Talk:Genetic engineering

If everyone agrees, I think I'll remove the NPOV boilerplate now. Thunderbolt16 00:29, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)

Archived discI

biased article indeed... -Anthere

This article should be deleted. It's so biased it pretty much can't be salvaged in its current form. Might as well start from scratch. Graft

Delete ? No way == == ==</nowiki>... A lot of work to do on it, but crude deletion is not the right way to manage bias -Anthere

I agree with you that it shouldn't be deleted. We just need to add a roughly equivalent amount of arguments supporting genetic engineering, as well as a neutral section that only describes how genetic engineering is done. Perhaps look at the in vitro meat article for a model. Astudent

New article resulting from the merge of genetic engineering and genetic modification

The definition given in the article for genetic engineering is too restrictive. There are other applications to genetic engineering than transfer of dna from one species to another or the extraction of dna of one species, its manipulation (repair, augmentation), then reinjection in the donor. There is also the whole area of xenografts which are not transfer of dna but transfer of organs from one species to another.user:anthere ladedaInsert non-formatted text here

---

I have taken the liberty of adding a section about the technical application of genetic engineering to research. It focuses mainly on animal techniques.Angiotensinogen

This article is strongly biased, it is bordering on being anti-GM propaganda. It should be rewritten in an objective and unbiased way ASAP. -217.162.59.208

I am not an expert on the subject matter but am willing to help with the article. I see myself as having a neutral, science-based view of GM technology, though I do approach the intellectual property aspects from a standpoint that some may not share. Kat 15:54, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Just a personal opinion, but this article is so shot through with venom and hatred of the techniques of modern genetics, and so distorts the abilities of good geneticists, that this article borders on being useless. What it is, is a polemic against the agricultural industry and its use of genetic techniques. What it isn't is a fair discussion of the science of genetic engineering. Dwmyers 15:08, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The article is completely biased, and focuses almost exclusively on the negative effects of GE, the authors rather strange view that not knowing much about GE must mean it's in some way dangerous/negative reminds me lightly of something from the middle-ages. I'm currently working on a NPOV re-write, whether that'll solve the problem though I don't know. Al b 19:57, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm currently doing a ruthless POV edit on it now, its still not the best prose, but I think I've started its way to a good NPOV article. I hope this doesn't step on anyones toes. Thunderbolt16 01:59, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

That looks much better :-) Thanks :-)

I will copy under, a comment I made many months ago, when I merged genetic modification and genetic engineering

The definition given in the article for genetic engineering is too restrictive. There are other applications to genetic engineering than transfer of dna from one species to another or the extraction of dna of one species, its manipulation (repair, augmentation), then reinjection in the donor. There is also the whole area of xenografts which are not transfer of dna but transfer of organs from one species to another.user:anthere

Are there any positive aspects to genetic engineering

Yes there are... For example if you look at Transgenic bacteria you'll see how they're used to synthesize many useful products, like insulin. --Xephael 04:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If there are I'm not aware of any. I'd rather see it die in pain until they learn how to: 1. Contain it 2. Properly test it before releasing

I don't think it should die, but I agree that we need to control it before we start seriously using it. Genetic engineering will probably do wonders for medicine, but that will be a long time from now.

hey, i like it very much.

There are plenty of positive aspects to Genetic Engineering, you could use it for things like, say, teramorphing currently uninhabitable planets. Problem is that people have been too careless, splicing anything into anything. We'll probably end up with glow-in-the-dark skin at this rate. --Netdroid9

With all due respect, do any of you have ANY basis for these venomous opinions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.10.44.199 (talk • contribs) 15 Sept 2005.

If you are ever seriously ill, please request that the physicians use no genetically engineered proteins (proteins manufactured from genetically engineered bacteria or mammalian cells) during your treatment. Insulin has been produced from genetically engineered bacteria for 25 years. The death of genetic engineering may be your own. Flying Jazz 05:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The above user is not making sense. Genetic engineering can be useful in many ways - removing deficient genes, like ones which allow cancerous cells to develop. 211.30.200.108 01:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

How do any of you think this should be resolved, and how it affects the world?

Genetic engineering is going to be absoultely huge. Once commercial companies such as AMGEN, Serono and Genentech finish their research, genetic treatment might be available commercially to eliminate certain defective genes, or to increase metabolism, muscle structure or more. If you don't like Genetic Engineering, you may as well never ask for medical treatment for a serious illness again, because it revolutionised treatment diabetes with human insulin.

Also consider the prospect of growing organisms to suit our needs such as biotech computers or developing organisms resilient to vacuums and able to survive in space. Such developments would ease our reliance on metal-based technologies by leaps and bounds.

---

Such Organisms already exist [1] BEHOLD THE GREAT DEINOCOCCUS RADIODURANS; THE GREATEST KNOWN POLYEXTREMOPHILE! It can withstand 10000 times the amount of radiation that can kill a human, can survive in a vacuum, extremely cold AND hot temperatures, dehydration, vacuum, and acid. The only thing left to do is Genetically Engineer it into a super-unstoppable-killing-machine-virus muhahahhahahahaaaaaa, seriously though with genetic engineering it would just be a matter of creating an equivalent anti-super-unstoppable-killing-machine-virus, resulting in the term unstoppable becoming alot like the oxymoron term Free speech zone glorified by president bush. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 01:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Plant improvement

Is there someone here with solid technical knowledge? Those of us who usually work on cleaning up bad translations have been more or less stymied by Plant improvement. It clearly has a lot of useful content, but it's terribly written. We've decided it doesn't so much need a translator as someone with a knowledge of molecular biology.

If anyone here can help, or has a suggestion as to who could, please start by leaving a note on Talk:Plant improvement. Thanks. -- Jmabel 01:25, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Refactor?

Is there any reason not to split out genetic engineering in fiction as a separate article? I believe it would be good for our credibility. I realize it would mean redirecting many links. -- Jmabel 01:29, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

I can't think of a reason not too, its getting a bit big, anyways. Thunderbolt16 03:30, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Since no one seems to object, I will do . -- Jmabel 04:49, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

dubious link

The newly added link to a page on http://www.nanoaging.com looks a bit dubious to me, can someone with a clue have a look? -- Jmabel 03:39, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

It looked dubious to me as well, but it seems just to syndicate news from other sources, newswise, scienceblog, etc. I think it's ok Thunderbolt16 02:35, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Maui Psyko replies to...

After doing much research on the topic, I must further emphasize my point. There are too many positive aspects to genetic engineering and stem cell research to discontinue it. For example, we have already used stem cells to treat cancer, Parkinson's, spinal injuries, and more. Were we to find ways to enhance these cells through genetic modification, we might just find some cures. Maui Psyko 19:43, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, didnt see notice for all new comments above line. It wont happen again, officer Maui Psyko Don't sweat it, shouldn't have been there, I've removed it. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:16, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you are "further emphasizing" I don't see any previous comments by you on this page. But if you have relevant material to add to the article, I'd say to go for it. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:16, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

"I don't think it should die, but I agree that we need to control it before we start seriously using it. Genetic engineering will probably do wonders for medicine, but that will be a long time from now." This is what i was referring to before. I added that before i had an account, and i didnt say anything about it for the simple reason that i wanted to confuse people. I believe it worked, and i thank you for amusing me. Mauipsyko 20:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

major, uncommented, anonymous edit

It looks like the recent edit by User:67.38.162.238 was major, including a lot of removal from the article, and has now stood for about 12 hours. This is an article I usually monitor just to watch for obvious vandalism; the scope of this edit is beyond my ability to judge it, but I'd appreciate if a logged in user would either endorse or revert the edit. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:39, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what went wrong when i readded the section on Applications of gen. en., and i dont know how to fix it. and i did add it, i just forgot to log in. anyone with more experience please fix it!! Mauipsyko 23:24, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New article about genetic engineering

JarlaxleArtemis 01:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) I just added another article about genetic engineering to Wikipedia. It's completely unbiased. Go ahead, read it.

And it's going to be deleted very fast. Here's your material: Brownman40 07:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Genetic engineering

Genetic engineering is a sub-field of biotechnology, which in turn is a sub-field of a very broad area called bioengineering. Genetic engineering involves the heritable, directed alteration of an organism. There are many responsibilities that go along with being a genetic engineer. There is laboratory work that involves micro-syringes, plastic disposable apparatus, controlled sterility, temperature, humidity, and lighting environments, DNA separation and transfer systems, and DNA analysis. A great deal of care goes into keeping the laboratory organisms alive and healthy. One must also search literature abstracts, databases and read current journals, dream up, design, and interpret experiments, publish experimental results by writing papers for scientific journals, and attend international conferences. One needs to be able to communicate well with colleagues and teach both theory and practice to junior colleagues or university students. One has to also attend to the laboratory and dangerous organisms within the laboratory while meeting radiological health and safety requirements. Other responsibilities include ordering equipment and organisms and inventing new techniques and applications to genetic engineering.

Unfortunately, genetic engineering has its drawbacks, In order to be a genetic engineer, one must meet the credentials and educational requirements that are necessary to obtaining a job. One must have a decent, all-around education, get along with others, possess an unbroken moral sense, enjoy one’s subject of research and show personal commencement. One must also have a vivacious and inventive imagination, a keen mind and ability to animadvert reductionistically, and a capacity to regard living organisms as tools to build one’s career while utilizing the basic ethical standards of treatment for those organisms as are enforced by society. The educational requirements for genetic engineering are as follows: high school and exam passes to university entrance grades covering genetics, biology, chemistry, and mathematics subjects, and undergraduate education in molecular biology or molecular genetics with a Bachelor of Science degree, a Ph.D. degree based on several years of original research under the guidance of a supervisor, post-doctoral research experience under your own area of molecular biology, and experience in recombinant DNA techniques.

The field of genetic engineering extremely complex. There are many different ways of altering or adding genetic material in a cell or organism in order for that cell or organism to get the desirable traits. Radiation and mutagenic compounds are not recommended, as they can significantly damage DNA. There are specially altered viruses, though, that can introduce new genetic material into an organism. The most accurate and precise way of altering known genes so far is gene targeting, where transposable elements are used to move genes around in cells and organisms. Gene therapies use gene targeting to replace or repair defective genes in tissues. When germline, or reproductive, cells are genetically altered, the offspring of that organism may inherit the new trait. In sexual reproduction only half of the genes are given to the offspring, thus diluting the germline genetic modifications over time. If non-germline, or non-reproductive, cells are genetically altered, however, the offspring will not inherit the new gene or trait.

Genes are a broad concept that in the earlier days of genetics were distinct traits that could be witnessed in the entire organism. Nowadays, a molecular gene “is a definite sequence of bases in the DNA chain which together code for the production of a particular protein (A Beginner’s Guide 2).” Adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T) are the nitrogen bases that combine to form deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. Guanine pairs with cytosine and thymine pairs with adenine. Chemical substances called proteins carry out the formation and function of cells and organisms by either forming part of definite structures or by acting as catalysts.

Genetic engineers receive a wide range of income. The typical salary is $25,000-$100,000 a year. Those are excellent benefits, indeed.

Cick here for more information on genetic engineering.

REFERENCES: A Beginner’s Guide to Genetic Engineering, Internet: 12/7/04. http://www.ifgene.org/beginner.htm

Browse Bioscience Jobs, Biotechnology Jobs, Life Science Jobs on the BioJobNetwork, Internet: 12/8/2004. http://www.biojobnet.com/

Genetic Engineering for Non-scientists—Introduction to Genetic Engineering, Internet: 12/8/2004. http://www.dnapatent.com/science/index.html

Human Cloning and Genetic Engineering, Internet: 12/8/04. http://biofact.com/cloning/

Well, your article is unbiased, I'll give you that. By the sound of it it would seem that you are biased towards the engineers themselves. You describe the job requirements as if you were trying to encourage people to enter the field of genetic engineering. This sounds more like a job application than an article on gen. en. Im wondering if you yourself are a genetic engineer in need of an assistant. Good article otherwise. Maui Psyko 20:13, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just realized that i sounded like an idiot. I meant that the article is unbiased but you imply that you may personally be a big supporter of genetic engineers. Not that theres anything wrong with that. Maui Psyko 20:16, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Opposition to Name "Engineering"- Huh?

"Reluctance to recognize this field as "engineering" has become popular in the anti-globalization movement and safe trade movement, and is also widely held by most Green parties, and the major parties of France and Germany, which have resisted any agricultural policy favoring genetically modified food. These groups tend to resist the label 'engineer' as applied to such genetic modification most strongly."

In Germany has never been opposition to such a term. BUT to the term "Grüne Biotechnologie" (Green Biotechnology) which is used to describe genetic engineering of food. Normally, using the word "green" in context with technology implies something like renewable energy or technology to lower pollution ie. something treehuggers would approve of. From the wording "Green Biotechnology" itself you don't get the information that it only means genetic engineering of food and not of medicine (something with no strong opposition). So it is clearly PR Language.

Frankly, the whole "Naming" part of the article looks like Nonsense to me. If nobody capable of French knows about such a discussion it should be deleted. 217.81.70.35 17:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I have been bold and removed most of the naming controversy from that section based on it not having any citation. if anyone objects feel free to revert and discuss it here. Thunderbolt16 03:31, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

The use of the term or title "Engineer" is always controversial if it isn't in reference to a licensed or chartered engineer or engineering firm. The following quote was taken from the article Professional_Engineer - although the quote doesn't cite sources, one wouldn't have to look very hard to find controversy over the [mis]use of the term...

The title "Engineer" is legally protected in many states, meaning that it is unlawful to use it unless permission is specifically granted by that state, through a Professional Engineering license, an industrial exemption, or certain other non-engineering titles such as "operating engineer". Employees of state or federal agencies may also call themselves engineers if that term appears in their official job title. These laws are not frequently enforced unless the individual is explicitly offering engineering services to the public. Likewise, a business cannot offer engineering services to the public or have a name that implies that it does so unless it employs at least one Professional Engineer.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.118.193.238 (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Golden Rice

I thought that golden rice contained β-carotene, not vitamin A.

It, in fact, contains both β-carotene and Vitamin A, as well as many other substances.→ JarlaxleArtemis 01:35, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge

See my comments on Genetically modified organism. --nixie 01:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

nice pictures of the experiment www.directx.de —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.166.70.244 (talk • contribs) 19 Sept 2005.

Merging "Genetic modification" and "Genetic engineering" was a good thing I think because they are synonyms, but merging Genetically modified organism and Genetic engineering would be a mistake. Genetic engineering is a term used most often to describe the modification of individual cells like Chinese Hamster Ovary cells growing in a bioreactor. Soon it might also be used to create genetically modified tissues, organs, or organ systems which will exist in isolation from the entire organism. On a smaller scale than cells, genetic engineering can be used to modify organelles that can be transfered from one cell to another. On a larger scale than organisms, genetic engineering might be used one day (God forbid) to intentionally engineer a species as a whole, a biome, or the entire biosphere. Genetic engineering is a process and GMOs are one set of products developed using that process. There are many others. I am removing the merger tag and I've left similar comments in the Genetically modified organism talk page. Flying Jazz 05:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Insulin?

Very surprised not to see any mention of the engineered bacteria that produce human insulin for diabetes treatment while a mention of Oncomouse appears. I think this is a far more suitable sort of example, especially as it's an application that has historical merit to an article (first major use of engineered bacteria, I believe) and is very neutral - nobody has any objections to genetic engineering in this way. In addition, not really sure if examples should consist of stub articles - limits the usefulness somewhat. (anon 17 July 2005)

[2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.166.70.244 (talk • contribs) 19 Sept 2005.

Added a bit on insulin now to the Applications part.Ttguy 23:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I added link to Transgenic Bacteria which talks about insulin. --Xephael 00:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Biased info.... use decreasing... scanning for NPOV and such

I removed the "once in widespread use but now decreasing because a statement like that is just absurd. Genetic engeneering has esentially been around since mendel, and unless farmers are starting to reach into random barrels of seeds and say "i hope this one works", then the removed statment is completely nullified.

I think this article should be merged into Genetic modification, please see Talk:Genetically modified organism.--nixie 06:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Also known as 'Rinder-Insulin' or 'Schweine-Insulin' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.166.70.244 (talk • contribs) 19 Sept 2005.

Biodiversity

Cut from article: "Even if a BT trait was introduced into the wild maize population it is hard to see how introducing a new trait can reduce biodiversity. By definition a new trait increases biodiversity." Cut because it is POV and speculative, but also because "it is hard to see" is nothing but a statement of the writers own lack of comprehension.

Biodiversity involves the lack of certain traits in some populations as much as it involves their presence. If a given new gene or trait (artificially engineered or otherwise) becomes widespread in a previously diverse population, the biodiversity of that population generally decreases, because there are no longer large reserves of population without this gene or trait. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I take your point that if a gene were to become close to 100% prevelant in a population and there were no members of the population that lack the gene then this is a reduction in biodiversity. However, there is only one mechanism where by this could occur. Namely the gene would have to provide the population with a massive selective advantage. The type of gene that might do that would be a disease resistance gene in combination with super virulent outbreak of the disease. Only under such conditions could a newly introduced gene have 100% introgression. In such a situation you have had a massive reduction in biodiversiy - but the cause is not the new gene but the selection pressure - ie the disease. In fact without the new gene you would have had complete loss of biodiversity in the plant species in question because with out the gene the species would be wiped out.

"hard to see" is a poor choice of words. I agree. But I challenge anyone to describe how the intogression of a new gene into a small fraction of a population decreases biodiveristy. Ttguy 12:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The gene would have to provide the population with a massive, but possibly a temporary, selective advantage. For example, consider a change in a crop that greatly increased its ability to reproduce, but did horrible things to the soil. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

You are right from a theoretical perspective. However, not only would the gene have to greatly increase the plants ability to reproduce it would also have to cause it to out-compete the rest of the population to an overwhelming degree. It may be possible to deliberately develop a GM plant that would behave in such away. It would however be extremely difficult to do so. You could, for example, engineer the plant so that it exuded some toxin through the roots into the soil and also supply it with a resistance gene to such a toxin. GM plants have not been developed with these traits. Nor are they likely to be. Certainly any GM plant with such traits would not get permission to be generally released. Why? Because as part of the approval process for release risk assessors have to answer the question "are their any traits in the GM plant that might increase its weediness?" No regulator is going to allow such a plant to be released. Thinking back to the case under discussion – insect resistant corn – there is no way that introgression of this trait into “wild” populations of maize can cause a lowering of biodiversity. Insect pests rarely kill plants. They only reduce their yield. They certainly never kill 100% of a population. Thus, selection pressure from pest infestation is never going to get high enough to cause the new gene to be selected with anything approaching 100% penetrance. Ttguy 23:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Out-Crossing to "wild" maize

128.252.199.95 suggests that the journal Nature's retraction of the Maize introgression article by Quist and Chapela "referred to the disputed claim that the transgenes had been integrated unstably into the maize genome, not to the more important claims of transgene introgression." This is not true. The claim that the trangenes had not stabely integrated was disputed because the results appear to be caused by a "PCR artifact". The experiments were not well enough designed to distinguish unstable integration from PCR artifact. Since the claim that transgenes had introgressed into wild maize was also based on the same dubious experimental proceedures it is also not proven. Poorly designed PCR experiments have a high chance of producing false positives. Ttguy 13:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

A detailed criticism of the experimental methods used by by Quist and Chapela has been published in Transgenic Research 11: iii-v, 2002. It was necessary to use nested PCR (two con-secutive PCR reactions) to detect an obvious product. This is a particularly risky approach, since extremely low levels of contamination introduced during the handling of samples can be the cause of a positive result. Rather than rely on questionable PCR results, plants that were alleged to contain introgressed DNA should have been grown out and subjected to more reliable confirming studies.Ttguy 13:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

128.252.199.95 also claims that, while a 2005 article reported an absence of transgenes in samples of maize from southern Mexico collected in 2003-2004, it did not dispute the earlier finding of transgene introgression. It is true that it did not explicitly dispute the earlier claims. But since the publisher of the original work has retracted the claims and their studies could not find any transgenes just a few years later we are all left wondering what happened to them. Considering how poor the initial work was - it is quite obvious that they were never there. The 2005 paper implicity disputes the earlier claim. Ttguy 13:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

This epsiode was a classic case of viral marketing by Monsanto as has been shown by the detective work of the campaigner Jonathan Matthews and the freelance journalist Andy Rowell showing how a PR firm (the Bivings Group)contracted to the biotech company Monsanto played a crucial but invisible role in shaping scientific discourse.

See the article below.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2002/05/14/the-fake-persuaders/

In this article Mr Monbiot points out that the Quist and Chapela publication generated discussion on a scientists mailing list and that some of the scientists that participated in the discussion may have been posting under pseudonyms. So what? It does not matter who participates in the discussion. What matters is - does the scientific evidence stand up? Many scientists saw the results of Quist and Chapela and from their own every day experience with PCR technology new straight away that the results were very likely to be complete artifacts. Several scientists wrote to Nature pointing this out. Nature looked at the evidence and decided to retract the paper - based on the scientific evidence. Not based on who brought this issues to their attention. Ttguy 23:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Also some link to this research would provide balance

CaMV Promoter is A Recombination Hotspot - No Transgenic Plant Containing CaMV Promoter Should be Released http://biosci.umn.edu/~pregal/ryanpromoter.htm http://www.biotech-info.net/CMV.pdf

All genomes contain recombination hot-spots. So even if CaMV 35S promoters do contain a recombintion hot-spot - so what? How do we know all genomes contain recombination hotspots? Because any organism that has a genetic map compiled by conventional gene marker mapping techniques will show recobination hotspots when this map is compared to the physical DNA map for the organism. This has been known for a long time. Certain regions of chromsomes are subject to higher levels of recombination than others.

It is doubtful however that there really is a recombination hotspot in the CaMV promoter. If there was nearly every GM crop plant would be a failure because the GM trait would be unstable. Ttguy 09:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

See also Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 12:1-5 2000 Ttguy 11:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

As would this:

Open Letter from World Scientists to All Governments http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/openlet-cn.htm

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.62.82.194 (talk • contribs) 28 Nov 2005.

Feel free to edit, it's a wiki. Taking an account name first would probably help so people can leave you messages. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

This would be a copy of the so called World Scientists Statement issued by Mae-Wan Ho's "Institute of Science in Society". Importantly you can look at the list of "scientists" who have signed it if you visit the original site http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php. Now this statement has been around for a while and some time ago I actually took a look at the list of signortories. Back when I looked at the list there was 310 names on it. Using a very generous definition of scientist - ie any one studying a science I counted as a scientist - I compiled a sub list of people who would appear not to be in any way scientists.

Even with a generous definition of scientist the number of non scientists was at least 85 of 300. See http://home.iprimus.com.au/ttguy/world-ns.htm for the list of non-scientists. It includes Podiatrists, a Wholistic Practitioner, a bunch of anthropologists, sociologists, economists and Psychiatrists. There is also a prepondance of medical doctors.

This is in stark contrast to the petition supporting the controled and ethical use of GM technology which (back when I looked into this issue) has 10 fold more names (signed by over 2900 people).

An analysis of the first 500 names on this petition shows that 79% of them are scientists in a a relevant field to have an opinion on the safety of GM crops. (Only 73% of the signators on the ISIS petition have any scientific background of any description.)

"Through judicious deployment, biotechnology can also address environmental degradation, hunger, and poverty in the developing world by providing improved agricultural productivity and greater nutritional security." http://www.agbioworld.org/declaration/petition/petition.php

Ttguy 09:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Gene splicing?

Does gene splicing have anything to do with it - does the word have more meanings than I know of? Talk about splicing and genes, and I start thinking about messenger RNA... if I don't recieve a comment on that one, I'll remove it. / Habj 09:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Until someone writes an historical article called gene splicing that describes the details of how biologists figured out how to do genetic engineering, it is probably best not to introduce the term "gene splicing" in the genetic engineering article. In biology research labs, "gene splicing" is used to describe the trick of using restriction enzymes to make it possible to move a gene from one DNA molecule to another, a key part of genetic enineering. --JWSchmidt 12:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sequencing Costs

The article used to say "At the current rate of price decrease, the entire human genome could have been sequenced for less than 100 U.S. dollars." But this does not make sense. Surely this sentance needs some time frame eg "At the current rate of price decrease by the beginining of YYYY, the entire human genome could be sequenced for less than 100 U.S. dollars." At the quoted cost of 1/10c per base pair and a human genome of 3 billion base pairs the cost is 3 million dollars. So the author must be projecting some time into the future to get his $100. But on this logic we could just project a few more years into the future and come up with the idea that "by the year NNNN the whole genome could be sequenced for free".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ttguy (talk • contribs) 27 Oct 2005.

On Genetic Engineering someone guess that the human genome at 3 billion base pairs and at 1/10c per base pair would cost $6 million to sequence. The maths appears to be wrong probably because when you sequence DNA you do both strands. So $3 million each strand is $6 million.

But the whole maths is too simple. I dunno where the 1/10c figure comes from. You might get a company to supply DNA sequence at this cost. But does this take into account making your DNA libraries, putting the sequences together to make a genome map. Filling in the GAPs in the sequence? Does it take account of the need to have multiple passes of the genome to be sure you have accurate results. The cost of sequencing a genome is how much it costs to complete the project and I doubt it is 1/10c per base pair. I have re-written this and list a reference to an NIH estimate of actual sequencing costs. Ttguy 20:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess that you can't take that $100-genome literally. I think what Craig Venter meant is, that they want to develop a method how to get the important genetic information from any particular human object for about 100 bucks. The map of human genome is already known, all humans share something like 99.9% of the genome, so they are not going to sequence the same stuff over and over again. They will try to figure out where are the medically important differences and then develop a method how to sequence all the important parts at once. Without BAC libraries, gap filling, assembling large contigs etc. Xmort 01:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

This article should deal with the genetic engineering that is actually out there now and has been for a quarter century. Under Applications there should be a list in historical order with historical information about each application:

1) Pharmaceuticals 2) Medical diagnostics 3) Agriculture 4) Potential future applications

Other major sections should be "tools" (e.g., knockout, transfection, transgenic organisms) and "products" (e.g., insulin, roundup-ready seeds). Then after the reader knows what the field is, THAT's the time to write about ethical, economic, and political implications.

Agriculture is ONE application and manipulation of the entire organism is ONE product of genetic engineering and this article right now is skewed way out of proportion to the way the term is used in the real world. Also, see comments under "Merge." Flying Jazz 06:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Effects of engineering

What happens to people who are genetically engineereed? Superhuman abilities? Scorpionman 19:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Heck no. People aren't "genetically engineered". Some people have undergone gene therapy though. I don't see how you'd get "superhuman abilities" from changing your DNA - physics is physics. If you mean things like strength and resistance to pain, that's a long time off and so unethical nobody would attempt it. Tokakeke 01:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"natural" genetic engeneering

Is there a term for the changeing of an organism though many generations of selective breeding, like when you start with the cabbage and got everything from broccli to brussel sprouts to swiss chard? Or starting with a wolf and getting the wide variety of dogs? Or starting with a black carrot, and eventualy turning it orange? Eds01 03:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Artificial selection is a term I believe is sometimes used. The term being related to the process of Natural Selection as coined by Darwin. Ttguy 12:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Genetic copyright

An economic/political problem is the copyright on a GM crop, in that seeds sold that grow and reproduce are (in a legal grey area) infringing on the copyright of the creators of the genetic modification. This could (and may have already) mean that a crop could spread seeds to a neighbouring field and 'contaminate' it with GM information, meaning that unless the owner of the second crop paid royalties or destroyed the crop which now contained unpaid for copyrighted genetic information, he would be breaking copyright and benefitting (albeit unwillingly) from the work of the creators of the GM organism without payment. I suppose vaguely similar to software copying legality, since by theft nthere is no actual loss of ownership. I think this shoul be on the list of economic factors, but perhaps it is more relevent in a related page?

The scenario you depict is a red herring. This scenario was tested under Canadian law in the Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser case. If the genetic 'contamination' of a neighbouring crop is accidental and the farmer does nothing to select for the GM trait then the farmer is not liable. Only if the farmer delibirately selects for the GM trait and uses the seed selected is he guilty of 'copyright' infringment. It is the latter situation that Schmeiser in Canda was convicted for - see Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser#Consequences. In an acidental 'contamination' situation the farmer is not benifiting from the GM crop because the frequency of the GM trait in his crop is minute. No GM company has ever pursued a farmer because of your 'contamination' scenario and they would be very silly to try. The case would be thrown out. The level of damages that they could persue would be zero because the farmer was not benefiting from the trait. The PR damage would be huge. So I don't think this scenario is at all creditable. Ttguy 23:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The case of Schmeiser is total different. He was found guilty of deliberately selecting for the GM trait and then replanting the seeds so that his Canola crop was 80-95% roundup-ready.Ttguy 23:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ethics

halp me right this page please.. if you have ideas feel free to right in here!!!!!!!!!!

Vandalism

Please take notice of the Economic_and_Political_Effects section of this article, where I believe many words have been changed to their opposite, like increasing to decreasing, gaining to losing, believe to disbelieve, amongst other changes. I request immediate attention to this. I am not yet comfortable with wikipedia to revert edits myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hrodrik (talk • contribs) 02:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Found the vandal ("71.136.180.194" on 18 May 2006) and reverted those edits. Thanks for bringing attention to that. --Mwhorn 21:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow this article is realy short

It also needs a neurtrality thing 203.24.137.199 01:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it is! sucks imo 217.7.198.69 11:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This was due in part to a bad revert [3]

I move[d] the whole applications section back in. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 21:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

This article should have a Controversy or Ethics section. Reading the talk page it sounds like this page was very anti-GE at one point, but now it reads like a GE company pamphlet. As a genetic biologist, I do agree with most or all of the points made, but we really do need to represent both sides of the dispute.

Revert Please

Okay some idiot has gone and messed up this page and deleted an entire reason for no paticular purpose. Can somebody please revert this page back to how it was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewbarnard (talk • contribs)

References and changes

There is a reference section that is using the reference tag, but nothing shows up on screen. Is there any way that anyone can please update this so that any references show? Otherwise, if the section is empty I may delete it at some stage.

I also intend to add some external links, some books for reading and a section for cross-referencing on releavnt subjects. abdullahazzam 10:25, 01 December 2006 (UTC)

Quick page link fix needed -- "knockout" to "gene knockout"

Knockout under 1.1 should point to Gene Knockout.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.221.174 (talk • contribs)

Just a suggestion

Why is the text "brittany smith has a desease that is contagious and gives chiken pugs evn do you already had them beware or the fbi will killl with out warning" at the head of the first paragragh of the genetic engineering topic? Can't edit, so maybe someone else with more power can. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I need a biochem project (talk • contribs) 21:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Chloroplasts in animals

Sorry if this is off topic. I didn't see any guidelines against asking a question like this in a talk page.

I found this while doing a search on a whim for animals that use chlorophyll for energy. http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/full/123/1/29

Apparently some sea slugs eat algae and preserve the chloroplasts and even use them for power.

Does anyone know of any other organism besides plants, algae and bacteria that use photosynthesis. Or about any research into genetically engineering an animal to produce chloroplasts as an alternative energy source for the organism? Or point me towards articles or discussion that show why this is hard or impossible or crazy.

Please contact me on my user talk page Thanks. --Dave1g 07:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Gentic Engineering

Shouldn't genetic engineering be a heading for everything dealing humans trying to alter the DNA to their advantage. Meaning that its sub categries would be cloning, gene splicing, selective breeding, hybridization, and any other forms of DNA recombination. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.182.27.199 (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC).