Talk:Induced stem cells/Archive 1

Archive 1

statement by Dmitry Dzhagarov

This article is a new type of scientific review - quickly replenished dynamic review. Its goal to combine the latest research results with an overall picture of achievements in the topic under discussion. Dmitry Dzhagarov (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Please do not trust the versions of the article after February 18, 2014. Because of ignorant edits the meaning of the article is distorted.

Dmitry Dzhagarov (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Rework

Worked this over. Feedback encouraged. Comments:

• Most fundamentally, the article relies on primary sources, where WP calls for primary reliance on secondaries. Many sections reference review articles at the end. These reviews should instead be serving as refs for the article's main points instead of the primary sources now used.
• Article still too long and too technical.
• The terms "mosaic mice" and "hPSC" need to be defined.
• Added links to many refs via cite templates. Couldn't find links for all refs, which still needs to happen. The cite bot created some bad refs. I corrected these.
• Many refs reused the name of an earlier ref. In some cases the refs were identical, but not in all, which caused them to be obscured. Some refs linked to the same article.
• Consolidated multiple refs to a single point into a single ref as long as all were unnamed, because I presumed that the names were to allow reuse. The large number of named but not reused references suggests room for further consolidation.
• Shortened headings and many sentences that repeated context unnecessarily.
• Eliminated many meta words/phrases, such as "there are", "it turns out", etc.
• Couldn't make sense of this ungrammatical sentence: "The fact, that the differentiation takes place in a teratoma, offers hope that the resulting cells are sufficiently stable to stimuli able to cause their transition back to the dedifferentiated (pluripotent) state, and therefore safe." Left it unchanged.
• The sections on heart and blood vessels should be reorganized/merged as both talk about myocardial manipulation.
• WP is not the place for hopes and predictions, unless the hoper/predictor is cited/quoted nor is such commentary as "interesting", "important", etc. Removed such implications.
• The logic of the two large sections is not clear to me. I left it unchanged, but think it needs clarification.
• I did not add the usual tags to the article, as I think the issues need to be sorted out rather than "fixed".
• Among the host of changes I made, I surely introduced some errors. I am ready to fix any that others point out to me. Cheers! Lfstevens (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought I'd note that the section on STAP makes no mention of the recent investigations indicating that there had been data fabrication in the original reports. I don't know the subject well enough to feel qualified to edit the page, but hopefully somebody else will be interested in doing so. --David A Spitzley (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

merge?

HI.. it is unclear to me how this article is distinct from induced pluripotent stem cells, somatic cell nuclear transfer, and maybe also stem cells. I suggest we merge it into those three articles to avoid duplication of important content in WP. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Induced pluripotent stem cells are a subset of induced stem cells, which are a subset of stem cells. We keep an article for IPS cells because they are extremely notable IS cells, but they are certainly not the only ones discovered so far. (I have several stem cell articles on my watchlist and I have created a few articles in this field, just in case you're wondering why I replied here)

Induced multipotent cells, for example, have been recently reported in the medical literature, while SCNT is a distinct technique that has its own article on Britannica Encyclopedia, not to mention enough reviews to warrant a standalone article. -A1candidate (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

i was wondering ! :) but it is not surprising that editors share interests. i see your point, somewhat. we have an article on SCNT, linked to above. but i struggle with the notion that cells resulting from SCNT are any kind of "induced" stem cell, as "induced" is used in today's science. in any case this article is not integrated with the other three that i linked to above, and the stem cell therapy article is kind of a disaster. i am going to, slowly, over the next few months, go to work on improving and integrating this suite of articles so they cohere Jytdog (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

"Induced" in this context simply refers to the act of changing the gene activity of the cell, whether by SCNT or other methods such as the introduction of transcription factors. I do agree that most medical articles on Wikipedia are a complete disaster, although I don't think there's much a single editor can do, but I appreciate your efforts to improve them. -A1candidate (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

we'll see! :) Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I previously brought this up here about a year ago, but I didn't get a reply. I was leaning towards merging, but I didn't follow through since I thought I might have missed something important. I would support merging the content now if good sources for the distinction still haven't been provided. I also agree that stem cells from SCNT are not considered "induced," though I am happy to be proven wrong on this. Sunrise (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

However, the Nobel Prize for induced stem cells was obtained by the author of the SCNT method.Dmitry Dzhagarov (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dmitry. Please don't edit other editors' comments, like you did to mine. I assume you're referring to John Gurdon, but could you please explain how this addresses the issue? Sunrise (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

6-factor induction of hematopoietic cells

So Dmitry Dzhagarov introduced content about a new study in this dif, which I reverted in this dif with edit note, "revert content based on primary source. please use secondary sources. thanks!". DD de-reverted in this dif with no edit note; I re-reverted in this dif with edit note: "as per WP:BRD please discuss on Talk; please do not edit war". All of Wikipedia content is meant to be supported by secondary sources, as per WP:RS. Anything biomedical is also subject to [{WP:MEDRS]] which is even stronger in that, since biomedical science is so dramatically unpredictable and the primary literature so remarkably unreliable, as the field of stem cell science in particular demonstrates. We need to wait until this work is discussed in secondary sources. I just noticed that the rest of that paragraph was also supported by a primary source, so i just deleted it as well, in this dif. Dmitry, please discuss! Thx. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

No war

Dear Jytdog! No war, I just followed your request and referred to secondary Source. Another claims? Any other remarks? Dmitry Dzhagarov (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

thanks for your note! As per MEDRS, a press release (or a news story in the media) accompanying publication of a primary source are not secondary sources for this kind of information; a reliable secondary source, is a review published in the biomedical literature. Please see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Respect_secondary_sources where it says: "Scientific findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as the original, primary research report is released, and before the scientific community has had an opportunity to analyze the new results. Such sources should generally be entirely omitted (in accordance with recentism), because determining the weight to give to such a study requires reliable secondary sources (not press releases or newspaper articles based on them)." Thanks for talking. Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Jytdog

While you did not break policy by removing content, I'd suggest next time discussing it on Talk first and obtaining consensus. The number of primary sources in medical pieces is so vast, that arbitrarily picking on one seems likely to create unnecessary conflict. Just my opinion. Lfstevens (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources should not typically be used for medical content, per WP:MEDRS; most such uses need to be tagged or removed. As already pointed out, WP:BRD also applies here. Sunrise (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

OK!

All right. Live with horrible old fashioned naphthalene articles. I will not write for Wikipedia anymore!!! Dmitry Dzhagarov (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Dmitry, oh no! Why are you so upset, and what do you mean by "horrible old fashioned naphthalene articles"? Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Continuation of this page now is on Wikiversity

Continuation of this page has moved from Wikipedia to Wikiversity:Induced stem cells as all of the Wikipedia content must be supported by secondary sources, as per WP:RS. "We need to wait until all cited articles will be discussed in secondary sources". But, the article Induced stem cells most fundamentally relies on primary sources, where WP calls for primary reliance on secondaries. At the same time instructional and study guides that make use of original research are allowed on Wikiversity. Furthermore, Wikiversity will offer a space not just for hosting research, but also for facilitating research through creating researcher communities. Wikiversity is the place for original research, including primary or secondary research. This includes interpreting primary sources, forming ideas, or taking observations. See Wikiversity:What is Wikiversity?# Wikiversity for researching. I'll be grateful to everyone who will help me to pursue further issue which will not be built on "second-hand". I apologize for my bad English.Dmitry Dzhagarov (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

great that you found a place to the kind of work you want to do! Jytdog (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)