Talk:Genetic engineering/Archive 2

Two new sentences about Human Engineering
I made this edit. 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 here, here and here 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. David Tornheim (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * re the 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. (source)" in the article, in the Controversies section. Thanks for opening a discussion.


 * The selection of this content to add to a WP:SUMMARY section is WP:UNDUE, and no rationale was provided as to why it should be added.
 * This is a 14 year old source hyping a WP:PRIMARY source and reporting the noise around it. Per WP:MEDRS, 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 be 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 cytoplasmic transfer.
 * which is actually not genetic engineering at all, but is rather "engineering" at the level of the organelle, not DNA. I am sorry but WP:COMPETENCE in the subject matter is required.
 * The content doesn't belong here. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining your position. If either of you had done that with the first revert, things would have gone smoother and we wouldn't have to be accusing each other of editing warring. David Tornheim (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * if you had come and opened a talk discussion per WP:BRD, it would have saved dramah. and btw, the discussion above that you reference is vague; there are something like 10 sources there and you never said which you intended to actually use. if you want concrete feedback it is helpful to make a concrete proposal. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. David Tornheim (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

altering the DNA of human embryos./ unethical?
A discussion about the above topic is going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine here. Is there any reason this should not be discussed in the article? Please also see the above discussion. David Tornheim (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * i responded there. once again, you don't seem to be dealing with what sources and our articles actually say but with some Big Issue you are dragging around with you. and mitochondrial transfer is still not genetic engineering. Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no "big issue". Please stop assuming bad faith.  I did not notice that it had already been added, even though I monitor this article.  In the other discussion you said, "blech. double blech. blech." when the new information came out about gene modification of embyros.  I interpreted that as your way of saying you would strongly oppose any inclusion of that new material in this article.  I am glad it is not and the new material that should be in the the article made it into the article--which is what we all want isn't it?  I don't know what your "blech. double blech. blech." meant.  Sorry.  Perhaps you can explain here or there. David Tornheim (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * you want me to stop having bad faith? this is the fourth time (including your bringing up the thing above again) you have completely misinterpreted the sources about actual content, not even carefuily reading the actual content and sources, had a cow, and been dead wrong.  each time you assumed that i had done something wrong.  my explanation of blech/double blech at talk:project med could not be more harshly clear.  read. Jytdog (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC on consensus statement of relative safety of currently marketed GM food
See here Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC on the placement of GMO safety consensus - should it be located in the Controversy section?
Here is the RfC.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   23:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Tryptophan
about this and this. there is no doubt that the tryptophan stuff happened. the claim you are making, that this was the cause of the discussions, is not accurate and not supported by the sources you have brought. discussions about how to regulate and think about risk were already well underway when that happened. Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Where does it say that? It doesn't. I'm not actually making the claim that one lead to the other, I'm simply making the claim that they chronologically followed on, which they did (this is a history section after all). The tryptophan incident is notable in the history as (to the best of my knowledge) the only case where there were deaths and injuries associated with genetic engineering in a production environment. Genetic engineering is pretty safe.GliderMaven (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * argh. here is what you keep adding: "In the late 1980s, due to purification problems with a bioengineered bacteria system for producing tryptophan supplements, a number of cases of permanent disability and deaths occurred. Shortly after, ...."


 * The juxtaposition is classic WP:SYN - you are leading the reader to think X caused Y. Please provide some source that connects the tryptophan incident with the subsequent consultation. I am not aware of any, but they may exist.  Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Look, you're totally assuming bad faith. I only put it there because it seemed to fit best there. If we reword it to not imply that one led to the other, (there may well be a relationship, but I'm not aware of any) I'm totally OK with that. I didn't particularly want to give it its own paragraph, but putting it in where it is almost kinda implies a relationship, although it doesn't actually state there's any.GliderMaven (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I brought content over from the Typtophan article and made a new paragraph... are you OK with that content? Jytdog (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Seems pretty good, perhaps overly long and detailed if anything.GliderMaven (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference to European definition - Selective breeding in general is not genetic engineering
There's probably a need to update the definition in the section Definition. Currently it make a reference to a working paper from 2000 that say in a broader sense genetic engineering can include selective breeding. But the 2001 legistration, the definition is more stricted and directed to unnaturally methods of genetic modification:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32001L0018

Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC - Commission Declaration

Article 2

Definitions

For the purposes of this Directive:

(1) "organism" means any biological entity capable of replication or of transferring genetic material;

(2) "genetically modified organism (GMO)" means an organism, with the exception of human beings, in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination;

Within the terms of this definition:

(a) genetic modification occurs at least through the use of the techniques listed in Annex I A, part 1;

(b) the techniques listed in Annex I A, part 2, are not considered to result in genetic modification;

——

ANNEX I A

TECHNIQUES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 2(2)

PART 1

Techniques of genetic modification referred to in Article 2(2)(a) are inter alia:

(1) recombinant nucleic acid techniques involving the formation of new combinations of genetic material by the insertion of nucleic acid molecules produced by whatever means outside an organism, into any virus, bacterial plasmid or other vector system and their incorporation into a host organism in which they do not naturally occur but in which they are capable of continued propagation;

(2) techniques involving the direct introduction into an organism of heritable material prepared outside the organism including micro-injection, macro-injection and micro-encapsulation;

(3) cell fusion (including protoplast fusion) or hybridisation techniques where live cells with new combinations of heritable genetic material are formed through the fusion of two or more cells by means of methods that do not occur naturally.

PART 2

Techniques referred to in Article 2(2)(b) which are not considered to result in genetic modification, on condition that they do not involve the use of recombinant nucleic acid molecules or genetically modified organisms made by techniques/methods other than those excluded by Annex I B:

(1) in vitro fertilisation,

(2) natural processes such as: conjugation, transduction, transformation,

(3) polyploidy induction.

——

I see a need to update the part that discussed about European definition in Definition section.

-- Bact (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Genetic engineering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110511121055/http://agribiotech.info/details/Alison%20-%20cloning%20March%208%20-%2003.pdf to http://agribiotech.info/details/Alison%20-%20cloning%20March%208%20-%2003.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Genetic Engineering in Science Fiction
I was reviewing this edit by which added this material:


 * — though the general concept of direct genetic manipulation was explored in rudimentary form in Stanley G. Weinbaum's 1936 science fiction story Proteus Island.

I reviewed the references to see if this is an accurate description of what they report. My conclusion from reading the essay in the first ref., material in the second ref., and some of the other materials on Wikipedia mentioned in the first essay (such as Daedalus;_or,_Science_and_the_Future by J._B._S._Haldane), along with own familiarity with literature, Utopian_and_dystopian_fiction (List_of_dystopian_literature), Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, the work of H. G. Wells, etc., to come to the conclusion that crediting a single author with the idea of genetic engineering in literature is giving too much credit to a single person, when there is a history of this kind of topic in the literature and science fiction.

My suggestion is that we create an entire section on Genetic Engineering in Literature (or Science Fiction) similar to what is in the first ref. provided by this thoughtful editor. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You might be interested in Genetic engineering in science fiction. AIR corn (talk) 08:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think we should at a minimum refer to that article and possibly also make a short summary of it similar to the one in the essay of ref1.  It's too bad it is not as good as the ref1 and that article definitely could use some work! We'll see what others think about putting more about SciFi in this article.  --David Tornheim (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, it is fairly widely accepted in science fiction circles that this story sets a precedent regarding the use of true genetic modification in science fiction. Whereas earlier stories had referred to the creation of new life forms through hybridisation, eugenics, or vivisection (notable works of this form is "The Island of Dr. Moreau", "Brave New World", and the other works you mention), "Proteus Island" directly discusses alteration to genetic and chromosomal material via the use of radiation, even though it inaccurately states that humans have 24 pairs of chromosomes. It is the earliest known published work to do so (as is alluded to in one of the two references I added). For what its worth, my own credentials regarding knowledge of science fiction include being a past president of the New Zealand National Association for Science Fiction, and I have done some considerable research on the history of the genre, but I also understand that any claim for being "the first" in literature is always open to question. As an admin here I also understand the need for definitive reference where possible. I like the idea of a separate section on Genetic engineering in literature (which would allow for a lot of later speculative work on the field), though I'm a bit concerned because I know some editors prefer it if such sections are excluded entirely from the text. Grutness...wha?  10:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I am in agreement with the editor below that we could probably use better WP:RS if this is indeed widely accepted in Sci Fi circles.  I likewise question the credentials of the author of the Nanotechnology as an expert in literature (but I have not checked that person's credentials).  I do still think that the SciFi does talk to ethical questions and so I would support a section summarizing the literature similar to ref1.

Hello, folks. I came here because of the note that was left on the Science Fiction project page. I have two comments. First, the new material doesn't seem appropriate for this article. The Williamson text was mentioned only as the source of the term "genetic engineering" and I see nothing in this article to suggest that the editors ever intended to embark on a discussion of the topic's history in literature. Second, and of lesser import, I don't see what that second source is adding to the discussion. It's a book about nanotechnology. Although I don't question that author's reliability in that field, I do question whether he can be a reliable source on the history of science fiction -- the possibility is too great that he simply read the Clute encyclopedia entry and misinterpreted it. To be specific, the entry in the Clute encyclopedia says only that Weinbaum's work was "an early" example, whereas the nanotech scientist claims it was the first. Grutness, if you're interested in writing about Genetic Engineering in Science Fiction, the article cited by Aircorn could use a heck of a good cleanup. I'll be happy to help out; just ping me over at that article's Talk page when you're ready to start. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I agree about ref2 and the state of the article we have on Genetic Engineering in SciFi.  But I support both providing a link our article (and a summary of it like ref1) because SciFi has raised ethical questions about Genetic Engineering.  At this point I don't think I have time to work on that article.  Maybe  who has expertise in this area would like to into it? --David Tornheim (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * (after ec) No offence, but I'm not interested in helping on that - my primary work on Wikipedia is in other areas and it already takes up more time than I'd like! I'd argue that this addition is relevant to the current article, in that it shows that people were considering the concept of direct genetic mutation decades prior to its actuality, even before DNA was isolated as its major component. As such it is a concept which didn't appear out of the blue or develop out of the discovery of DNA's role. Incorporating the text into the other article might be more appropriate, hwever. As to the nanotechnology text, it seems to me more likely that the author was quoting (almost directly) the statement "The first story that involved actual genetic engineering was written by the chemical engineer Stanley G. Weinbaum – "Proteus Island" (1936).", which is from "The Science Fiction Encyclopedia" (ed. Peter Nicholls, 1979, Doubleday & Co. (New York), ISBN 0-385-13000-7, p. 249). Grutness...wha?  00:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quote from the print edition of the Encyclopedia. I agree that it is the more-likely source of the nanotech scientist's statement.  A pity, though, that the scientist didn't check the on-line version -- if he had, he would have found that the Encyclopedia editors had backed away from calling it "the first" by the time they went on line in 2005.  Be that as it may, the language that you added to the article doesn't state that Weinbaum's work was "the first", so I'm still not seeing what that second source is adding to the discussion.
 * As for the larger issue of whether this article should contain any discussion of the topic's history in literature, I'll defer to the folks who usually work on this article (and I'm not one of them). I'll simply offer an observation -- there's a reason why articles like genetic engineering in science fiction look as bad as they do.  It's because they get inundated by fans who very often don't have a sense of perspective.  As a result, the articles tend to devolve into fancruft.  I don't know  if the absence of any science-fiction discussion in the instant article was a deliberate decision or not but, either way, it was probably a smart move.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not really into science fiction so will defer to you two about the relative merits as to what was mentioned first. An issue I see from a genetic engineering standpoint is to do with its definition. Not all genetic manipulation is engineering, in fact most isn't. Altering genetic code through radiation falls outside the scope of genetic engineering, although from a theoretical perspective targeted mutation using radiation (something which is not achievable yet) probably would be considered engineering. I do not know what the case is in Proteus Island, but this is probably irrelevant since we are talking about the history of genetic engineering and genetic manipulation is a part of that. I don't have any major issues with the addition of this or something similar, but would not want to see the concept expanded on much more (if at all) in the history section.
 * The genetic engineering in science fiction was split out of this article way back in 2004 and I would be against starting a section here for the reasons provides above. AIR corn  (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, again. This is just a quick note to correct an error of mine. Although work on the on-line version of the Science Fiction Encyclopedia did begin in 2005, it did not actually go on line until 2011. So I was wrong to suggest that the nanotech author should have known about the change in the Encyclopedia entry on Genetic Engineering. My apologies to the nanotech guy. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Journal Citations -- Bratspies in particular
Hi Rjwilmsi: I see you are often correcting journal citations (thank you!) with AWB  I would like to know more about that tool and if you find it helpful or hard to work with. In this correction there were a couple of problems that I fixed:  (1) The new link was dead, but the old link still works  (2) The page number in the original was incorrect  (3) I added the vol #. I understand the problems with (2)-(3) which were not your fault, but I am curious why you changed the link to one that does not work. Did the tool do that? Also, is this a bot, or did you do it yourself? --David Tornheim (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The URL before and after looks the same to me. Rjwilmsi  09:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Questionable Paragraph: Is it just WP:OR?
Regarding this paragraph:


 * In 2010, scientists at the J. Craig Venter Institute, announced that they had created the first synthetic bacterial genome. The researchers added the new genome to bacterial cells and selected for cells that contained the new genome. To do this the cells undergoes a process called resolution, where during bacterial cell division one new cell receives the original DNA genome of the bacteria, whilst the other receives the new synthetic genome. When this cell replicates it uses the synthetic genome as its template. The resulting bacterium the researchers developed, named Synthia, was the world's first synthetic life form.

This looks like WP:OR and over-emphasis on a single study. I do not know this study at all or any WP:RS that surrounds it. However, from looking at the two references, my impression is that we have a single study that reports the creation of the first "synthetic life form", and that this is reported by the Guardian. The Guardian is not a high quality secondary source for science. I am wondering if any of that paragraph should remain? If someone else knows more about this, please explain and even better provide some WP:RS to go with it. If I do not hear back, I will delete it (or maybe do some more searching to see if I can learn more about the claims made).

--David Tornheim (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How do you reach the original research conclusion? The Guardian is fine as a secondary science source for non-controversial, non-health claims. Synthetic biology has been around for a little while. You can even order synthasised DNA sequences made to your order from some companies. This is just an extension of that, where a whole genome has been synthesised. It is probably undue for this article, but as a first it is relevant. Most of the info is in main history article so reducing it to a sentence here and linking the Synthia article is probably about right. Best to look first instead of deleting if you are unfamiliar with content. AIR corn (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will look at Synthia before doing anything further. I still think we will need secondary sources besides the Guardian that say this is a first.  --David Tornheim (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to read through that entire article at this point; however, I read the lead and the best RS it had was [] which is hardly any better. In both cases, we have the authors of the study making the claim and others challenging it (in the same article).  We need neutral third parties saying this is ground-breaking work.  I might be okay with saying that the authors of the study claim such-and-such (not in Wiki-voice), but it seems to have the single-study syndrome issue.  (Any time a single study suggests potential harm from a GMO or mainstream drug or Round-Up, it is almost immediately rejected and reverted under MEDRS.)  Do you see ANY better RS that is reported by experts in the field not affiliated with the project who agree with the authors that this is as ground-breaking as our article makes it sound? It just does not look like the literature is saying this is the commonly accepted view.  But I admit I have not read the ENTIRE article you suggested.  --David Tornheim (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Can't get much better than the science piece linked below. MEDRS applies to medical claims so is not really relevant here (unless we want to claim Synthia cures or causes cancer). Here is the New York Times as well. If nothing else it shows that this was big news at the time. AIR corn (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was big news at the time, just like Seralini's study was. That doesn't mean the reporters of mainstream papers really know what they are reporting on.  They are just saying what the study's authors were claiming.  Probably the authors of the study did a big press release which got picked up by the [Associated_Press|AP]].  As you can see all the news reports in the big papers say the same thing--that the author's claim they invented a "new life form".  I'm a "skeptic" that is is so profound, like some of the other things found in Genetic engineering in the same section, which IMHO are very significant.  In my opinion--and I am no expert--any kind of mutation that has never existed before (i.e. with evolution) could be rightly declared a "new life form".  So my instincts tell me this claim is a bit over-hyped unless secondary sources back it up that it is truly as revolutionary as the author's want us to believe.  It sounds like what they are doing is "new" in a certain sense of say using a different DNA type coding, but is that really such a fundamental change?  From the way these articles in the mainstream press read, the use of the phrase "new life form" sounds like martians and aliens from out space and the things you see in Sci Fi movies that have say telepathy.  I'm not convinced this thing is really that big of a deal as they are making it out to sound.  That's really what I am getting at.  Are other scientists that impressed?  I'm not yet convinced, but I still need to do more reading from the articles you have provided.  If you have any good quotes from the secondary RS (not mainstream newspapers) that say it really is so ground breaking please share the quotes.   --David Tornheim (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought OR was what editors did, not study authors. In any case, here is Science: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/328/5981/958.full.pdf (from Synthia)Lfstevens (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, WP:OR is what editors do. See WP:PRIMARY that is under WP:OR that says, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources."  The study itself is cited as proof of its significance.  Anyway, thanks for the Science article.  I'll take a look.  --23:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I was interested in what recent developments had occurred on this front and found this (secondary source here). Might be worth a mention here as well. AIR corn (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * For both of you, this reminds me of this claim about "genetically modified humans".    See also .  --David Tornheim (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Objection: Bulletted List to Prose
I'm not happy with this edit by. I do not think that eliminating the bold that differentiates the different types of experiments is helpful, but just makes for a TLDR section. These could have easily been broken down into subsections. I would revert and correct right now, but because of intervening edits, there is more to that edit I have not examined (some of which might be an improvement), and from lack of time, I will wait. I also need to read WP:PROSE. I hope someone else will revert for me. I'm basically stating my objection to the edit and that there is no consensus for the WP:BRD change, and that I plant to revert it back later if no one else does, unless a consensus arises supporting the change. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI. I reverted here. The original version is permissible and probably preferred under WP:PROSE. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Dragonmagicediter's edit
I reverted your edit that adds information about splicing when fixing the above problem with bulletted lists. I did not restore your edit because there were a couple of problems with it: (1)  you inserted it into the middle of a citation which broke the reference (2)  It would also be preferable if you used a citation to something on-line if you could find it. Take a look at these and see if they are relevant: RNA splicing Alternative splicing and. If so, you might add those to the article where appropriate. And/or look for other references that are verifiable to add the material. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Kapoor study on efflux pumps to filter surface water of anti-biotics
In this edit you deleted reference to this study that gives an application for genetic engineering--to filter out anti-biotics from surface waters. You said that it is "spam", but I looked at the study and it doesn't look like junk mail to me. It's unquestionably a real study with a useful application, although not widely cited by others, it did make into this newsletter of Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics of Tufts University. It was also cited in this review which I have not tried to obtain yet. It is also cited in the Urban Water Reuse Handbook here. Googling of the title gives numerous other hits. So I am not clear on why it was deleted. Can you please explain? --David Tornheim (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See Talk:bioremediation. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Look at . Definitely ref spam. AIR corn (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Source Addition
Source 117 is from 2000 and is very brief, hardly providing any backup evidence. I found a New York times article backing up the same information in better detail dated from 2015. Due to the scientific nature of this passage updating the source by 15 years will improve its accuracy and reliability.Asleepandbeatyo (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

J. Craig Venter Center paragraph
Regarding your edit, your concern is noted that you would like some or all(?) of the names of the scientists in that sentence to the article. I assume the names can easily be found in the RS. I'm not sure it is necessary to spell them out, but I am not opposed either. As I mentioned in my revert, please feel free to add their names if you choose to look them up, and see if others support the new information. Because I do not find it necessary, I would prefer not to have the tag in the article and, instead, have the discussion take place here.

There should be plenty of RS here: Craig Venter

Previously I questioned that paragraph, and I still have concerns. I'm glad that it has been simplified. I do not think we should say, "____ created the first synthetic life" but use language like below:


 * In May 2010, a team of scientists led by Venter became the first to successfully create what was described as "synthetic life". This was done by synthesizing a very long DNA molecule containing an entire bacterium genome, and introducing this into another cell, analogous to the accomplishment of Eckard Wimmer's group, who synthesized and ligated an RNA virus genome and "booted" it in cell lysate. The single-celled organism contains four "watermarks"

Claiming what they created was the first "new synthetic life form" is a very strong claim, that I think is too strong for wiki-voice. I much prefer that we simply state that that is what the creators claim it is, in the way stated above and by the RS that I read. I believe that what they created was something new, but how to actually describe it is more complicated. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * According to the science source the counter is that it is not a true synthetic life form as the genome was inserted into an empty cell (therefore the cell itself was not synthesised). How about saying "first synthetic genome" as that is not disputed and is a better link anyway. I would suggest keeping it as only one or two simple sentences, the watermarks and the Eckard comparison would fit better in synthia. As to the names of the scientists I oppose inclusion of them as there are 24 in the paper and as well as messing up the flow considerably this is likely to be undue in a overview article. Venter (or his institute) as the lead scientist should be mentioned and linked though. The paper with everyones names is already used as a reference. If it is decided to include the names then they should only be included as a footnote. AIR corn (talk) 01:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ^Yes. I agree on all that.  Sounds much much better.  I haven't looked again at the RS to be sure it specifically says first synthetic genome, but that sounds much less dramatic than "life form".  Do you mind making the change? I agree with you that adding the scientists names is unnecessary.  I would also support adding the attempt to create the first patent on a new species that was mentioned in the other article.  That's very interesting. It's a pleasure working with you by the way. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Content is king. Focus on that, be reasonable and accept that other editors can genuinely disagree with you and this topic area can be enjoyable to edit. Although the recent developments make me a little sad as two highly respected editors that I know have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart are now going at it hammer and tong.
 * I will make the change (synthetic genome is used in the title and throughout the science source), but will give Ehtanpet113 a bit longer to comment first. Do you have a source in mind for the first patent on a new species so I can add that too. The science one mentions it, but more in passing and just says that they have applied for patents. AIR corn (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the change. I do not know the best source on the patent issue.  I just saw it mentioned in the other Wikipedia article, and assumed that since the language was standing the referencing was probably okay, but I did not check to be sure of that, nor have I looked for other sources.  I leave that up to you if you do decide to add it.  I may add it later if there is no objection to whatever the source is that is in the other article.  --David Tornheim (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

A field unrecognized by Nobels
There is, ironically (and errantly), not a single mention of discoveries recognized by Nobels, in this entire article. 73.211.138.148 (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there some WP:RS you suggest that be considered? --David Tornheim (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Genetic engineering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120910070047/https://oba.od.nih.gov:80/rdna/nih_guidelines_oba.html to http://oba.od.nih.gov/rdna/nih_guidelines_oba.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Genetic engineering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cioms.ch/frame_1990_texts_of_guidelines.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061213064401/http://www.gmo-safety.eu:80/en/ to http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

What about a List of genetically modified organisms?
What do you think of creating (or helping out with) a List of genetically modified organisms (or with a similar title) that's intended to contain a list of all known genetically modified organisms?

With all I mean really anything whose genetic code was modified artificially − from crops to plants, animals, humans and bacteria.

Some subsections would just be a link to another list. Such as (potentially) List of varieties of genetically modified maize and List of genetically modified crops. Some would or could not list all the organisms individually but various ranges / subcategories of it if it doesn't make much sense to list them individually for whatever reason. But its main focus/intend would be notable individual organisms such as Ice-minus bacteria and Amflora.

I also posted this at the talk page of genetically modified organism and would like to ask you to please go there for a centralized discussion.

--Fixuture (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I can't believe this hasn't already been written. u|Fixuture if you want a community wide discussion that would be likely to represent a wider sample of opinions, might I suggest an RfC? Otherwise the same tiny handful of editors who have controlled the GMO articles here will continue to reign. What has been suggested in the past (for example, by users u|Wnt and u|Tsavage), is that these GMO articles aren't generally very well written or organized, so this is why I suggest taking this to a new or wider audience who may support the idea of making information about GMOs more easily accessible.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   18:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure - if you think that could possibly lead to another conclusion please go ahead with the RfC. However that RfC should probably point to the other talk page entry where other editors have made some points against such a list. --Fixuture (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Genetic engineering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714085807/http://www.microbiologyprocedure.com/microbial-genetics/applications-of-genetic-engineering.htm to http://www.microbiologyprocedure.com/microbial-genetics/applications-of-genetic-engineering.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527060202/http://www.easyscience.co.nz/ubbiology/biotech/lesson4.htm to http://www.easyscience.co.nz/ubbiology/biotech/lesson4.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101127053814/http://molecular-plant-biotechnology.info/use-of-microbes-in-industry-and-agriculture/applications-of-genetically-engineered-bacteria.htm to http://www.molecular-plant-biotechnology.info/use-of-microbes-in-industry-and-agriculture/applications-of-genetically-engineered-bacteria.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090705230132/http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/traits/altoil.html to http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/traits/altoil.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Genetic engineering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707003215/http://www.smw.ch/docs/pdf200x/2006/27/smw-11406.PDF to http://www.smw.ch/docs/pdf200x/2006/27/smw-11406.PDF
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140830102928/http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=BiotechnologyGlosary.xml&navid= to http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=BiotechnologyGlosary.xml&navid=
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516173328/http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov/CoordinatedFrameworkForRegulationOfBiotechnology1986.pdf to http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov/CoordinatedFrameworkForRegulationOfBiotechnology1986.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Genetic engineering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100603215011/http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/agri_biotechnology/breeding_aims/148.disease_resistant_crops.html to http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/agri_biotechnology/breeding_aims/148.disease_resistant_crops.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120814025652/http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/regulation/regulatory_process/156.european_regulatory_system_genetic_engineering.html to http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/regulation/regulatory_process/156.european_regulatory_system_genetic_engineering.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928104527/http://www.eurofins.com/media/11753/dcontri.pdf to http://www.eurofins.com/media/11753/dcontri.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110329120907/http://new.dpi.vic.gov.au/agriculture/science-and-research/biotechnology/genetically-modified-crops/federal-and-state-responsibilities to http://www.new.dpi.vic.gov.au/agriculture/science-and-research/biotechnology/genetically-modified-crops/federal-and-state-responsibilities

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

joelymar joelymar joelymar joelymar joelymar joelymar joelymar joelymar joelymar joelymar nhgfhesbgyadjsdbljkaskdnlje — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.44.216 (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Genetic engineering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130615032218/http://www.phgfoundation.org/news/1304 to http://www.phgfoundation.org/news/1304/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130514202621/http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/gmo/gmo.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/gmo/gmo.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140120113714/http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/animalnutrition/labelling/Reg_1829_2003_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/animalnutrition/labelling/Reg_1829_2003_en.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks good
I just wanted to say that I am personally interested in this topic and of the time ive spent reading the article I have not really found anything wrong, I even forced a correction which didnt really do much. I will keep a look out for this page as the popularity of CRISPR may spark people into editing this page for their own amusement.

JohnsonmcFarely (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)Daniel P. from CSU East Bay

Merge
In 2015 there was a proposal to merge Genome engineering and Genome editing, and during the discussion it was also proposed to merge the contents here. Given the lack of consensus for any particular merge direction, starting the discussion again at this higher-level site. For the earlier discussion, see Talk:Genome engineering. Klbrain (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I personally would not want too much merged here as this should be an overview article and I am pretty happy with the level of detail it goes into. There are plenty of sub-articles which would probably make better targets for details (Genetic engineering techniques springs to mind). Also if I have time (and a consensus) I am willing to boldly merge them myself. AIR corn (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Genetic engineering techniques seems like a good destination for the contents of those other pages. I agree that Genetic engineering may be too well-structured and complete as it is for much content to merge in. A bold merge to the page you suggest seems fine to me, given that the broad consensus that something should be done about the duplication. Klbrain (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I started the merge, but those articles are huge. I thought I would be able to trim them down, but was not so sure once I started. I think it would end up being split back out again. My thinking now is to merge Genome editing into Genome engineering and then summarise that article at Genetic engineering techniques and to an even lesser extent here. I feel that still fits in with the discussion at Talk:Genome engineering. What do you think. AIR corn (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughtful work on this difficult merge in an important field. All fine with me. Klbrain (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Transormation is a small subset
The chapter Inserting DNA into the host genome refers to Transformation for more details. But transformation is only a very small subset of what this chapter describes. So that reference could easily have a misleading effect. --Ettrig (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Have changed to it to see also and added transduction and transfection. Is this better? AIR corn (talk) 09:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Genetic engineering
I thought that it can very useful for several persons those have several problems with them and it is also harmful if we take it as simple experiment .... Prakharmishra792 (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Human GMOs
My edit noting that humans receiving CAR-T cancer therapy had become GMOs was reverted, ostensibly because it violated a neutral point of view. How's that? Other editors? Lfstevens (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I reverted it "ostensibly" - please mind the emotive adverbs and adjectives - because it did not sound like a neutral point of view. Neutrality is a core principle of Wikipedia, and we must take care to avoid either being partial or giving people the appearance of being partial. The term GMO is intensely controversial in itself, and calling patients "organisms" could also be thought non-neutral. It's not the sort of language we should be applying, certainly not without full consensus which in turn would have to be based not only on discussion but on the existence of multiple reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly support neutrality. However, I can't see which point of view my statement could be said to represent. Humans are obviously organisms and GMO is the only term for the objects of GE that I've seen. That's why we have an article by that name. And is there some sense in which such recipients are not GMOs? I'm happy to await consensus on these points. Lfstevens (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)