This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genetics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genetics 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.GeneticsWikipedia:WikiProject GeneticsTemplate:WikiProject GeneticsGenetics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information.Molecular and Cell BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cell BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular and Cell BiologyMCB articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology 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.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Junheesin.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 17 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kingleo1800.
When I said "Lamarckism is not even mentioned in the article" (left side), I obviously meant "in the Wikipedia article" and not "in the article by Jablonka and Lamb" (right side) or "in the article on page 43 of the leftmost of the magazines that are lying on the table I am writing this on".
I know that some people make a connection between epigenetics and Lamarckism, but it is not mainstream that such a connection exists. Therefore, if the article contains the word "Lamarckism", it should not be in the shape of a category, coming from nowhere, but in a real sentence - you know, one of those thingies making up the actual article. And then it should not be "epigenetics is Lamarckism", but more on the lines of "some people make a connection between those two, but that is a minority position", plus a source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Is this where we should mention “correlated regions of systemic interindividual variation” (CoRSIVs)
“correlated regions of systemic interindividual variation” (CoRSIVs)  - may be a neologism. - Rod57 (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Use of the word "heritable" is seriously misleading
There is a serious problem with the article, which is the repeated use of the word "heritable" to describe epigenetic phenomenon. This is SERIOUSLY misleading, because the word "heritable" usually implies stable transmission of a trait over several generations. There is no evidence that epigenetic modifications to DNA are transmitted over more than one or two generations AT MOST, and compelling reasons to believe this will not occur (DNA is re-programmed epigenetically during early embryonic development). The writers of the article are not at fault; the error is embedded in some of the source material -- but that doesn't make it any less misleading. Unfortunately I don't have the time to do the re-write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Such is the current hysteria on this subject, that there is a disappointing amount of ignorance leaking into actual academic sources on it as well, which is then taken enthusiastically by the pseudoscience crowd... Fig (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Fig wright if you have time it would be good to expand the misuse of epigenetics. Steven Pinker covers this in the afterword to the second edition of The Blank Slate. Kevin Mitchell also covers this in his excellent 2019 book Innate. The misuse of epigenetics is not good news. You may wish to also take a look at the Transgenerational trauma article because it is seriously overstepping things. Sxologist (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Regarding "heritable", if there is an accuracy problem and something can be done about that by using quality sources...something should be done. But we can only go by what the sources state and with WP:Due weight. And sources on this topic do consistently use the term "heritable." And that includes this 2018 "Epigenetics, Nuclear Organization & Gene Function: With implications of epigenetic regulation and genetic architecture for human development and health" source, from Oxford University Press, which begins with the following on its Google Books page: "Epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene function that do not involve changes in the DNA sequence." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
being abused by far left and far right extremist zealot idiocy
depending on which side of the simpleton binary spectrum you're looking at-certain people are predetermined to be certain ways because of their ancestor's experiences and overall way of being.everyone was always looking at the far right to keep an eye on any fascist uprising allowing it to gradually sneak up on us from this resentful dogmatic intolerant hypocritical far left extremism with a win at all costs mentality.protected and emboldened with a beyond reproach shield of invincibility.just like any group of zealots-protect the belief system at all costs,it's more important than the people within it.and way more important than the people without it."as long as we're opposed to that,we can't be wrong".worldviews and belief systems are now passed along in a strictly predetermined genetic way,why not language and the accent you speak it with?strip away all choice as eugenics makes a 21st century comeback by the very people who rightfully railed against it a century ago.meet the new boss-same as....................... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Fear conditioning in relation to epigenetics
At some point, I watchlisted this article. It must have been around the time I was involved with the Epigenetic theories of homosexuality article years back. Just letting you know this, Sxologist, in case you think I followed you here.
Now on to the reason I've started this section: Regarding this, there are academic book sources on the topic, such as this 2016 "The Wiley Handbook on the Cognitive Neuroscience of Learning" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 144. And this 2018 "Epigenetics, Nuclear Organization & Gene Function: With implications of epigenetic regulation and genetic architecture for human development and health" source, from Oxford University Press, page 256. The author of the second book has credentials that are proper for the topic. No information is given about the authors of the first book. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Flyer, no problem – I did expect it to be covered by secondary sources, and second book would be an okay start. However, this area needs to be covered with caution. Many researchers are dumbfounded by it's misuse. Quoting Kevin Mitchell (a world leader in gene-neuroanatomy interaction): Our experiences [...] are expressed through changes in our neuroanatomy, not in our patterns of gene expression. Most epigenetic studies are not actually showing anything. They are just seeing methylation and assuming causality, often using tiny sample sizes, or mice who reproduce every 3 months (as those texts rely upon). You can take a sample of 200 people and predict an experience (or indeed, homosexuality) with 70% accuracy based on methylation, but that's easy to do when the starting point is 50 percent (you will get 50% no matter what). If you make the sample large enough, the effect disappears. Further quoting Mitchell The problem comes from thinking that turning genes on or off equates somehow to turning traits on or off. If you’re talking about something like skin pigmentation, that might apply—I can expose my skin to the sun for a period of time and this will lead to epigenetic changes in the genes controlling pigment production, and I’ll get a nice tan that will last for weeks. But for psychological traits, the link between gene action at a molecular level and expression of traits at a behavioral level is far too indirect, nonspecific, and combinatorial for such a relationship to hold. Moreover, if much of the variation in these traits comes from how the brain developed, the idea that you can change them by tweaking some genes in adults becomes far less plausible. There is lots of other evidence from quantitative genetics that make epigenetic explanations for everything quite skeptical. Quoting Pinker here: Many biologists are starting to express their exasperation with the use of epigenetics as “the currently fashionable response to any question to which you do not know the answer,” as the epidemiologist George Davey Smith has put it. All that said, I do of course support including the secondary sources in here with the relevant info. Sxologist (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
A "Criticism" section can be created, and the "Pseudoscience" section can be merged with that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good to me; pseudoscience probably falls under something like Misuse and criticisms. Sxologist (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Glad to see some editors with both time and knowledge to try to get this article back on the straight and narrow. If looking for more sources, some articles over the last few years by Prof of evolution Jerry Coyne (author of 'Why evolution is true') are a good resource Fig (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)