Talk:Genetic engineering
|
|
If everyone agrees, I think I'll remove the NPOV boilerplate now. Thunderbolt16 00:29, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)
Archived discussion
biased article indeed... -Anthere
- This article should be deleted. It's so biased it pretty much can't be salvaged in its current form. Might as well start from scratch. Graft
- Delete ? No way... 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
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
Are there any positive aspects to genetic engineering
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.
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 this. -- 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 is 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)
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)