Talk:Genetic engineering

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

Source Addition[edit]

Source 117 is from 2000 and is very brief, hardly providing any backup evidence. I found a New York times article backing up the same information in better detail dated from 2015. Due to the scientific nature of this passage updating the source by 15 years will improve its accuracy and reliability.Asleepandbeatyo (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

J. Craig Venter Center paragraph[edit]

@Ehtanpet113: Regarding your edit, your concern is noted that you would like some or all(?) of the names of the scientists in that sentence to the article. I assume the names can easily be found in the RS. I'm not sure it is necessary to spell them out, but I am not opposed either. As I mentioned in my revert, please feel free to add their names if you choose to look them up, and see if others support the new information. Because I do not find it necessary, I would prefer not to have the tag in the article and, instead, have the discussion take place here.

There should be plenty of RS here: Craig Venter

Previously I questioned that paragraph, and I still have concerns. I'm glad that it has been simplified. I do not think we should say, "____ created the first synthetic life" but use language like below:

In May 2010, a team of scientists led by Venter became the first to successfully create what was described as "synthetic life".[1][2] This was done by synthesizing a very long DNA molecule containing an entire bacterium genome, and introducing this into another cell, analogous to the accomplishment of Eckard Wimmer's group, who synthesized and ligated an RNA virus genome and "booted" it in cell lysate.[3] The single-celled organism contains four "watermarks"[4]
  1. ^ Gibson, D.; Glass, J.; Lartigue, C.; Noskov, V.; Chuang, R.; Algire, M.; Benders, G.; Montague, M.; Ma, L.; Moodie, M. M.; Merryman, C.; Vashee, S.; Krishnakumar, R.; Assad-Garcia, N.; Andrews-Pfannkoch, C.; Denisova, E. A.; Young, L.; Qi, Z. -Q.; Segall-Shapiro, T. H.; Calvey, C. H.; Parmar, P. P.; Hutchison Ca, C. A.; Smith, H. O.; Venter, J. C. (2010). "Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome". Science. 329 (5987): 52–56. Bibcode:2010Sci...329...52G. doi:10.1126/science.1190719. PMID 20488990. 
  2. ^ Swaby, Rachel (May 20, 2010). "Scientists Create First Self-Replicating Synthetic Life". Wired. 
  3. ^ Wimmer, Eckard; Mueller, Steffen; Tumpey, Terrence M; Taubenberger, Jeffery K (December 2009). "Synthetic viruses: a new opportunity to understand and prevent viral disease". Nature Biotechnology. 27 (12): 1163–72. doi:10.1038/nbt.1593. PMC 2819212free to read. PMID 20010599. 
  4. ^ Using Arc to decode Venter's secret DNA watermark by Ken Shirriff

Claiming what they created was the first "new synthetic life form" is a very strong claim, that I think is too strong for wiki-voice. I much prefer that we simply state that that is what the creators claim it is, in the way stated above and by the RS that I read. I believe that what they created was something new, but how to actually describe it is more complicated. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

According to the science source[1] the counter is that it is not a true synthetic life form as the genome was inserted into an empty cell (therefore the cell itself was not synthesised). How about saying "first synthetic genome" as that is not disputed and is a better link anyway. I would suggest keeping it as only one or two simple sentences, the watermarks and the Eckard comparison would fit better in synthia. As to the names of the scientists I oppose inclusion of them as there are 24 in the paper and as well as messing up the flow considerably this is likely to be undue in a overview article. Venter (or his institute) as the lead scientist should be mentioned and linked though. The paper with everyones names is already used as a reference. If it is decided to include the names then they should only be included as a footnote. AIRcorn (talk) 01:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
^Yes. I agree on all that. Sounds much much better. I haven't looked again at the RS to be sure it specifically says first synthetic genome, but that sounds much less dramatic than "life form". Do you mind making the change? I agree with you that adding the scientists names is unnecessary. I would also support adding the attempt to create the first patent on a new species that was mentioned in the other article. That's very interesting. It's a pleasure working with you by the way. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Content is king. Focus on that, be reasonable and accept that other editors can genuinely disagree with you and this topic area can be enjoyable to edit. Although the recent developments make me a little sad as two highly respected editors that I know have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart are now going at it hammer and tong.
I will make the change (synthetic genome is used in the title and throughout the science source), but will give Ehtanpet113 a bit longer to comment first. Do you have a source in mind for the first patent on a new species so I can add that too. The science one mentions it, but more in passing and just says that they have applied for patents. AIRcorn (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the change. I do not know the best source on the patent issue. I just saw it mentioned in the other Wikipedia article, and assumed that since the language was standing the referencing was probably okay, but I did not check to be sure of that, nor have I looked for other sources. I leave that up to you if you do decide to add it. I may add it later if there is no objection to whatever the source is that is in the other article. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

A field unrecognized by Nobels[edit]

There is, ironically (and errantly), not a single mention of discoveries recognized by Nobels, in this entire article. (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there some WP:RS you suggest that be considered? --David Tornheim (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Genetic engineering. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)