{{u|David Thornheim}} is edit warring to include "The first genetically modified humans have been born in the U.S. British scientists says that this is "unethical" and is illegal there and many other countries. ()" in the article, in the Controversies section. As he has not started a discussion per ], I'll be happy to do so.
:Been a couple of years since I edited here, but at the time the US said no and the EU said yes. From a wikipedia POV I think it makes sense to include them (which we currently do as they are mentioned in the two overview articles and in the nav box). This is mainly because when it comes to debate about the process they are almost always included and it would be hard to write about it without at least covering it. ]&nbsp;] 06:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
* The selection of this content to add to a ] section is ], and no rationale was provided as to why it should be added.
* This is a 14 year old source hyping a ] source and reporting the noise around it. First, per ], we use secondary sources, not primary ones nor popular media reporting on them. and we don't use 14 year old sources for anything, when we can avoid it.
* if you google a bit, you see that the cited article appears to making its way around kook websites recently, with the date removed. apparently this is b/c the UK just became the 1st country to approve the procedure, called ].
* which is actually not genetic engineering at all, but is rather "engineering" at the level of the organelle, not DNA.
Doesn't belong here. ] (]) 19:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:08, 30 October 2024

Good articlesGenetic engineering has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: November 17, 2017. (Reviewed version).
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Genetic engineering article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This  level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconMolecular Biology: Genetics / MCB Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconChemical and Bio Engineering (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Chemical and Bio EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Chemical and Bio EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject Chemical and Bio EngineeringChemical and Bio Engineering
WikiProject iconEngineering High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInvention Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Invention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Invention on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InventionWikipedia:WikiProject InventionTemplate:WikiProject InventionInvention
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFood and drink High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Food and Drink task list:
To edit this page, select here

 Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:
Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.
WikiProject iconTranshumanism High‑importance
WikiProject iconGenetic engineering' is part of WikiProject Transhumanism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide Transhumanism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.TranshumanismWikipedia:WikiProject TranshumanismTemplate:WikiProject TranshumanismTranshumanism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
For more information and how you can help click Show:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.

Quick help:
See changes to:
To Do List: edit - history - watch - purge

Join WikiProject transhumanism and be bold

Be consistent

Maintenance / Etc

Create

  • Notable transhumanist articles

Shorten / merge into others

Expand

Your immediate attention

WikiProject iconScience Policy High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Natural GMO's

Can't we mention that genetic modification isn't just man-made, but also occurs in nature. New research suggests this: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/04/14/1419685112 Genetics4good (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it would fit better at another article. This is supposed to be an overview and I am not sure that is generic enough for inclusion here. I am also not sure it fits in with our description of Generic Engineering. Natural genetic engineering commonly occurs with bacteria, but this more focuses on the human directed manipulation of genes. Saying that feel free to be bold and try to fit it in if you wish, it may well work in this article if given correct weight and context. AIRcorn (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
They classify sweet potato as "naturally transgenic" but I don't think anyone has called it genetic engineering - engineering implies that it is not naturally occurring. Agrobacterium_tumefaciens and sweet potato are better places to discuss it. It's already at Sweet_potato#Transgenicity but not in the agrobac article. SmartSE (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Mentioned it at Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Public_perception instead

Genetics4good (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Look a little bit closer, see, roses really smell like: NPOV (4U)

Hello about 1/10th of this article discusses the negatives of genetic engineering, and it has been placed right at the bottom of the article. Perhaps it'd be good to allow other people to submit information without the censorship? Cherry picking what edits are approved just because you disagree with the content could really be seen as a little bit fascist (on a good day). Either way, feel free to bury your heads in the sand and hide people's minds from the realities of the big bad world ... because either way, it ain't gonna save you! :) 86.183.211.16 (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

No censorship is happening here. Anyone is free to contribute to this article provided the contribution complies with Misplaced Pages's core rules, notable among which are adherence to a neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability.Plantsurfer 12:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Censorship doesn't make people fascist. Many ideologies favour censorship. Dennivich (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Lulu and Nana

I have not had time to investigate this closely, but this is coming from the general press and it seems to lack convincing verification. Should this be mentioned in the article at this stage or should we wait for better verification it has occurred? If it is suitable for mentioning how should it be worded and should it be mentioned in the lead? Any other question/comments welcome. @Drbogdan: who added the current version. AIRcorn (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Thank you for your comments - the news item seems worthy - perhaps even without current verification, since there seems to be so much international press attention, based on WP:RS (including "MIT Technology Review" and "Nature (journal)"), at the moment - if interested, a discussion on the news claim, re "In The News" (ITN) on Misplaced Pages, is currently underway at the following link => https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Lulu_and_Nana - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. Regalado, Antonio (25 November 2018). "Exclusive: Chinese scientists are creating CRISPR babies - A daring effort is under way to create the first children whose DNA has been tailored using gene editing". MIT Technology Review. Archived from the original on 27 November 2018. Retrieved 28 November 2018. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. Cyranoski, David (27 November 2018). "How the genome-edited babies revelation will affect research - Some scientists worry the startling claim will lead to knee-jerk regulations and damage the public's trust in gene editing". Nature. Archived from the original on 27 November 2018. Retrieved 28 November 2018. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
I agree that it is notable enough to mention if it has occurred. I just worry that we are jumping the gun a bit here. It is also supposed to be an overview article so we have to be careful about recentism and weight. I am not necessarily opposed to mentioning it at the moment, although I am not a fan of the Misplaced Pages:Citation overkill or mention in the lead yet. AIRcorn (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I've been concerned about WP:RECENTISM too just picking up on this. I'm still catching up on things, but my first impression is that I'd leave it out of the lead too while leaving the content in the body at most. I have a bit more preference for leaving things out entirely for now at this article until there's more verification (unless I missed something), but I'm not super picky on the latter option either since it's just a single line. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the fact we aren't sure whether the claim is real or not yet affects how we should cover it here. If it's true then in time the will be better sources and it would probably be worthy of mentioning in the lead. For now though, I think it belongs in Genetic_engineering#Medicine after "moratorium on inheritable human genome edits" and yes - no need for numerous refs - MIT and BBC would be fine. SmartSE (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Insert/delete/edit

I'm not seeing consistent handling of the relationship among "genetic engineering", "base editing", "prime editing", etc. Is the genetic engineering limited to inserting trans genes into target organisms, or does it include making modifications (delete/edit) to genomes that do not involve trans genes? I have no opinion, except that we need to agree. Lfstevens (talk) 03:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Been a couple of years since I edited here, but at the time the US said no and the EU said yes. From a wikipedia POV I think it makes sense to include them (which we currently do as they are mentioned in the two overview articles and in the nav box). This is mainly because when it comes to debate about the process they are almost always included and it would be hard to write about it without at least covering it. Aircorn (talk) 06:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Categories: