This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.
The article calmly assumes that the only thing that can be called biotechnology is science-based biotechnology. Yet some of the oldest technologies were biotechnologies e.g. the manufacture of yoghurt, sauercraut, leavened bread, salami, wine, beer involved live organisms and things like the vegetable tanning of leather might also be considered a biotechnology.Sheredot (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
except its not considered biotechnology. the term may sound like it covers all biosciences, but the actual definition is around the laboratory manipulation of gene sequences, not the exploitation of natural biological phenomena. This is the same kind of thinking which leads to snarky comments like "all food is organic, so labelling it organic is silly". its two different meanings for the same word. for biotech, its actually two words with two meanings: biosciences, for all biological sciences, and biotechnology. and anyone who thinks we have "always" practiced genetic engineering/biotech, because we have bred sheep, tomatos, etc. might as well say we have always practiced nuclear science, since we have been using atoms, which have nuclei, for millenia. we have also had our major source of energy a nuclear fusion power plant, so are we a fusion powered society?(mercurywoodrose)188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)