Talk:Cisgenesis

[Untitled]
This is quite a new idea - there are loads of paper links on http://www.cisgenesis.com so any additions would be great. I'll do some more when I've got the time Smartse (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

this page is seriously messed up. someone needs to fix that picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.31.116 (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * which one? I will eventually but not for a few months I'm afraid. Smartse (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Crossing different species
Surely, the definition of this- crosses that CAN be made in nature, is rather hard to measure. The only example given in the article is a cross between different species of Solanaceae. Whilst it is true that plants may be able to cross with other species and even genera, defining a cross as possible across species, without actually do so, is contentious and using or not using this word cisgenesis is potentially loaded with commercial-interest bias.

IceDragon64 (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Is Cisgenesis Real?
As far as I can tell the term "Cisgenesis" doesn't exist in the scientific literature in this manner until it was coined and propagated by the eponymous think tank. I feel particularly bad because I edited the Genetically Modified Food page a few months ago, using the term "Cisgenesis" in good faith, thinking it was part of the scientific discourse. However, on closer examination it appears that this linguistic construction is primarily being used by the researchers of this Dutch organization for marketing purposes. Anyone who has read more of the scientific literature, or familiar with the organization have a different take? Infoeco (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Cisgenesis Controversy
I would hate to relabel this article "Cisgenisis controversy" but reading the back and forth in Nature Biotechnology it is unclear to me whether or not this word is uncontested in 2010. Circa 2006 it still seemed a controversial way of using the term. What was interesting about the debate in Nature Biotechnology, was that both parties seemed interested in employing Genetic Engineering as a means of improving agriculture, but there was a major disagreement over whether the word was anything more than a marketing gimmick to reshape regulation, or if there was substantial material differences in the processes / products that warranted a new term that the scientific community would want to embrace.

The intial letter is here: 'Cisgenic' as a product designation.Full Text Available By: Schubert, David; Williams, David. Nature Biotechnology, Nov2006, Vol. 24 Issue 11, p1327-1329, 3p, 1 Color Photograph; DOI: 10.1038/nbt1106-1327; (AN 23066737) Subjects: LETTERS to the editor; TRANSGENIC plants

Another letter and follow up on the topic is here: Reply to 'Cisgenic' as a product designation.Full Text Available By: de Cock Buning, Tjard; Lammerts van Bueren, Edith T.; Haring, Michel A.; de Vriend, Huib C.; Struik, Paul C.. N the ture Biotechnology, Nov2006, Vol. 24 Issue 11, p1329-1331, 3p; DOI: 10.1038/nbt1106-1329b; (AN 23066735) Subjects: LETTERS to the editor; TRANSGENIC plants

Is there anyone involved in the debate currently that could shed some light on this? Infoeco (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is a problem with the name or category itself, but with whether they should be regulated the same as transgenic organisms. AIR corn (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Judging by the results from this google scholar search of "cisgenic" since 2008, it appears that it is a term used by the wider scientific community, rather than one research group. I therefore think it is better to describe what it is simply, rather than saying it is a "product designation for a category of genetically engineered plants". Thanks for adding the other references, I hadn't ever thought to search for cisgenic before. Smartse (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I remain skeptical, and would err on the side of caution until we can establish that this word is not still contested. For example, one group of letter writers in Science Biotechnology has written that Cisgenesis is more commonly called "intragenesis" and cites: Nielsen, K.M. Nat. Biotechnol. 21, 227–228 (2003). From all I can gather it seems that this particular linguistic construction is still very much under debate in the scientific and policy making communities, and the article should reflect the controversy around the construction and use of the word AS WELL as the implementation of the process.    Infoeco (talk) 07:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ran across this when looking for something else. It has a definition of intragenes and cisgenes. AIR corn (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Potential for invasives
It seems to me that the statement that cisgenesis "could be achieved through conventional breeding, and therefore would not affect the fitness of the plant, preventing unwanted invasives" is untrue.

The whole point of transforming crop plants IS to affect the fitness. If the statment is trying to say that the two plants involved are similar so there is less risk of producing new invasives, I also disagree with this. Plants from the same family can have very different characteristics and occupy very different habitats and ecological niches (especially when one is a crop that has been selectively bred for thousands of years and cannot propagate without human assistance and the other is a wild relative).

I accept that the article describes this as a "perceived difference", however I think it should still be removed unless some evidence is given for it being a correct view. If it remains then it should be made clear whose view it is and counter-arguments should be added. Famedog (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That was added here by User:Infoeco. I agree that it doesn't make sense, and if I can remember correctly it isn't mentioned in the reference given. I can't download it at the moment, but I'll remove it for now, it can always be replaced if someone can find it mentioned in the paper. SmartSE (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)