Talk:Brian Morris (biologist)

Biography Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Australia: Education Start‑class

	Australia portal Brian Morris (biologist) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 April 2014. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Professoremeritusbrianmorris (talk · contribs)
124.188.98.113 (talk · contribs)

Untitled

this reads like a promotional pamphlet written by brian morris, the article has an incredible amount of unsourced claims and crucially no one has added them in despite citations being requested.

Walabio, in reintroducing the following text, you partially reverted my edit. Can I remind you that we have both been asked not to revert each other while in mediation?

He is controversial because he advocates circumcision despite not being a medical doctor and using the name of the University of Sydney despite the University not advocating his personal views.

I removed this text for several reasons. Firstly, is it Morris himself that is controversial or his views or lobbying? It seems to me that it is the latter. Secondly, this looks like your opinion rather than anything else. Has anyone raised these objections to Morris or his work in print? If not, they ought to be removed.

I hope that you will respond soon. I have not reverted your edit for reasons stated above, but I would appreciate it if you would do so voluntarily while we negotiate over the appropriate wording. I don't want to censor the fact that Morris' work is controversial - only to ensure that the discussion is verifiable and accurate. Jakew 16:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let us see, he is not medical doctor, but he represents himself as such. Rather than merely include that he works for the University of Sydney in his biography, he goes on and on about him working there in such a way that it implies that he speaks for the university about circumcision, but he no more speaks for the university than one of the Janitors. He claims to be neutral but is obviously biased (that sounds familiar).

Last year, I ran into two members of the Australian Medical Association at a convention of the American College of Pædiatrics. They said that he annoys them with his constant lobbying campaign of letterwriting. They do not take him seriously, because although he is a good Molecular Biologist, he is not a Pædiatric Urologist. They suspect that his fixation might be prurient. Frankly, they believe that he has a screw loose.

Hugh Young wrote a response to Brian Morris. [1]

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 17:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So what are you saying here? You and two friends of yours disagree with him? Sorry, that's insufficient grounds to insert it into an article. Jakew 12:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those two people are not my friends. I met them only once. They came into the conference from Australia. I merely used them as illustrative examples. Let us forget the example for a minute. Brian Morris writes many letters to the Australian College of Pædiatrics which the society ignores because it is like a plumber trying to change the carpentry-code. He begs questions and takes things out of context. Frankly, his claims are controversial (at odds with the positionstatements of all medical bodies with positionstatements about circumcision) and the just Australian College of Pædiatrics ignores him. His views are controversial.

Jakew, I'm getting a bit concerned about you. It seems you spend a hell of a lot of time picking away at any page on Wikipedia that has anything to do with circumcision. I think it's time you came to terms with your problem. - David. —

— Ŭalabio‽ 01:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Undergraduate training

The article mentioned Morris received "first class honours" as an undergraduate, but fails to mention in what area. This should be made clear. He is not a medical doctor, and any ambiguity that may result in someone mistakenly believing he is (or ever was) should be clarified.

Not noteworthy

Brian Morris is an ordinary academic at a university. He's not distinguished enough to have his own Wikipedia page. Vote for deletion.

I agree. You have my vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.246.33 (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed

"Because cervical cancer has been found to be much higher in women whose male partner is uncircumcised," It has? How much higher? By whom? Not, for example Castellsagué et al, much cited for this purpose, who found "Male circumcision was associated with a moderate, but nonsignificant, decrease in the risk of cervical cancer in the men's female partners (odds ratio for self-reported circumcision, 0.72; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.49 to 1.04 [i.e. no significance]; odds ratio for clinician-confirmed circumcision, 0.69; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.43 to 1.11 [i.e. even less likelihood of significance])." --Hugh7 (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This comment about a major relationship with cervical cancer and circumcision has been here far too long without any references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.182.243 (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

I've tagged this article with a COI because the IP editor and later Professoremeritusbrianmorris have heavily altered the article in such a way as to promote Brian Morris and his views while limiting or removing opposing points of views (not to mention the puffery). This significantly alters the neutrality of this article. I'm logging off for the night, so I'm hoping that the tag will attract other editors who are more familiar with handling this sort of problem and can monitor and/or correct the situation if needed. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 04:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

tag had been removed; i re-added it, and also added connected contributor tag to this page. am watching. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brian Morris (biologist). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brian Morris (biologist). 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/20150207011311/http://www.skeptic.org.uk/magazine/features/64-published/711-does-science-support-infant-circumcision-a-skeptical-reply-to-brian-morris to http://www.skeptic.org.uk/magazine/features/64-published/711-does-science-support-infant-circumcision-a-skeptical-reply-to-brian-morris

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

User:Professoremeritusbrianmorris about the HPV molecular diagnostic invention - was that licensed to Genera or anybody else? If so is there a source for that? thx. Jytdog (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in this interesting history, which focuses on the US... Hogarth, Stuart; Hopkins, Michael; Rotolo, Daniele (2015). "Chapter 5: Technological Accretion in Diagnostics: HPV Testing and Cytology in Cervical Cancer Screening". Medical Innovation: Science, technology and practice. Routledge. ISBN 9781138860346... Jytdog (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog

My patent (at the time owned by Biosearch Ltd) was purchased by Polartechnics Ltd in 2006.

(Unfortunately, Polartechncis went into receivership in Aug 2010.)

The priority date of the group of HPV patents (separate for US, Australia, European countries, Japan) was 27 Feb 1987, and since patents only last 20 years (plus 1 year for the provisional patent lodgement) it was offpatent in Feb 2009.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/polartechnics-buys-hpv-detection-patents-20060914-gdodti.html

Article in Sydney Morning Herald:

BUSINESS

Polartechnics buys HPV detection patents

14 September 2006 — 1:04am

Biotechnology company Polartechnics Ltd has announced the purchase of a key group of patents for methods of detecting human papillomavirus (HPV) from Biosearch International Pty Ltd.

Polartechnics executive chairman Robert Hunter said the potential for HPV screening was enormous, given its favourable comparison with the existing pap smear screening method.

"We are of the view that HPV tests will become an integral part of cervical screening in advanced industrialised countries and represents both synergy and enormous growth opportunity for our company, which has a strong history in cervical cancer screening and detection," Mr Hunter said.

As part of the deal, Biosearch will receive 1.5 million fully paid ordinary shares in Polartechnics at 14 cents per share, subject to shareholder approval at the forthcoming annual general meeting.

I trust that this will help.

Many thanks

Best wishes

Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professoremeritusbrianmorris (talk • contribs) 03:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but that doesn't say anything about you. How did Biosearch International Pty Ltd. acquire the patents? Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just searched the internet to death as well as my university library. The only things I can find are:

this blurb replicating the report above
two patents assigned to the company (one with inventors Brian James Morris and Brian Nightingale, the other with inventors Janet I. Cord and Eugen Molodysky)
company record in ASIC
Reference to a couple of "reports" in the Eugen Molodysky (obvious COI editing there)

I see that Polartechnics brought forward a device in 2008 (press release) and that after Polartechnics tanked, a NZ company called Truscreen (crappy ref) ... but hm. Jytdog (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

POV edits

Hello,

Before reversion, please discuss on the talk page perceived issues or shortcomings. This can be a contentious topic but we must be careful in the way we act.