Talk:Genetic engineering

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 but not in the agrobac article. SmartSE (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Mentioned it at Genetically_modified_food_controversies 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 Wikipedia's core rules, notable among which are adherence to a neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability. Plant surfer 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. who added the current version. AIRcorn (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 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 Wikipedia, is currently underway at the following link => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)


 * 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 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 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)


 * Given the feedback here I removed it from the lead, moved it down to the medicine section and trimmed the cites with this edit. AIRcorn (talk) 22:22, 29 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)