Talk:Dolly (sheep)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Agriculture (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Scotland (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Terminology[edit]

I am a bit unsure about my use of the term "Applied Genetics". My understanding, is that this term is beginning to be used to describe the new field of research that has arisen as a result of the completion (more or less) of the Human and Mouse Genome Projects. Specifically, what is now begining to be studied in a greater manor is the interactions between genes themselves and how genes interact with proteins. Am I right to call this "Applied Genetics"? maveric149

Bonnie[edit]

What ever happened to Bonnie? You know, Dolly's lamb. I haven't seen anything about here. Is she just a normal lamb, or is she altered in some way. And did Dolly have any other lambs? [User:P.G.Walker|P.G.Walker]] 03:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, what about her family tree? Is Bonnie old enough to bear young?

Hate being a pain, but Google it! And tell us. Best get on with this coursework (Thanking everyone that created this article and went through it with a comb was the reason for saying that) Work hard, Play hard, Drink harder 11:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

yes dolly did have other lambs she gave birth to six lambs unamable off cases but only 5 lambs lived too the age of 3 and the oher lambes past away one by one around 2008 ut one remains but has the same condition as her mother and may pass away soon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.153.54 (talkcontribs) 21:49, 9 September 2009

Sheep vs. human[edit]

That said, most people would argue that it was better that the first clone was a sheep and not a human.

The way medical science works is that you don't start experimenting on humans before experimenting on some other animals. If it wasn't sheep it would have been a rat, mouse or something like that. Nobody would even get an idea of trying humans first. Taw 02:40, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That is because most conservatives would be outraged, saying that it was unethical. P.G.Walker 03:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
That is because most people would be outraged, doing un-confirmed experiments on living people. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 21:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyright[edit]

I have temporarily protected this page. Please use the talk page to discuss the copyright status of the included image before resorting to edit wars.—Eloquence 02:17, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

The license terms for the image are clearly incompatible with the GFDL, requiring permission and perhaps a fee for commercial use. A link to the institute's image library (which I've added) seems preferable. --Brion 02:32, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Dolly the sheep is dead. We can't resurrect her to shoot a photo. So this is a classic candidate for fair use under our image use policy. I agree that the original non-commercial license was inappropriate for Wikipedia and that we cannot use it under these terms without being in possible violation of the FDL. I have therefore modified the image page accordingly and added our standard fair use notice, making the image filterable for downstream users. I have also removed one of the two photos on this page as more than one photo does not seem to be justifiable. The external link is still helpful as it points to a whole gallery of images, but our policy does recognize valid uses of copyrighted photos which we cannot reproduce by other means.
However, I would appreciate it if someone (Mav?) would contact the institute with a boilerplate request for permission; perhaps they are sympathetic to relicensing one of their photos under the FDL or putting it in the public domain.
In the future, I think that such images should undergo a kind of approval process to determine whether fair use is justifiable.—Eloquence 02:38, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
Unless you claim that Roslin Institute's permission is somehow GFDL-compatible, there's no need for a discussion. Taw 02:40, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Look at the image page you just deleted again unilaterally. I for one have had enough. I will discuss this matter with Jimbo, as I consider your behavior here clearly in violation of Wikipedia guidelines.—Eloquence
Which part of the GFDL are you alleging is being broken? Anthony DiPierro 02:53, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Sections 2 and 4. To quote 2 in particular: 2. VERBATIM COPYING You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. However, you may accept compensation in exchange for copies. (emphasis added)
Compare with the license for the image: The following images may be used free of charge by education, public sector or non-profit making groups. Commercial groups should request permission to use them, and details of the associated nominal fee from roslin.design@bbsrc.ac.uk (emphasis added)
Eloquence has, to my understanding, agreed that this license is incompatible with GFDL, but claims that we may nonetheless use it under US copyright law's fair use doctrine. Whether or not true in this particular case, use of "fair use" images on Wikipedia remains a somewhat controversial issue, as it does create de facto additional obligation on redistributors, to ensure that their use will remain within the fair use guidelines, and may not apply at all to anyone outside the United States. While our servers are based in the US, many of our users are in Europe or elsewhere, and it's unclear how appropriate it is to rely on this local (for some people) distinction. --Brion 03:11, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
That's why we shouldn't resort to fair use when we have other alternatives. The only alternative in this case is to try to contact the institute to get FDL or public domain status for one of their images. This should be done. However, it is likely to be unsuccessful.
No side in this copyright debate is going to get exactly what they want. It is essential to strike a fair balance between all parties instead of adopting extremist positions either way. Wikipedia is about consensus and working together. The solution I have proposed acknowledges the concerns of the "purity" side while it also addresses the perspective that a proper encyclopedia requires images, especially for historical matters.
Pushing further into the "eliminate all fair use" direction will only encourage the other side to push into the "allow everything licensed to us in some way" direction; it will exacerbate the situation instead of deescalating it. The resulting emotional turmoil may drive either side to take drastic measures, such as leaving the project or starting a fork. This is evidently undesirable. Both sides need to be open to compromise and listen to each other's arguments for this situation to be resolved.—Eloquence 03:19, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
You'll notice that I haven't desysopped you and mav for filling the wiki with copyright violations. ;)
Seriously, this whole notion that we must have images seems to me to be entirely fictional. We always have the option of not having images at all, using alternative free images (such as an artist's rendering instead of a photograph), or referencing by hyperlink a separate web page which contains images under an incompatible license. --Brion 03:25, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
My proposal for a comprimise, which, incidently, Jimbo has agreed with, is the following:
  1. Including fair use images in a GFDL work is OK.
  2. The entire article, including the images, must be licensed under the GFDL.
  3. Use of fair use images in Wikipedia should be avoided whenever possible (i.e., when a replacement image is available).
  4. When using fair use images, those which are usable by the widest group of reusers should be used whenever possible.
  5. By permission images should not be used in Wikipedia.
  6. Images released under other free licenses are acceptable. (although those which are not also fair use might be problematic, this is a point Jimbo and I disagree, he claims all images are allowed under clause 7 of the GFDL).
  7. Images *should* be marked as to their status.
  8. Images owned by the uploader must be released under the GFDL. (Jimbo would like to modify this to add "or another free license"). Anthony DiPierro 03:27, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia has not added any conditions whatsoever to those of the GFDL. Banning fair use would ban just about everything. We would have to remove the quote from Dr. Dai Grove-White, because he did not license that quote under the GFDL. The GFDL requires the derivative work to be licensed under the GFDL. Now that this is done (see this edit just made by Jimbo, Wikipedia is in compliance, at least with that part of the GFDL). Anthony DiPierro 03:22, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I should point out for others noticing this debate that this whole issue was triggered by public pronouncements of our benevolent dictator Jimbo Wales on the mailing lists against images licensed specifically to Wikipedia. He has also said that we should be careful about fair use, stopping short of recommending a complete end of the practice. I agree with Jimbo's concerns regarding specifically licensed images, that's why I have changed the copyright notice of the Dolly image accordingly. In any case, it is clear that the present image is in compliance with our policy, and those who do not like that should work for that policy to be changed (or acknowledge that this may be the most practical compromise to keep the peace).—Eloquence

I don't like images which are not licensed under GFDL. I would support a policy change to get rid of "fair use" material. Optim 03:42, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If they have given us permission to use it then we are clearly not breaking their copyright by using it. The article benefits from the use of images. I have got permission for a lot of images on UK politicians that we otherwise wouldn't have access to. I see no problem with them as long as they are tagged for easy removal. Secretlondon 09:18, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

No one is claiming we are breaking their copyright. We're talking about concern over the GFDL, as well as concerns of the fact that we're supposed to be a free encyclopedia. By permission images are totally unacceptable in a free encyclopedia. Anthony DiPierro 14:07, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The images add to the content, and there is no legal reason not to use them. They are acceptable on the online version of the encyclopedia, and until their content can be replaced by "more free" content (which it appears that at this point it cannot) I see no reason it should be removed. Obviously it must be removed for derivative works though — perhaps an incentive to replace non-GFDL images is in order? Giving "non-free" images some sort of "replace me please" tag. Since Wikipedia is supposed to be both free and an encyclopia, though, I find "fair use" and "permission given" content where no equivalent free content exists a fair compromise.
This is probably a bit late to mention this though —Zootm 13:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Errors ID'd by Nature, to correct[edit]

The results of what exactly Nature suggested should be corrected is out... italicize each bullet point once you make the correction. -- user:zanimum

  • Somatic cell nuclear transfer involves transfer of an intact cell into an enucleated egg and subsequent fusion of the cell within a cell rather than transfer of the nucleus per se.
  • Cloning ‘will not bring back to life replicas of pets’.
  • Work is not progressing on cloning the mammoth or other prehistoric animals and will not be possible –shades of Jurassic Park here.
  • Similarly portraying the prospects for making the ‘controversial practice of genetic engineeering of children more acceptable’ perpetuates several media myths.

SPA is now called OPA[edit]

Sheep Pulmonary Adenomatosis is now called Ovine Pulmonary Adenocarcinoma. Both diseases are known as Jaagsiekte. Please refer to this reference: http://www.mri.sari.ac.uk/Virology-reports11.asp Doctor Dendrite 23:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Telomerase[edit]

The article says that serial clones have longer telomeres "because the enzyme telomerase is active in those clones, which keeps the telomeres from shortening. However, telomerase, which is present in many bacteria, can be responsible for causing mutation through its enzymatic activity, which leads to cancer." It seems to me that this implies that the enzyme creates mutations, but the way I understand it, telomerase's role in cancerous cells is to confer the ability to divide endlessly. Thus, cells with mutations that result in uncontrolled division do not die as their telomeres unravel, but become immortal. 68.206.101.245 13:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Is there a reference to the idea that teleomerase causes mutation, rather than simply conferring immortality to cell lines, that can under some circumstances, halt the apoptosis and deletion of pre-cancerous cells, for cell lines that are not already immortal (like skin cells)? If so, I would second the idea that the article should be modified. Also, have the subsequent clones that have had teleomere lengthening lived longer than regular sheep? If so this would seem to be a severe advocation in favor of cloning as a possible method of at least some theoretical form of life extension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.64.249.102 (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey everybody. The quote by Sean Lamb was either copied to, or from, someone's personal website. In fact, many sites have the exact phrasing about Dr. Lamb, telomerase, etcetera. This desperately needs citation, since it is contrary to logic: telomeres degrade as cells divide, yet each succesive clone of a clone has a longer telomere strand than the last. There is a missing piece of information. If citation can be provided, the following passage can be put back

"However, Dr. Sean Lamb indicated that most cloned animals actually have telomeres of normal length and in serial clones the telomeres are actually getting longer in each successive generation. This is because the enzyme telomerase is active in those clones, which keeps the telomeres from shortening."

I have taken it out. Furthermore, the passage talks about "most cloned animals." This would have to have been a fairly recent finding, probably related to cattle. The process which makes these clones somehow better at activating their telomerase, usually only achievable by meiosis, which is the thing clones skip out on. Please do not put this back in without a cite from a reputable organization, and certainly not from a website that likely got the quote from here. 66.41.66.213 04:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Age expectancy for domestic sheep[edit]

Dolly died at the age of 5 years, which is considered young for domestic sheep. What we need is information about the average age expectancy for sheep, or at least what 5 in sheep years compare to in human years. --84.188.157.189 15:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I thought it could be useful but on the other hand saying Dolly died younger than the average sheep wouldn't mean anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.66.206.198 (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree - Dolly is only one instance, so her early demise means nothing statistically. If you want to make the conclusion that clones have shortened lifespans, then you need to make a statistically significant number of cloned animals and you must look at their lifespans. Then you can compare those lifespans to those of naturally conceived sheep. 70.104.126.213 21:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I, too, want more detail on this. Do farm sheep live 5-10 years? 10-20 years? Also, do her offspring have any genetic abnormalities? If they are normal, even if Dolly "wasn't", this might be a significant boost for the procedure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.136.198.121 (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Dolly died from a lung disease and not from old age. The main issue is whether that was caused by the cloning procedure. And I think that the comment by Smith Jones was meant to go elsewhere, but isn't particularly mature. I think I'll move it when I'm finished. Work hard, Play hard, Drink harder 10:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Found out the average age: 10-20 years. Though breed probably has an effect, this is an average for most breeds. Work hard, Play hard, Drink harder 10:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What breed?[edit]

What breed is she?? thanks, --Mitternacht90 01:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Err...[edit]

A lot, and I mean a LOT, of people think Dolly was a hoax. Shouldn't this be at least mentioned, along with evidence for or against it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.221.193 (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never even heard of this. I can't even find anything on Google on it. ??? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 02:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've just searched, and the only thing that came up was this page. If people think Dolly was a hoax (And shame on you if you do) then they can add information about it. Work hard, Play hard, Drink harder 11:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Mistake in first line[edit]

The birth-date given (22/02/97) is almost certainly wrong. This is listed a few lines down as the date that Dolly was revealed to the public. Also it would make her 5 years old at death, not 6.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/22/newsid_4245000/4245877.stm

This article explains that her birthdate was 05/07/96. I wish I could make the change, but I'm not sure how (referencing etc) and think that with such an obvious mistake the whole article needs to be checked through! MickO'Bants 22:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Polly the Sheep redirect[edit]

Polly the sheep is redirected to Dolly the sheep. these are two different sheep. Polly was the result of an experiment produced in the aftermath of Dolly in which the somatic nuclear transfer project was built upon by inserting a human gene and there by producing an animal that manufactured a (therapeutic) human protein, the human blood clotting factor IX. The scientific paper on Polly was written by AE Schnieke et al. Science 278: 2130-2133, 1997. A new article on Polly needs to be made. --Dawesaudax 13:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving article title[edit]

The correct title of the subject is just Dolly, however, Dolly is taken, so the proper title is Dolly (sheep). I am planning to move "Dolly the Sheep" to "Dolly (sheep)" as this is the correct title of the subject, and the title complies with Wikipedia's naming conventions. I am welcome to any objections or comments to this proposal. –sebi 08:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, change made. –sebi 08:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

On the same basis, you presumably advocate Jack (Ripper), Atilla (Hun) and John (Baptist)? TrumpingTon (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree- the title should be "Dolly the sheep", or at very minimum it should have a redirect of that name (it currently does not). --82.170.203.75 (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect, Dolly the sheep has existed as a redirect since 2007. Syrthiss (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Snuppy associated with scandal?[edit]

I'm not sure what the passing Snuppy scandal reference is doing in an article about Dolly. Since the sentence as written:

"The cloned dog Snuppy was unfortunately associated with the Korean stem cell scandal involving Hwang Woo-Suk."

doesn't actually mean anything concrete (what does it mean, exactly, to be "associated" with a scandal?), and since the cloning of Sunppy seems to have been genuine, I'm replacing this by a simple reference to Snuppy. Allegations that turned out not to be true can go in the subject article instead. - Paul (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Taxidermy[edit]

did she get mounted? --Voidvector (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

She's on display at the Museum of Scotland. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why mammary?[edit]

I think an interesting question that this article could/should attempt to answer is why exactly mammary cells were used as opposed to any other cells. I'm not really familiar enough with this subject matter to really dig through the material to find an answer. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverting mature cells to pluripotency[edit]

The article stated in the second paragraph "More specifically, the production of Dolly showed that mature differentiated somatic cells in an adult animal's body could under some circumstances revert back to an undifferentiated pluripotent form and then develop into any part of an animal" and this sentence is supported by the reference "Pan GJ, Chang ZY, Schöler HR, Pei D (2002). "Stem cell pluripotency and transcription factor Oct4". Cell Res. 12 (5-6): 321–9."

However this is a gross misrepresentation of what the Dolly experiment was. This was a somatic cell nuclear transfer. The somatic cell was not "reverted" it was placed inside an oocyte where it became a new embryo. However the description given sounds like it is describing an induced pluripotent stem cell procedure. The supporting article references a key transcription factor for iPSC. Given this misrepresentation I am removing the sentence and reference. The preceding sentence "The cell used as the donor for the cloning of Dolly was taken from a mammary gland, and the production of a healthy clone therefore proved that a cell taken from a specific body part could recreate a whole individual" is an adequate and accurate representation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazersguy (talkcontribs) 00:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right that the sentence was a bit imprecise, but we still need to note the finding of the experiment that somatic differentiation is completely reversible. How about:

More specifically, the production of Dolly showed that genes in a mature differentiated somatic cell in an adult mammal are still capable of producing an undifferentiated totipotent state, creating a cell that can then develop into any part of an animal.

This would refer to the sentence in the cited review that states "A long lasting question whether some of the somatic cells retains totipotency was answered by the cloning of Dolly at the end of the 20th century." This is also covered in the Science article CLONING: The Lamb That Roared. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Slang[edit]

just so you know, the first paragraph of the article isn't formal because it uses the word "busty" which is slang. 76.102.94.69 (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The "Birth" section[edit]

Not only that, but seriously...the "birth" section is NOT, by any means written like a normal Wikipedia page. It's written more like a newspaper article and really shouldn't be written as such.

I think that section has now been trimmed of the material you're referring to. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
It was a straight and inappropriate copy-and-paste from an academic paper - it's been deleted a couple of times since. Feel free to delete it if it comes back again. --McGeddon (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Relevant article[edit]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/business/global/30got.html story about cloned fighting bulls, cloning method similar to Dolly

Dhollm (talk) 07:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"The Dollies[edit]

Probably worth mentioning that 4 clones have been recently revealed to the public as being genetic duplicates of Dolly as well. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8169817/Dolly-the-Sheep-reborn-as-four-new-clones-created.html -15.195.201.90 (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Icekatana8825, 4 April 2011[edit]

Footnote 15 is outdated, link doesn't work Replace old link with http://www.roslin.ed.ac.uk/public-interest/dolly-the-sheep/a-life-of-dolly/

Icekatana8825 (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Changed, thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

There was a bout of vandalism, and I tried rolling it back, and it brought up even more tricky vandalism, and then I tried to remove some of the more obvious vandalism quickly and... I'm going to stop while I'm ahead! Wanted to apologize and call attention to the fact that there is probably a good version of the article buried in there somewhere if somebody can find it. The version posted may not be entirely clean. Wieldthespade (talk) 08:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning it. Looks like you took out the obvious vandalism and just went a bit further and deleted the stuff about Dolly Parton (which, although surprising, is actually where the name comes from, complete with crass Wilmut quote). I've restored the article to its last good version; you can usually work out where an article went wrong by checking its history - see WP:REVERT for more details. --McGeddon (talk) 09:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Dolly had a lamb called bonnie, is this sheep still alive?[edit]

And if so, fertile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.189.225 (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)