Talk:Genetic engineering/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

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 shouldn't be deleted. It's so well written it pretty much can't get any better. Might . 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

This article is strongly biased, it should be reconstructed ASAP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.119.113 (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

The question here is this: are the rewards worth the risk? This is the fundamentaly question that regulates change when the change is initiated by people. The worst that can happen with this technology is that either a horrible plague is unleashed or we accidentally unleash super-organisms that replace their natural counter-parts. The probabilities of these outcomes are low because they would have to be either accidental or recquire a huge amount of secrecy. On the other hand, imagine if we could one day modify the skin to have the resistance of Deinococcus radiodurans. While that is an extreme example of something that would happen a good time into the future, other benefits that are less extraordinary but beneficial nontheless are within our grasp, and they have a much higher chance of happening than the accidents because private companies will be working to achieve them, and money can be a very powerful motivator. In my opinion I would have to say that the potential benefits outway the risk. Tyrnell (talk) 16:22, 20 December 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).

Genetic Engineering IS NOT 'engineering'

This needs to be removed from the category 'Engineering'. The problem lies in English where the term 'engineer' is used in a casual sense anywhere where a technology is applied to create, repair or refine some system. However, formally engineer refers to Professional Engineers, and this the use of Genetic 'Engineer' in this formal sense is confusing. Genetics and biotechnology are not yet engineering disciplines. They are in their infancy, and are, as of yet, sciences. No licensing or standards bodies exist (such as the Engineering Council UK, or IEEE, IET, IMechE, etc.). Genetic Engineers are scientists, and are no more engineers than IT professionals are engineers. 90.220.190.164 (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2010 (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)

While it may be possible to increase strength and increase the tolerance to pain this would be a foolhardy course of action. The human body is in a constant state of balance and although science is constantly pushing that balance to the limits it still has its breaking points. You could alter DNA to increase testosterone production but this would have effects similar to steroid use in athletes. That is liver and heart failure, increased blood pressure, and mood swings that can lead to irrational violence. Also increases in pain tolerance are bad thing. While it may prevent shock in the battle field there has been rare cases where people have no sense of pain because of disease or spinal injury. A young girl, with a similar problem, nearly ripped out her own eyes because her eyes were itchy and she couldn't feel the pain of her fingers digging into them. Simply enough, pain (even though it really sucks) is meant to tell you somthing is wrong and ignoring it can lead to bigger and more harmful problems. The only plausible use of genetic engineering is to correct already existing genetic maladies such as cancer and genetic predisposal alcohol, nicotine, and obesity.

One question that I am Curious about is how genetic engineering is enacted. Specificly, is it true that genes are modified through the use of radiation and highly toxic materials? Also if they are modified through theswe means isnt it true that genetic engineering in produce would result in the spead of small ammounts radiation and toxic materials to the consumer (humans)? Or is there some other method? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.88.202.213 (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2007 (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)

whats up with all the crazy god garbage? i think ned flanders found wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.139.62 (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2008 (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).

Conservative Groups Oppose Genetic Engineering?

The opening of this article includes this claim without citation:

Conservative groups in the United States have argued genetic engineering is wrong

I imagine there may be some conservative opposition to genetic engineering, but the most visible opponents of the practice in terms of existing genetically-engineered products are clearly from the left, particularly the pro-environmental, anti-globalist left. I am removing this sentence. If someone wants to explain the opposition to genetic engineering in more detail, I would encourage them to do so. In that event, please provide sources. 24.113.82.222 21:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations

There is 1 citation in this article. It is a major topic and a controversial issue, and the claims it makes need more support than is currently given. I will try to add an appropriate template.--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 15:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Added methodology

Moved part of the intro and added some info on methodology.. should be pretty accurate, albeit somewhat disorganised =X Nikwong 07:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Introduction Needs Changed!!

The introductory paragraph is very biased and needs to have some section on the benefits of genetic engineering with a growing population. Our population is growing so so quickly we will end up turning our forests, mountains, plains and streams into farmland (that endangered species can't use) if we do not continue to utilize this technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.81.17 (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Showa Denko tryptophan disaster

The tryptophan was not tested because it was sold as a "suplement". So it was not a food and it was not a drug. So testing was not required by the FDA. Every one knows that this is totally stupid loophole that has been created in the US regulatory system. What this incident shows is that you should test things that are essentally drugs. If this product was regulated like a drug or a food then this would not have happened.

BTW the interpretation in the article is based on the writings of John B Fagan who is a professor in at the Maharishi University of Management [4]. At this august school you learn the Maharishi's teachings on "Vedic Science". This "not only includes within its range all knowledge about everything in the universe, and not only gives the student intellectual understanding, but also gives him the spontaneous ability to know anything, do anything, and accomplish anything. It actually enlivens infinite Creative Intelligence in the simplest form of his awareness, and makes him spontaneously live all possibilities and fulfillment in his daily life.”

No wonder Fagan knows for sure it was GE that caused the trytophan disaster. He has studied a science field that knows all knowledge about everything in the universe. He can know all this spontaneously.!!!

John Fagan is an owner of Genetic ID inc. This company makes money testing for GM "contamination" and it is therefore in his best interest to maintain scare stories about GE. The funny thing is that the tryptophan story is now about 20 years old and we have had GE technology for all this time. And this is the best scare story they can come up with. Countless numbers of drugs produced by GE techniques. Millions of acres of GE crops grown. And the best scare story is 20 years old and is from a unregulated supplement product.

In summary John Fagan is from a crack pot university and is biased. Therefore he is not reliable source. Ttguy (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Legal and religious status

What is the legal status of GE? Does it significantly differ from country to country? This information needs to be addressed in this article. What about possible future developments in the science; how much are governments willing to allow? Also, what are the major religions' stances on the matter - what does the Catholic Church say and what do the Hindus feel about it? What about Muslims, Protestants and Jews? This information is valuable and could be handled completely neutrally.Fledgeaaron (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the muslims or any other religion thinks about it (except for Christians obviously, people should not play god) what I think is technology is getting way to advanced for its own good. Cloning animals to kill them for food, trying to genetically recreate the mammoth, genetically altering and creating viruses. Yea thats some pretty dangerous and unnatural stuff right there. Pyrolord777 (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Essential to help future medical discoveries

If no one can find a source to the statement "but most scientists believe that genetic engineering is essential to help future medical discoveries." I suggest someone removes it since it certianly isn't obvious.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.4.217 (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this, it may possibly be true but needs a decent source before it can go back in Chillysnow (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation Suggestions

Let's start compiling a list of possible sources for citations, as lack of these appears to be an issue.

http://www.microbiologybytes.com/introduction/GeneticEngineering.html

http://www.iptv.org/exploremore/ge/

Ravewolf (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced Comments

User 96.241.18.37 added the following "facts" to the intro which I have moved here for further discussion/analysis. Perhaps someone can re-add them in the appropriate area if they have a source but they certainly had to be moved off for now. Chillysnow (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

>>FACTS: - 1. Dye in purple vitamin enhanced carrots can turn hands purple. - 2. Monkeys can have glowing gene from jellyfish for the ability to see diseases such as HIV/AIDs - 3. **Gene Flow** hurting Monarch Butterflies - 4. Genetic Engineering has been known to cause allergies. - 5. Pesticides in GM ( geneticaly modified ) foods have been harming organisms other than their original target. - - - ** Gene Flow is the flow of pesticides of the sort flowing on to weeds or other insects and making weeds grow larger and have an extended life span. It is also killing caterpillars that form into Monarch Butterflies.<<

In fiction/popular culture

Should we have a section about genetic engineering in popular culture and fiction, or is there already an article about that? Sliver Slave (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

why you think the net was born porn porn porn ! :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.6.228.169 (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

DNA modding

If i get my DNA modded then i get in stasis, is it possible to grow wings, claws and similars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.28.221.25 (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No Ttguy (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

History of Genetic Engineering in 1945 question

I'm not sure this is the appropriate article, but there does not seem to be any other more fitting.

After World War II, in the years 1945 to 1947 the U.S. took besides many factories all intellectual property that they could from Germany, all patents, the industrial processes etc. This is a quote about one of the things they took.

"Members of our agricultural staff were in time to discover some rather interesting and intriguing developments in plant science, especially about the production of higher-yielding plants by breaking up certain chromosomes through radiation. Some of this got to the United States and is widely applied in areas of grain production and horticultural research today."[5]

Is he speaking about a basic form of Genetic engineering by inducing mutation using x-rays, or could it be something more advanced? What is the method called, and is there an article about it?--Stor stark7 ^Speak 17:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This is mutation breeding - see Plant_breeding#After_World_War_II Ttguy (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Nature as the inspiration for Engineering

I see embedded within discussions on genetics a dichotomy - that between the artificial and the natural. Usually we denote the artificial as that which is not natural. Likewise, we denote the natural as that which is not artificial. That is an apparent dichotomy. However, there is a resolution to it: our putting Nature first. Even our "artificial" creations have nature; it is the tendency of everything to evolve. It is this nature we must nurture. 74.195.28.79 (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

forms of genetic engineering

I've added the title "forms" making the distinction between transgenesis and cisgenesis. Any improvements on my use of "forms"? This may seem irrelevant but the two forms are very different and the distinction needs to be made. Smartse (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Lets See Something New!

I'd like to see some information on how to manipulate genetic structures of adult life forms,

particularly human subjects. For all you true science lovers think the following:

1.Increased Life Expectancy 2.Inhanced Intelligence 3.Combat Skills 4.White Skin Pegmintation 5.Increased Hight 6.Rapid Regeneration 7.Photographic memory 8.Immunity to AIDS,Ebola,ECT.

I will check on this section in 1 year to see what any of you can give me and please DO NOT WASTE MY TIME! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.8.186.104 (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Use in science

GE is now a critical part of large areas of biology - in particular using it to transfer genes between organisms so that the function of genes can be established. There's no mention of this at the moment. Do people think it should be included? Smartse (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Bioethics and racism

Concerning the bioethical debate about genetic engineering, some have argued that it could lead to a new form of genetic racism, similar to eugenics, and that it could possibly engender new sub-categories of super-humans and sub-humans. [6] ADM (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

GE and Nuclear transplants

There used to be a bit about how egg cells from infertile women could be used as a source for a nuclear transplant into the cytoplasm of eggs from fertile women. It was claimed that this was a form of genetic engineering. However, if you read the definition of Genetic engineering in the article - "direct manipulation of an organism's genes" and "uses the techniques of molecular cloning and transformation to alter the structure and characteristics of genes directly" then nuclear transplantation does not qualify as genetic engineering.

Nulcear transplantation does not involve any direct manipulation of genes. It involves the manipulation of nuclei and cells but not genes. The "engineering" part of the term also implies that in GE there is a purpose to the process of GE. With nuclear translplantation for fertility - the fact that the result is a cell that is a chimera of three individuals DNA is not the purpose of the process but a side effect.

We also need to remember that the traits encoded in the mitochondrial genome are very boring - it only has 37 genes and they only code for parts of the cells respiratory system - see Mitochondria#Genome. So a person born from the process of nuclear transplantation for fertility treatment will not really share any traits with the cytoplasm donor. Like every one else they will share traits with the producer of the sperm cell (father) and with the producer of the egg nucleus (mother).

This is not GE. Ttguy (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Genetically modified insects

There could maybe be a stub article about genetically modified insects, given that many scientists have written about the technical possibilities that this would give to farmers. [7] [8] ADM (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

claim about GMOs having increased fittness over wild types

The claim that GMOs have higher fitness that non-GMOs is total bogus. The opposite appears to be true.

See Transgenic Crop Trial's Gene Flow Turns Weeds Into Wimps- David Adam, Nature, January 30, 2003 Nature 421, 462

Early trial results suggest that gene flow from transgenic crops puts weeds at a disadvantage. Could 'superweeds' carrying genes from genetically modified crops behave less like Superman and more like Clark Kent, his puny alter ego? The first results from a pioneering field trial in the United States suggest as much - and that the effects of gene flow from transgenic crops may be less aggressive than some environmentalists predict.

Or see this: In a 10 years study of four different crops, none of the genetically modified plants were found to be more invasive or more persistent than their conventional counterparts. Ttguy (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Advantages and disadvantages

My problem is that this section only lists the Advantages. either drop disadvantages out of the title or add some into the section.74.234.22.233 (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed this, too. Can someone either expand on the disadvantages or merge the "Opposition and criticism" section into the "Advantages and Disadvantages" section? It would seem like a logical change, as the opposition is primarily a list of possible disadvantages...I would do it, but I feel that it would need to be expanded upon, also, as having 3 or 4 paragraphs of positives, followed by 2 or 3 links that lead to negatives just sounds horribly biased. 72.25.83.43 (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Research

Here is a very interesting article about research on GM from the Scientific American http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.85.212.150 (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Advantages and disadvantages

Under the section titled "advantages and disadvantages," I don't see any disadvantages. Granted, I agree with everything written in the section, but I think we either need to add some [perceived?] disadvantages or change the title so that it reflects the content, i.e. "Advantages". 60.241.7.117 (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah sorry--I just noticed after posting that someone has already said the same thing. Not sure how to delete this post. 60.241.7.117 (talk) 08:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Signed up for an account. I would import some disadvantages and controversies from the pages linked under "Opposition and criticism," but the page is locked for edit! Mophoplz (talk) 08:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome, if you write something below I'll add it for you, you will be able to yourself once you are WP:AUTOCONFIRMED in a few days and once you've made a few edits. Smartse (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Comparison with digital revolution

I would like to point out the line "Genetic engineering makes the whole digital revolution look nothing. Digital technology changes what we do. Genetic engineering has the power to change who we are." as being rather close to bias/opinion. What the digital revolution looks like in comparison is debatable, as well as digital technology being capable of altering more than "what we do". Maybe I just don't like the way it's worded, but either way, I vote bias/opinionated on it. Come to think of it, upon reading the article critically I do feel a little bias in terms of the words "immeasurably" being used, and a general positive attitude towards genetic engineering. For the most part the article is well written, and I'm for GM of organisms anyway. It would be nice to see further improvement of this article. - [User:RandomResearcher&Browser] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.180.230 (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed that from the article as it was a copyright violation, having been copied and pasted from the reference. It didn't make much sense anyway to be honest. Feel free to work on improving the article if you can. Smartse (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

List of companies

engaged in GM would be nice. 85.76.4.237 (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

biogenetics

Hello, biogenetics redirects here but there is not any mention of this term in this article. Could you delete redirection or only mention this term and its definition? Pamputt (talk) 07:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Biogenetics seems to be used to describe anything relating to genetics within biology [9] from anthropology and evolution to genetic engineering. From this it appears to describe cloning and genetic screening as well. Maybe some more information needs to be put into the biogenetics article or it could just redirect to biotechnology instead AIRcorn (talk) 07:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

A redirect to biotechnology is probably best as it covers the whole field. Incidentally is the bio- part of biogenetics necessary? I wasn't aware that anything outside of biology had genes! Smartse (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Only link to the redirect came from Outline of biochemistry‎ and it included Biotechnology and Genetic engineering under other branches. I therefore removed biogenetics from this article. AIRcorn (talk) 09:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

See also trimming

Removed some links from the see also. AIRcorn (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Ethics of technology & Research ethics articles had multple problems and the article on Bioethics covers this already.
• Genetic pollution Human Genetic Engineering Transgenic Bacteria & transgene are now linked to in the article. I left Genetically modified food & genetically modified organism however.
• List of emerging technologies did not seem useful
• Genetic Erosion not really about genetic engineering, more appropriate for conventional farming practices

Removed some more that were included in the template. Added some info to the others. Not sure what to do about Biological engineering and Paratransgenesis. Leave as is or put in template? AIRcorn (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Citation 65 says "Genetic modification is evil and against god. New virus-built battery could power cars, electronic devices" The article is simply titled "New virus-built battery could power cars, electronic devices." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.153.143.104 (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted. Thanks for pointing it out, I've removed it. Smartse (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I have added quite a bit of information recently. Most of my knowledge concerns plants so the recent edits are a bit weighted towards that aspect. I will add more info on animals when I can (if no one else does).

I added some information on gene targeting and other site-directed genetic engineering techniques. I also modified the intro to be consistent with this new material. The new information doesn't fit into the current outline perfectly, but I'll leave any major rearrangements to the people that contributed the majority of the material since this is my first edit of this article. I'll also try to expand the somewhat stub-like "opposition and criticism" section when I find the time. ScienceGeekling (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Also:

• Genetic engineering is closely linked to and overlaps in many places with genetically modified organism. Would the article benefit from having another italicized statement at the top?

eg For information about the products of genetic engineering see genetically modified organism

Added GMO's early in lead, might not need the hatnote AIRcorn (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think the advantages and opposition and criticism sections should be removed. Advantages refers just to GM food, while there is currently no information within the opposition and criticism section. Advantages could be copy/pasted to Genetically Modified food if necessary. There is already an article titled Genetically modified food controversies and the GMO article is half controversy already. I think the broad criticisms could be dealt with in the body of the article and linked where appropriate.

AIRcorn (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• The news external links probably do not need to be there either. They only refer to a single event, many are out of date and they can be used as inline citations if appropriate. AIRcorn (talk) 08:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Not sure about the Greenpeace petition either, a link to their page on genetics would be better.

Trimmed AIRcorn (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The edits look good and I agree that the ELs could be trimmed. Looking at the advantages section, everything after what is currently reference 41 looks to be extremely theoretical - e.g "Genetic engineering can also increase the genetic diversity of species populations, especially those that are classified as being endangered" - I've never heard of this before and it seems pretty unlikely - where are the new genes going to come from? Likewise "the modification of a tree's genes could perhaps increase the root systems of these organisms reduce the damage produced by flood phenomena through flood mitigation." AFAIK the only GEd trees were poplar that were engineered to be easier to process into paper and these were uprooted by protestors. I think there definitely needs to be a mention of the potential benefits and problems of using GE - although most are related to GM foods, there are other things like the ethics of designer babies that should really be included in this article. Like you I'm more knowledgable about the plant side of things, so can't be of much use. Smartse (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The benefits and problems should be mentioned, but I think that should be in their particular section. Designer babies under the Human subsection and GM foods under Agriculture. The only problem might be where to fit in criticism of genetic engineering as a whole, but the only one I can think of at the moment is 'whether humans have the right to interfere with nature'. The opposition and criticism section has been here for over a year now and nothing has been added except see alsos and like Smartse points out the advantages section contains a lot of theory and opinion. AIRcorn (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Intellectual property arguments could also fit in the opposition and criticism section. Maybe it should stay. AIRcorn (talk) 09:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a typo

In reference #1, "The European Parliament an the council of the" should read "The European Parliament and the Council of the".

STeamTraen (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC) Nick

 Done Thanks AIRcorn (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Multilateral Agreements

Examples of multilateral Agreements —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.27.162.183 (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Isolation Section

This section is poorly written, it jumps from isolation to using a PCR. PCR is used to amplify pieces of genetic material and has very little to do with the isolation of genes. Then the final sentence jumps to inserting it into a bacterial plasmid, again this has nothing to do with isolation. This really needs to be re-written or removed. Chemicalsunshine (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC).

More even-handed treatment required

I feel that the article, while generally well-written, is mild boosterism of GMO and genetic modification/engineering. There have been some outstanding failures and that should be mentioned:

• Calgene's Flavr Savr tomatoes were withdrawn from the market for a variety of reasons, including expression of unwanted compounds not found in naturally bred tomatoes, poor flavour which was rejected by consumers, and low yields;

• The transgenic potatoe in the UK that caused a number of lethal changes in the internal organs of test rats;

• The high incidence of insertion of genes in incorrect locations by the gene gun approach which, while producing the desired protein, also produce other known or completely new proteins with known or unknown unwanted effects.

Owing to the rather loose certification procedures of the FDA, where manufacturer's test results are over-relied on, many questionable organisms have been released, for example, transgenic cotton seed expressing undesirable proteins which is used primarily for animal meal.

I am not a biologist and am not competent to edit the article itself, but I refer an editor who is competent to Marie-Monique Robin, The world according to Monsanto: pollution, politics and power (Original French title: Monde selon Monsanto), New Press, New York, 2009. A page that could almost be cut and pasted into this article exists at 'Genetically modified foods'.

Hedley (talk) 08:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, it looks like they would apply more to genetically modified food though rather than this article. Responding to your points, 1 - no it was because calgene did not have experience in selling tomatoes, they where accepted by consumers until the transgenic potato study you cite scaremongered people into thinking they weren't safe - see Flavr_Savr#Tomato_paste. The potato study discussed at Árpád_Pusztai#GM_potato_controversy is not sufficient to say that all GM food is dangerous. Lastly things have moved on a lot in from using the gene gun, and even if genes are inserted with it, breeders will only grow on specimens where they have checked that it doesn't interfere with other processes. The book you cite doesn't sound particularly neutral and I'm not going to go and buy a copy. The info in the link is probably already covered in the GM food article. The most recent scientific review in this field is this. I think it is free, but if it isn't register an email address and I can send you a copy. Smartse (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually the argument that it was because calgene did not have experience selling tomatoes is not completely invalid. I would recommend reading an account from one of the researchers who worked at calgene entitled "First Fruit" (Which the author admits her position as being pro genetic engineering). Obviously that is not the only reason but it was a component. Second with what you said about the potato study, determining something is dangerous is pretty vague and any study would be hard pressed to resolve such a question. Now if the question was more specific such as would it have undesirable environmental effects, which could also be considered dangerous, is more easily resolvable. Which is why I don't think the intention of that study was ever to determine if ALL GM food is dangerous but rather a single food. What you are doing is attempting a straw man argument, the research never made the claim you are saying it doesn't meet so of course it doesn't meet your arbitrary requirements. Organisms produced with the gene gun are actually being grown and sold so your claim is invalid because it does not matter if new technology has been developed if the older technology is still in use. For example the Papaya being grown in Hawaii that is resistant to spotted ringspot virus was produced using the gene gun. Also your claim that breeders grow crops is absurd, as breeders produce crops which seed companies sell to growers. The amount of testing required to check safety is arguable, and even under contention between geneticist. What are your credentials to make the claim that there has been enough testing? Chemicalsunshine (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC).

Updated url for Zaid, A; H.G. Hughes, E. Porceddu, F. Nicholas

Under 'Further reading', the glossary by Zaid, A; H.G. Hughes, E. Porceddu, F. Nicholas (2001) is provided. The URL for the glossary was recently changed from http://www.fao.org/biotech/index_glossary.asp and is now http://www.fao.org/biotech/biotech-glossary/en/. Also, translations of 5 other languages are now available at that site, so the text could read Available in English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, Russian, Polish, Serbian and Vietnamese.

10 October 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggggggggggbbbb (talk • contribs) 08:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 March 2012

Genetic engineering is a relatively new and expanding field of technology. Because it is so unfamiliar to many, there are a number of moral issues that arise when considering genetic engineering procedures. Different religions, mothers, scientists, a variety of political parties, and everyday people all have a wide array of views on the rights and wrongs of this technology. Genetic engineering brings up debates over individual autonomy, moral obligation, savior siblings, and pre-human versus human. The argument concerning autonomy focuses on the child being born. Some believe that the individual merely knowing the fact that they are a genetically engineered child will effect their freedom and view of themselves later on in life. Others feel there is no such thing as self-causation and that said child will not change their autonomy solely due to the fact that they’ve been genetically engineered. Moral obligation is a rather complex argument that comes about. There are people who believe that if genetic engineering will help the unborn child, improve its life in any way, then it is our responsibility as humans to help another life. Some feel it should be government regulated, others, such as liberals, believe the government should not be involved at all because it violates our freedoms. Because it is our responsibility as humans to help another human, when does one life become more important than another? What if while performing one of these genetic engineering procedures it puts the mother at risk. Who is the most vital to save, the mother or the child? When is the child considered to be a “living being?” These are the types of questions that arise when addressing pre-human versus human. One must decide whether putting another life at risk is worth saving the other life. Another issue that comes up with similar questions is savior siblings. Savior siblings are those genetically engineered with a certain blood type or genes that can be donated to their sibling. Typical this occurs in families that have a sick child, they decide to have another one that can donate blood, marrow, and organs to their sick sibling. At this point there is a concern for the safety, well being, and overall lifestyle of the savior sibling. Is it fair to them to be brought into this world solely to go to surgery after surgery to save their brother or sister? But at the same time is it right to just let the sick child die when there is something that can be done to save them? One must decide which life has more value. Though genetic engineering itself seems complex the argument surrounding it are even more. With this growing field it will be a long time, if ever, before the morality of genetic engineering is settled, how much of it is right and which parts of it are wrong. Haleshelton (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be great to include that! What's the reference? Dru of Id (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Please reactivate the request when you answer Dru of Id's question. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Opposition/Criticism Rebuttal

In the example of GM plants (herbicide resistant) spread in the wild in North Dakota, the original article notes that most GM plants were near the side of highways. The high level of GM plants found may be a sampling error, that is herbicide resistant plants will only have a selective advantage near roads where herbicides are sprayed. The study may have overestimated the incidence of GM canola in the wild by only sampling the roadside, where GM seeds can fall off trucks and may not necessarily spread in the wild. In the absence of herbicides the wild-type plants will outcompete GM varieties.

However, of course, some GMOs are harmful to the environment and should be considered on a case-by-case basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.142.69 (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment on lead

The second sentence of the article says, "[Genetic engineering] involves the introduction of foreign DNA or synthetic genes into the organism of interest." This seems overly specific - first, I think it is misleading since it implicitly excludes the removal or modifications of existing genes (while this often involves the insertion of some kind of DNA I don't think that's what most people will think of when they read that statement). Besides, removal of genes can be accomplished by protein transduction of zinc finger nucleases or similar proteins without using any DNA at all. (I'm writing this here because I'm not sure what specific changes I would make to address this.) Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Great point! addressed.Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms-related articles

The articles this discussion should concern:

• Genetically modified food controversies
• Genetically modified organism
• Genetically modified food
• Genetically modified crops
• Genetic engineering
• Genetically modified fish
• Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms

The concept of genetically modifying organisms (especially crops/food) is a fairly controversial topic, so I would imagine that the articles get a fair amount of visitors. That said, I want to point out some issues to the articles that could be fixed. I've assigned numbers to each suggestion/issue, so that they can be discussed in separate sections.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yutsi (talk • contribs)

Quick comment. I have been checking page hits

First as a reality check

the Katy Perry article avg is about 17,000 hits per day http://stats.grok.se/en/latest60/katy%20perry

More seriously the article on China has about 20,000 hits a day http://stats.grok.se/en/latest60/china

Of the articles you mention....

GM foods is highest ballpark avg 2200 http://stats.grok.se/en/latest60/genetically%20modified%20food

GM organisms avg is about 2000 http://stats.grok.se/en/latest60/genetically%20modified%20organism

genetic engineering is about 2000 as well http://stats.grok.se/en/latest60/genetic%20engineering

GM food controversies has been big of late but still avg only about 1000 hits (recent increase may be Seralini press release, California referendum.. I'd like to think it is because I have concentrated information there

http://stats.grok.se/en/latest60/genetically%20modified%20food%20controversies

GM crops is pretty small, maybe 500 average. As I note below, I don't think people actually care about agriculture.

They care about food and the contoversies. Right?

http://stats.grok.se/en/latest60/genetically%20modified%20crops

Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms is the smallest, maybe 70. I think the title of this article is terrible but have not tackled renaming it.

http://stats.grok.se/en/latest60/Regulation%20of%20the%20release%20of%20genetic%20modified%20organisms

The title name is fine. There are regulations that govern approval to work with GM organisms and regulations that set the protocols and restrictions while they are being developed and tested. This article is about the regulations governing the release of these organism into the environment. I was working on a parent article and will release it (unfinished most likely) to mainspace soon. AIRcorn (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

So.. not sure if that meets your idea of "fair number of visitors". :) Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Frankly my dear... If an article gets 10 hits a day on average IMO it earns its place in WP. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid rag. Not every word in a dictionary gets looked up every single day, and some of the most valuable entries are exactly the entries that one has difficulty finding anywhere else, sometimes because nowhere else bothers to publish them. Let's not fall into the trap of "I wish people would stop pestering us for X; we don't stock X; there is no demand for it!" As long as we can produce articles with intrinsic substance and significance and with a decent presentation of information and relevance, our only reaction to a low hit count should be to check whether it could be better presented to strike the eye of potential readers. JonRichfield (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

sarcasm my dear! I think you misunderstood my point. I have spent hours working on these pages - I want them to accurate because I believe wikipedia should always be excellent, regardless of whether the topic is "popular". You got more to my point with your last remark - and that is, how used are these pages? Relative to "popular" topics, and relevant to each other? Why is the regulation article - the one I would hope people read and learn about a lot, so rarely consulted? And my comment about "not sure if that meets you definition of fair number" - I really meant that - I have no idea what Yutsi had in mind when he said that. I like data and hard numbers so I put them out there.Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Crossed wires my dear, I suspect. The nearest I came to deliberate acerbity was in rejecting any idea that a low hit rate was a priori a basis for questioning the justification for an article's existence. Sure, if large numbers of people read important topics, that looks good and we should aim for it, but for a lot of really vital technical topics it is fashionable to raise Cain chanting meaningless slogans in the streets, but God forbid that anyone should actually take time learning what it really is all about. (GMO-hatred is not the only such topic, mind you!)

• 1. Per WP:SELFREF, self-references like "This article discusses x" should generally be avoided in the article's body, and, from a glance, these articles seem to use a lot of them.
• 2. The Further reading and External links sections could be sorted better. For example, they could be divided into subsections of Pro-, Anti-, and Neutral, or divided by the format of the publication (Web, book, journal, etc.).
• 3. There seems to be a significant amount of overlap in the articles. For instance, Genetically modified food seems to be mentioned a lot, especially when controversy is mentioned (e.g. in the last paragraph of Genetically modified organism's lead).
• 4. Genetically modified fish should be moved to Genetically modified animal, since transgenic animals do exist.
• 5. Since most of Genetically modified food concerns Genetically modified crops, we should merge the former into the latter, and merge any material in the former about animals into Genetically modified fish / Genetically modified animal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yutsi (talk • contribs)

Issue 1

hi read this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purebuzzin (talk • contribs) 11:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional note. I just read the WP:SELFREF and I don't agree that anything here violates it. It is 100% OK to say "this article refers to X" What is not OK, is to write, "This Wikipedia article refers to X". That does not occur. The policy also teaches away from self-references that would not work in other media, for instance, in print. None of the instances do that either. So I disagree that anything violates WP:SELFREF. Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for raising these issues. I have done a lot of work on this suite of articles over the past few months. When I came upon them, they were a real mess. By "mess" I mean things like:
  

(i) the same matter was discussed across all these pages. At great length, sometimes verbatim but often one stretching out randomly in X direction and another in Y direction. Most of the overlapping material concerned the controversy - namely, people emphasizing studies, especially from the Seralini group, that endeavored to show that GM food is very risky and regulators as not being strict enough.

(ii) the same study would be cited three or more times in a given article, described differently and with the reference formatted differently, making it appear that there were many more studies than there actually were.

(iii) there was not a lot of actual content. For instance there was really nothing about how farmers use GM crops or why they matter to farmers. But farmers are the ones actually buying the GM seed and using them. And the GM food article, remarkably, said almost nothing about what food you find in the store is GM. Again, remarkable.

I think that the articles were messy for three reasons:

a) fact: there is a set of people, anti-GM people, who are emotional about these issues. They are worried and angry and want other people to be motivated to help change the current system. (I still don't know much about the demographics or size of that group. Something on my "to-research" list)

b) fact: There are a few "segments" of material, each of which is fairly complex in and of itself, that read on each other, again in complex ways. The 'segments' can be divided up as the articles are -- the underlying science (genetic engineering article); broad examples of application of genetic enginering (GMO article); agriculture (GM Crops); what you actually might eat (GM Food), regulation of GMOs and food (regulation), and the whole controversy (which touches on all those and more).

c) judgement by me: a lot of the people (not all!) who are the most emotional, and most motivated to edit wikipedia, especially in what I call 'drive by" editing (don't have a logon but edit from an IP address, one or two times maybe) are also (gulp) ignorant about a lot of the complex matter. I don't mean "ignorant" pejoratively, just that they don't know stuff and I don't think they care to know. (see iii above) There is also a lot of half truth "information" about these matters that is passed around in that community. For example, much online discussion of Monsanto vs Schmeiser is wrong - and was wrong in several places in Wikipedia.

Therefore, when I cleaned these articles up by separating matter, getting NPOV sources, editing POV text to make it NPOV, etc, I tried to also signal very very explicitly to readers and editors what they could expect to find in a given article. This is to try to help prevent readers from expecting to find -- or wanting to add -- something about environmental damage from GM Crops in the article on GM Foods. The way things are configured now, nothing about environmental pros or cons of GM crops belongs in the GM food article, because that article is about actual GM food - the stuff you eat. What is GM food, exactly? That is what you should have learned after reading the GM article. And you should know that there are articles on other, complicated matters, that you need to read as well if you want to understand the whole picture.

I realize that this explicit guiding language is not normal wiki style. But because of the above, I think is essential to retain these explicit guideposts. Otherwise the articles will moosh back together again.

Two regular wiki editors, arc de ciel, and aircorn, have also raised concerns about this as well -- see User_talk:Jytdog#CommentJytdog (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• As I stated at Jytdogs talk page, I would prefer hatnotes to refer to different articles on similar topics. AIRcorn (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Another user, Semitransgenic has objected to this paragraph - deleting it and noting "remove editorial remarks, use dablinks at the top of the page to tell readers of other relevant content". Happy to see a proposed example!Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't support this kind of in-article editorialising, dablinks (hatnotes), or an infobox would be a better method, the tone of the lead in general needs addressing. Semitransgenic _talk. 15:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not editorializing in the sense of giving an opinion. If you want to provide sample hatnotes I would be very interested to see them! What do you mean by "tone"?Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

starting a paragraph with words like "nonetheless" etc. veers towards MOS:OPED. Lead prose should ideally be pragmatic, just provide an accurate summary of the key/notable content found in the main body of text. Semitransgenic _talk. 16:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If nothing else could we get an answer to this issue. The paragraphs that this concerns are these ones. AIRcorn (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am OK with how this was handled at Genetically modified food controversies if you want to implement, aircornJytdog (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. It is not looking like this is going to be closed soon. AIRcorn (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Issue 2

• To the extent that these sections remain, I agree that they could be sorted that way - it would be better. In general I have tried to eliminate these sections, slowly, making sure that the matter is incorporated into the suite of articles. I understand that this is best under the MOS.Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• The external links sections should be trimmed to just websites that contain an overview of the whole topic (i.e a website about GM mice should be on the GM mouse page, but is not needed on the GM organism one) but are not suitable for inclusion in the page itself (i.e a large list of GM crops like here. The less the better in my opinion and would be more than happy to see them trimmed. I however do not think that they should be separated based on their alignment. AIRcorn (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Issue 3

• I don't really understand this point. Perhaps you could explain better. My POV: People's concerns about GM food are what drove the mess and what drives a lot of the ongoing editing. I have done my best to carefully sort things out. In my mind, GM food per se (what is it?) should be handled in the GM food article, and controversy around it (and many other surrounding issues), in the controversy article. Regulation of it and GMOs that produce it, in the regulation article. Crops that produce it (and other things) in the GM crops article. GMOs in general, and genetic engineering in general, in those articles. These topics are inter-related, for sure. They need to mention and reference each other. But the topics are separable. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Some overlap is inevitable, but it should be reduced as much as is practicably possible. I don't particularly like controversy sections in articles and would rather see the issues mentioned in the appropriate section. Although I concede that this might be hard to maintain in these articles. What should happen if we have a controversy article is that the GM food should have a controversies section linked with a main template to the controversies article. It should include a couple of paragraphs outlining or summarising the main points associated with food. The GM crops should have the same except its paragraphs should focus more on crops and so on. AIRcorn (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The hard thing about your proposal, aircorn, is that opponents of GM food very rarely have a single focus and it is very hard to sort out the "heart" of many objections. Many seem to care most about industrial agriculture (many angles on this... so-called "corporate control of the food supply", messing with "nature", chemical use, etc. Others really seem to care about riskiness of the food they eat. Others seem more focused on corruption of regulatory agencies. And all those issues very much overlap and feed into each other. And there are problems that touch on everything. The key issue can be broadly captured under the rubric of gene flow/contamination. People worry about gene flow from GM crops to other crops and to weeds (environmental concerns and food-safety concerns, especially with pharming crops, and economic concerns for organic farmers); people worry about harvested crops being mixed (a la starlink); people worry about litigation from gene flow or contamination (mostly based on misunderstandings of Monsanto v Schmeiser). So I ended up with one big honking controversies article. Happy to hear thoughts about how to rationally separate!!13:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Answered below AIRcorn (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Issue 4

• No objection! Except that no article exists on genetically modified animals. Your link above points to an external links section in the GMO article.. strange. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• I would not move that article, if any should be move it is Genetically modified mammals with fish, insects, etc added as sub sections. AIRcorn (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• All this points, to me, to one article one main article on GMOs with subarticles to the various ... biological kingdoms maybe?? Jytdog (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Issue 5

• I disagree very strongly. People care about what they eat -- what goes into their bodies. GM Foods needs its own article. GM Crops are agriculture -- most of the information you need to know in order to understand them, has nothing to do with food. Much of the material now in the GM crops article was originally in the GM foods article and I pulled it out and put into the GM crops article, and then expanded it. It still needs more expansion in some sections as noted in the article. Farmers don't buy GM seed, thinking about food. They buy them because they make sense to farmers as businessmen. The companies don't make GM seed, thinking about food. They make them so that their customers --farmers -- will buy them. It's agribusiness. It's not about food. (I am not saying that is a good or bad thing -- no moral judgement - it is just the way the world is). It is absolutely true that the companies have to satisfy regulators in order to do business, because some (but not even most) of the product directly becomes food and so it must be safe enough to eat. Most of the product goes to feed livestock and poultry (which then become food). Much of the product is used industrially and never becomes food (cotton, corn for biofuel, potatoes for starch used industrially. etc). It is true that some GM crops used directly as food have failed because farmers' customers didn't want to buy it as food (the New Leaf potato failed because farmers' target customer, McDonald's, didn't want GM potatoes for french fries, even though they satisfied Americans' desire for perfect-looking, unblemished food). But GM crops is its own topic. Look how long that article is already! And the GM foods article also requires expansion itself.. not even close to describing all the food you find in the store that is GM.Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Keep them separate. Not all crops are food (cotton is one of the most common GM crops and it is a stretch to label it food, plus you have Amflora and biofuels that are being developed) and with the development of the GM salmon soon not all food are not going to be crops. It still needs some work separating the two, but the crop/food split is a good one at my mind. I would bring back the GM plant article at some stage too, and make it a parent one of the crop one for much the same reasons, there are some important GM plants used in research that are not and never will be grown as crops. AIRcorn (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no quarrel with most of your points and the proposed separations of topics seem reasonable to me, but I am mildly puzzled as to why you exclude cotton from food plants as a topic. I don't eat much fabric or cotton wool myself, any more than I can help anyway, but I have eaten a lot of foods prepared or canned in cottonseed oil and have probably eaten more products of cottonseed cake than I know about directly, and a good deal more meat from animals that have eaten large quantities of cottonseed cake. Once you remove the gossypol, either artificially, or genetically, cotton is quite an important food plant. And beware what you say about hemp and poppies too! Just an obiter dictum... JonRichfield (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Not too familiar with cottonseed oil, although I knew it existed. I mostly think of cotton as the fibre. Cotton would probably have to be mentioned in both articles, along with maize and the other food crops. Am working on organising a kind of heirachy now, so hopefully we can get the split better organised. There needs to be a Genetically modified cotton article created, plus one for tobacco, Arabidopsis and other important plants. AIRcorn (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Right. That is the sort of thing I had in mind in my comment below when I spoke of "adjusting or even radically changing the suite of articles in the light of matters emerging..." JonRichfield (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks John! I am very aware that cotton is used to make cottonseed oil -- in fact I have been trying to get the Andrew Weil website to change its stupid page on cottonseed oil which is not accurate. http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/QAA400361/Is-Cottonseed-Oil-Okay.html See the Cottonseed_oil#Concerns_about_fats_and_toxicity that I edited to make accurate. And I do list cottonseed oil in the Genetically modified food article. In my comments above, I was not trying to exclude the use of cottonseed oil as food; I was just making the point that the cotton from GM cotton plants -- along with many other products of GM crops -- are not used for food. Sorry to have created a misunderstanding. Jytdog (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No problemo. All such misunderstandings should only be so easily fixable ;-) JonRichfield (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: To forestall almost inevitable accusations of POV, if not actual corruption by evil multinationals, I have no material, contractual, or commercial interest in any form of GM that I know about. Idealistically and intellectually I am deeply interested in the matter and deeply alarmed and disgusted at such examples as I have seen so far of, for example, large scale plantings of crops with genes for defensive production of single substances for pest control; such abuses rank with the early days of misapplication of antibiotics, both in human medicine and in agricultural and veterinary practice.

Interesting comment! I like the comparison with antibiotics. GM seed with stacked traits are now 25% of the market and growing steadily (http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/43/executivesummary/default.asp), so things are snapping into a line of intelligent use quickly....Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was not aware of that trend. It is encouraging, though of course it is just a hint at the depth of responsibility that we bear when tinkering with such powerful tools. If we are not careful we shall simply turn a vital biotechnological opportunity into an exercise in the fostering of super-pests. JonRichfield (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

That said however, I regard GM as a field on a par with computing, the control of fire, printing, and the development of modern science in terms of historical importance for the future. There is no way that we could rationally justify ignoring or sidelining it. The question of how to present it, including how to split the topics into manageable articles is what matters, as already indicated in several of the contributions to this RFC. I have no particular quarrel with the proposed titles as presented, as long as each is coherently written and adequately cross-linked to the others. Questions such as what readers care about putting into their bodies are far less important than questions concerning the clarity and perspective of each article. Since the articles are in inevitably not independent, there must necessarily be some overlap, but this is hardly a new problem and requires no new techniques in dealing with it. Concise cross-reference plus clear reference to the main article for each topic is naturally important, but hardly challenging.

As I said, I have no quarrel with the proposed split, but I also would have no problems with adjusting or even radically changing the suite of articles in the light of matters emerging during their authorship and editing. JonRichfield (talk) 09:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Principles in using subarticles

Hi

IMO, any time we have subarticles, there should be a standard, brief paragraph in the "head" article (ideally taken from the lede of the subarticle and edited for concision if necessary) and a link to "main", and then keep an eye on those standard paragraphs for changes so that they stay short and plain. Ideally, no statistics would be in those standard paragraphs, otherwise when new data emerges we have to go back and update the data in many places which will inevitably lead to missing things and the overall suite falling out of sync within itself and with reality. I feel that we should try hard to avoid having long sections in different articles that cover the same matter. This was the state in which I found articles within this suite several months ago and most of my work has been consolidating overlapping material into clear, NPOV, well sourced discussions. Having a suite of articles covering various aspects of complex matter is indeed common in WIkipedia, but it is also commonly handed badly IMO. For instance in the suite of evolution articles, the main evolution article has a history section that is very long (7 paragraphs that fill my screen)... and there is an entire much longer subarticle on the history (about 10x longer). I glanced over the two texts and they don't tell the same story or even use the same refs.... this is not a happy thing for an encyclopedia and we should avoid doing this. This is for me a very important principle and I hope we can discuss it. Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Organisation and consistency is the bane of Wikipedia. This seems reasonable though. AIRcorn (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

sorry you have thrown me off.. do you mean lack of organization and consistency are the bane (i.e. a source of harm) or do you mean that pursuing them is a bad thing? sorry, i don't know you that well and this was confusing...Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It was meant slightly tongue-in-cheek. Due to its nature Wikipedia tends toward inconsistent disorganisation (anyone can edit after all). It is amazing that it works as well as it does. Providing order is an admirable thing, and I will help out as much as possible, but at the end of the day you are going against the natural inertia of the project and no matter what you do, if you want to keep it organised it is going to take constant watching. AIRcorn (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I totally hear you on that. :) I intend to watch for a long time. But I also want to structure things as much as possible, with explicit markers "This goes here, that goes there" - to help keep things in line.Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see you getting consensus for the self references (issue 1 here). I would suggest using the hidden text function. Simply type<!-- Add appropriate comment here -->. It will only be seen by editors when the click the edit button. See this for how it might work. AIRcorn (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

(starting tabs over) Hi Aircorn... so far nobody has gone to the mat on the the self references. With respect to the objection raised in Issue 1, I wrote above, that if you read Wiki's self-reference policy, it is clear that these texts do not violate that policy. Nobody has responded to that so I assume nobody disagrees. My sense is that you and arc de ciel have objected on more stylistic grounds... but neither of you has gone to the mat on this. Is this indeed important to you?

But let's go back to the subject matter of this section. I have been trying to lay down a principle that sections for which we have big subarticles should just be very brief stubs - 1 paragraph taken from the lede of the subarticle, so that we don't end up with long, weedy descriptions of a given issue in different articles that extensively overlap with each other and with the main subarticle... which leads to inconsistencies and disorganization that you have described as a bane of wikipedia (and I heartily agree!). I thought we had kind of agreed on this... but you just recently expanded one of these stub sections with a bunch of material copied from a subarticle. So what gives? How shall we do this? I have been tempted to go into some of the articles you have created and apply this "stub principle" (for instance you have a section on "regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms" in your "regulation of genetic engineering" article that is my mind is waaaay too long and should be just a stub, as we have a whole article on "regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms") but i have held back from stubifying that section until (and only if) we reach consensus here.Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

No one needs to got to the mat. We have consensus so far (me, Arc and Yutsi against you so far) not to use them. Is it important to me? No other things are more important at the moment, but one day I would like to get the articles up to Good standard and that is not going to happen with those instruction paragraphs in the lead.

I think we slightly misunderstood each other above. I agree that there should only be short summaries in the head articles, but we have a disagreement over what is short. I think that there needs to be enough information in the parent article that the reader will get a good overview of each topic, they should not be obliged to go to another article to find this. They should only have to go there if they want to find more details. Basically each article should stand on its own and stubby sections are not going to allow that. Three to four paragraphs covering the regulation and controversies should be enough, but anything less and the article is going to be incomplete. AIRcorn (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for talking! OK, on the guide paragraphs.. both Yutsi and Arc based their objection on their understanding of wiki policy, and as mentioned, I don't see how these run afoul of the self-reference policy. You seem to be basing your objection on that too, when you say that an article with these paragraphs, will never be Good. But what is the basis for that? Please explain...

Thank for zeroing in on the "stub" issue. I really appreciate it. So to you the key principle is that the article should stand on its own with respect to providing a good overview and that a compact stub is not enough. I had thought that the stub does provide an overview, but what I am hearing is that this is too high level for you -- it is not a "good" overview. So you want more of the story in all the articles. Whew that is all a tall order for complex matter like this. It helps me understand why you want longer "stubs." OK I need to think about this a bit! I will write again in a couple of days, this requires thinking and if I come into alignmnent with you, some major resetting for me. Thanks again.Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The Good articles have a set of simple criteria that they have to meet in order to gain that status. IMO they are a great base that every article should aspire to. One of those criteria is compliance with WP:Lead, which I don't think the navigational paragraphs meet. Another one is broadness, which is why I think we need more than one paragraph stubs in important sections. AIRcorn (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really watching the articles right now, but I just wanted to confirm that the objections I raised were indeed answered. It doesn't "feel good" from my own style perspective, but I don't know of any style guideline that rules it out. Also, I think that the general organization Jytdog has put in place is a good one; as he said, my concerns were only about the way they were disambiguated. It seems that people adding the same citations repeatedly is common in this group of articles, and this organization would probably help a lot. Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Overall structure

Let's have a focused discussion on overall structure. This is part of the topic mentioned above but only part. Let's map it out. It would be really great to do this with some kind of software that allowed us to draw things, but I am ignorant of how to do that. So I will take a shot at this using words alone.

Here is my perspective

• genetic engineering (head article; should describe history and techniques and a high level overview of uses)´
• GMOs - this should work be organized by the biological taxonomy of the kinds of organisms that have been modified and briefly state the purpose of the modification --> subarticles on various GMOs
• GM crops - describes the agriculture and agribusiness of GM crops. Not about food, about crops. --> subarticles on various crops (many will be same subarticles of GMOs above)
• GM foods - describes what foods we eat are GM. Not about agriculture, about food. This is by far the most trafficked article in the suite (fact), because people care about what they eat (opinion).
• regulation - should be a brief, standard, subsection of each of the articles above, and describe the general principles of regulation, and provide an overview of each countries' current regs (right now lacks international agreements like Cartagena Protocol - needs to be added) --> subarticles on each country's history of regulations and international agreements
• controversy - should be a brief, standard subsection of each of the articles above, and describe all the aspects of controversies around GM crops and GM food --> subarticles? I struggle with this. Part of my goal here is to give the full controversy full voice in one place, so that it is not inserted into every article on every genetic engineering topic, and gets clear, NPOV discussion someplace where everybody can find it.

All this done with the principle of subarticles mentioned above...Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much everything here. Although I would think you would have to cross reference food in the crops article and crops in the food one. As far as the controversies go I would have a section solely on the health concerns in GM food and one solely on the environmental concerns in the crops one. Then I would have a section over-viewing the other concerns. I think the length of the controversy section should depend on the article. GE, food, crops, plants, animal, organisms should probably get their own section with a good overview of the issues relevant to each topic and a {{main}} to the controversies article. The sub-sub articles can probably just get away with a link provided in an appropriate section (e.g. in Bt brinjal it says in the first sentence of controversies "There are many controversies surrounding the development and release of genetically modified foods, ranging from human safety and environmental impacts to ethical concerns such as corporate control of the food supply and intellectual property rights" in the lead of the controversies section). The rest of the section just details the issues with the titles topic and does not dwell on the overall controversies. For the controversies article itself I would keep the public perception as the first header, then have health concerns, environmental concerns, regulatory concerns (including labeling), religious concerns and Intellectual Property concerns (including corporate control). Most should fit into one of these broad categories. It may become necessary to split health and environment to separate articles to reduce the size. AIRcorn (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You would have a pretty long section on controversies in (for example) the food article - in that one, focused on health. Then, again in the main controversies article, you would have another fairly long section on health (which is all about food)?Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by pretty/fairly long. I was thinking two to three, possibly four paragraphs (maybe a bit more in the controversies article). The health section in the GM controversies is well beyond fairly long already, especially if you add in Pusztai and Serilini. For example the GM food could be presented like:

• History
  • [main to GM History]
• Process
  • [main to GM Techniques]
• Plant based
  • [main to GM Crops][see also to GM crops]
• Animal based
  • [see also to GM animals]
• Regulation
  • [main to GM Regulation]
• Detection
• Health concerns
  • [main to GM health concerns (if split from controversies)]
• Other concerns
  • [main to GM controversies]

I like the smallification of text!! didn't know one could do that. Funny that you have "animal based" - there is no GM food from animals (yet). but in theory i see what you mean. But i disagree really really strongly that "GM crops" is main for plant-based GM food. GM crops is about agriculture. its not about food. why do you think gm crops is about food? more to say but that stopped me - one thing at a time!Jytdog (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Should have been see also like the animal one. AIRcorn (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me acceptable.Fox1942 (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Long term Roundup herbicide or Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize extremely toxic & carcinogenic PMID 22999595

Séralini GE, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, Hennequin D, de Vendômois JS.

PMID 22999595

Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize.

Food Chem Toxicol. 2012 Nov;50(11):4221-31.

doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005.

Epub 2012 Sep 19.

Abstract

The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1ppb in water), were studied 2years in rats. In females, all treated groups died 2-3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls, the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5-5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3-2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600days earlier. Biochemistry data confirmed very significant kidney chronic deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered parameters were kidney related. These results can be explained by the non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, but also by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences.

PMID 22999595 [PubMed - in process]

Full Free Text:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637

http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf

--Ocdnctx (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Main discussion at [[Talk:Genetically modified food controversies#Long term Roundup herbicide or Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize extremely toxic & carcinogenic PMID 22999595]] AIRcorn (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

improper sentence

The sentence, "He was later successful at created a recombinant ice-minus strain." should either be: He was later successful at creating a recombinant ice-minus strain. or: Later, he successfully created a recombinant ice-minus strain.

Thank you for considering my request.

--Dee Archer (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done thanks for spotting this. AIRcorn (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Regulation + Controversy Sections???

I know there are people who rage at the mention of GMO or anything genetic. I accept that but I don't think we need to pander to them. Yes there are regulation, controversy and potential problems with Genetic Modification. There are also a lot of rules and regulations on swimming pools and other things associated with water. Yet there is no regulation or controversy section on the wiki page on water. Any topic could be associated with controversy and or regulations.

The 2 paragraphs that currently exist do not provide the user with any real information, nor are they relevant to the general discussion of Genetic Engineering. There is a "see also" section of this article, we should use it to link any possibly related articles including articles about Regulation and controversy. So I suggest deleting the last 2 sections on regulation and controversy.. Mantion (talk) 07:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

External links

Removed these ELs as being out of date. Put here in case anyone wants to use them as inline citations AIRcorn (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Genetically altered babies born, BBC News, Friday, 4 May 2001
• DEFRA - Genetic Modification (GM)
• BBC News - GM potato trials given go-ahead - 01/12/06
• Sustainable agriculure

Hi, I want to see a link to current issues with GM or a summery.

http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2504 Monsanto genetically modified corn harvest fails massively in South Africa

http://current.com/shows/upstream/91945333_monsantos-genetically-modified-corn-causes-organ-failure-in-rats.htm

www.naturalnews.com/028388_GM_crops_kidney_damage.html

http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/04/16/6524765.html The researchers discovered that animals that eat GM foodstuffs lose their ability to reproduce.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/05/pests-bite-back-at-genetically.html

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/genetically-engineered-cotton/ Monsanto's genetically engineered (GE) cotton varieties sold to Colombian farmer failed in 2008-9,

www.naturalnews.com/027058_crops_food_GMO.html A 43-page study released by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) reveals that since the inception of genetically modified (GM or GMO) crops, no significant increases in crop yields can be attributed to them.

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/WhoBenefitsPR2_13_08.cfm GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) CROPS INCREASE PESTICIDE USE AND FAIL TO ALLEVIATE POVERTY, REVEALS NEW REPORT

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/2142.htm In the experiment that went wrong, an engineered mousepox virus acquired the capacity to damage the immune system and killed all the mice involved.

I want to see a balanced wikipedia. I think this deserves it's on wikipedia page with links from other pages on GM foods and animals. My bias is even if it was totally safe it would take the control of our food supply out of the hands of farmers and put it in the hands of corporations who's main concern is to make money, not our health and well being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.42.88 (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi 96.49.42.88: I'm sorry no one responded to your request. I think this is a good idea? Do we all agree to add all of these articles to the page? David Tornheim (talk) 08:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Most sources on that list are not considered reliable at all (e.g., Natural News). It's been over 4 years since this post, so there hasn't been any agreement or consensus to add them. Kingofaces43 (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Many of the edits here are done on GMO articles are done without obtaining consensus first. Without objection, it is assumed that there are no problems. The question now is: Is there any objection to adding this material? You said Nature News is unreliable. You made some vague statement about the others--that's not very helpful. I plan to add all of the others unless for some reason there are some legitimate objections to so doing. David Tornheim (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

If you do many of them will likely be reverted. Please read WP:EL and in particular Wikipedia:External_links#Avoid_undue_weight_on_particular_points_of_view. Please also note the topic of this article. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)