Talk:Genetic engineering

Genetic engineering has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: November 17, 2017. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Genetic engineering article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 30 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Molecular Biology: Genetics / MCB Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as High-importance).

Chemical and Bio Engineering (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Chemical and Bio EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Chemical and Bio EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject Chemical and Bio EngineeringChemical and Bio Engineering

Engineering High‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Invention Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Invention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Invention on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InventionWikipedia:WikiProject InventionTemplate:WikiProject InventionInvention
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and drink High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Transhumanism High‑importance

Genetic engineering' is part of WikiProject Transhumanism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide Transhumanism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.TranshumanismWikipedia:WikiProject TranshumanismTemplate:WikiProject TranshumanismTranshumanism

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

For more information and how you can help click Show:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.

Quick help:

See changes to:

To Do List:

edit - history - watch - purge

Join WikiProject transhumanism and be bold

Show off a userbox with {{userWPA}} or {{userWPA2}} and attract potential members
Help with articles.
See this month's adopt an article.
Help out with the To-do lists

Be consistent

Use a "standard" layout for transhumanism related articles (see: The perfect article, and Featured articles)
Add Transhumanism navigation template on the bottom of all transhumanism articles; (use {{Transhumanism}} or see navigation template)
Add Transhumanism info box to all transhumanism related talk pages (use {{Wpa}} or see info box)
Add [[Category:transhumanism]] to the bottom of all transhumanism related articles, so it shows up on the list of transhumanism articles

Maintenance / Etc

Find/cite sources for all positions of an article (see citing sources.
Try to expand stubs, however, some "new" articles may be neologisms, as this is common with positions on theories on life and may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process)
Watch the list of transhumanism related articles and add to accordingly (see transhumanism articles)
And always write for an encyclopedia.

Create

Notable transhumanist articles

Shorten / merge into others

Expand

a transhumanism stub

Your immediate attention

false choice into false dilemma - discuss whether you are for or against this merge here
Clarify references in Transhumanism, using footnotes.

Science Policy High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Natural GMO's

Can't we mention that genetic modification isn't just man-made, but also occurs in nature. New research suggests this: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/04/14/1419685112 Genetics4good (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would fit better at another article. This is supposed to be an overview and I am not sure that is generic enough for inclusion here. I am also not sure it fits in with our description of Generic Engineering. Natural genetic engineering commonly occurs with bacteria, but this more focuses on the human directed manipulation of genes. Saying that feel free to be bold and try to fit it in if you wish, it may well work in this article if given correct weight and context. AIRcorn (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They classify sweet potato as "naturally transgenic" but I don't think anyone has called it genetic engineering - engineering implies that it is not naturally occurring. Agrobacterium_tumefaciens and sweet potato are better places to discuss it. It's already at Sweet_potato#Transgenicity but not in the agrobac article. SmartSE (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned it at Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Public_perception instead

Genetics4good (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look a little bit closer, see, roses really smell like: NPOV (4U)

Hello about 1/10th of this article discusses the negatives of genetic engineering, and it has been placed right at the bottom of the article. Perhaps it'd be good to allow other people to submit information without the censorship? Cherry picking what edits are approved just because you disagree with the content could really be seen as a little bit fascist (on a good day). Either way, feel free to bury your heads in the sand and hide people's minds from the realities of the big bad world ... because either way, it ain't gonna save you! :) 86.183.211.16 (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No censorship is happening here. Anyone is free to contribute to this article provided the contribution complies with Wikipedia's core rules, notable among which are adherence to a neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability.Plantsurfer 12:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship doesn't make people fascist. Many ideologies favour censorship. Dennivich (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu and Nana

I have not had time to investigate this closely, but this is coming from the general press and it seems to lack convincing verification. Should this be mentioned in the article at this stage or should we wait for better verification it has occurred? If it is suitable for mentioning how should it be worded and should it be mentioned in the lead? Any other question/comments welcome. @Drbogdan: who added the current version. AIRcorn (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: Thank you for your comments - the news item seems worthy - perhaps even without current verification, since there seems to be so much international press attention, based on WP:RS (including "MIT Technology Review"^[1] and "Nature (journal)"^[2]), at the moment - if interested, a discussion on the news claim, re "In The News" (ITN) on Wikipedia, is currently underway at the following link => http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Lulu_and_Nana - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Regalado, Antonio (25 November 2018). "Exclusive: Chinese scientists are creating CRISPR babies - A daring effort is under way to create the first children whose DNA has been tailored using gene editing". MIT Technology Review. Archived from the original on 27 November 2018. Retrieved 28 November 2018. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
^ Cyranoski, David (27 November 2018). "How the genome-edited babies revelation will affect research - Some scientists worry the startling claim will lead to knee-jerk regulations and damage the public's trust in gene editing". Nature. Archived from the original on 27 November 2018. Retrieved 28 November 2018. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I agree that it is notable enough to mention if it has occurred. I just worry that we are jumping the gun a bit here. It is also supposed to be an overview article so we have to be careful about recentism and weight. I am not necessarily opposed to mentioning it at the moment, although I am not a fan of the Wikipedia:Citation overkill or mention in the lead yet. AIRcorn (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been concerned about WP:RECENTISM too just picking up on this. I'm still catching up on things, but my first impression is that I'd leave it out of the lead too while leaving the content in the body at most. I have a bit more preference for leaving things out entirely for now at this article until there's more verification (unless I missed something), but I'm not super picky on the latter option either since it's just a single line. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the fact we aren't sure whether the claim is real or not yet affects how we should cover it here. If it's true then in time the will be better sources and it would probably be worthy of mentioning in the lead. For now though, I think it belongs in Genetic_engineering#Medicine after "moratorium on inheritable human genome edits" and yes - no need for numerous refs - MIT and BBC would be fine. SmartSE (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the feedback here I removed it from the lead, moved it down to the medicine section and trimmed the cites with this edit. AIRcorn (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Insert/delete/edit

I'm not seeing consistent handling of the relationship among "genetic engineering", "base editing", "prime editing", etc. Is the genetic engineering limited to inserting trans genes into target organisms, or does it include making modifications (delete/edit) to genomes that do not involve trans genes? I have no opinion, except that we need to agree. Lfstevens (talk) 03:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Been a couple of years since I edited here, but at the time the US said no and the EU said yes. From a wikipedia POV I think it makes sense to include them (which we currently do as they are mentioned in the two overview articles and in the nav box). This is mainly because when it comes to debate about the process they are almost always included and it would be hard to write about it without at least covering it. Aircorn (talk) 06:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[MIT-20181125-1] Regalado, Antonio (25 November 2018). "Exclusive: Chinese scientists are creating CRISPR babies - A daring effort is under way to create the first children whose DNA has been tailored using gene editing". MIT Technology Review. Archived from the original on 27 November 2018. Retrieved 28 November 2018. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

[NAT-20181127-2] Cyranoski, David (27 November 2018). "How the genome-edited babies revelation will affect research - Some scientists worry the startling claim will lead to knee-jerk regulations and damage the public's trust in gene editing". Nature. Archived from the original on 27 November 2018. Retrieved 28 November 2018. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

[1]

[2]