Talk:Designer baby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Vandalism[edit]

For some reason I fail to grasp, of the 100 articles I watch over, Designer baby is the article that attracts the most (juvenile) vandalism. How can we stop this once and for all? --Loremaster (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy[edit]

The claims in this article, although they have a reference, are based on opinion and not fact, and lack a neutral point of view. I suggest these parts be re-edited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view JonatasM (talk) 04:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Putting aside that an encyclopedic article can contain opinions as long as they come from reliable sources, I hadn't noticed that the article has been re-written so much that its sounds like a bioconversative leaftet. It should defenitely be re-written. --Loremaster (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If someone makes the article long enough, maybe vandels would not understand it and quit vandalizing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.148.156 (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The following statements are misleading: 1)"Genetic modification can be used to alter anything from gender to disease, and eventually appearance, personality, and even IQ."

It is not currently possible to modify the human genetic code to alter gender, appearance, personality or IQ. Not one single case of this has ever been reported.

2) "Altering embryos is fairly recent technology and as it develops is a very costly procedure."

The term "altering" is misleading. An embryo can be tested for presence of a genetic trait (disease) and then a decision can be made to NOT use or implant that embryo. If the genetic trait or mutation is present, you cannot alter, change, or modify it in the embryo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.175.199.253 (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality[edit]

The style of the Biological Risks section is inappropriate for Wikipedia - using "we" invites chumminess and is not the right style, isn't it? Disregard if I'm wrong, mm. I'm afraid I don't have time to do a rewrite right now. ashdenej 10:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Terrible article[edit]

As far as I know, no regulatory agency on the planet allows genetic manipulation of human gametes, zygotes, or embryos. And as far as I know, no one has even applied for such a regulatory approval. But this article written as though "designer babies" - in the sense of genetically manipulated human gametes, zygotes, or embryos - are real. Insane. And to the extent it says things like " as far as the public record is concerned" it borders on conspiracy theory, which has no place on Wikipedia unless it is described as such. I will come back and edit this article to make it sane, or recommend it for deletion. Thinking.... Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)