Talk:Biotechnology/Archive 1

Archive 1

Current Research Removed

I removed the section "Current Research". I thought it was bias because it only cited and outlined one paper that was published very recently (2008). Should this be added back in? I did not feel the content was a valuable addition to this article. 129.173.234.251 (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Bit Short

When I was going to this article I was expecting a detailed article that would include Pros and Cons. Please put a short "critism" section like most articles have. A lot of people write research papers based off wikipedia (including me) and wikipedia is usually my primary source. Aceofspades 03:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia could not be a primary source by definition of 'primary source' and by the rules of Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.99.140 (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Jordan Beth

Based on a quick scan on this article, it seems to be missing pieces related to proteomics and research related to it. Since proteomics is becoming a key portion of biotechnology, I feel that it is wrong for this field to be left out. (Psychro 05:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

Way too many links

There are way too many external links on this page. A lot of these are not even that relevant. Will somebody please remove some of them???

I've added a clean up spam template in the external links section, it will be screened and trimmed soon. --Victor D ^PARLE 10:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Victor D ^PARLE 15:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Bread & Alcohol

When was brewing of alcohol invented? How did archiologists decide bread was made 5000 years ago? From fossilized bread?

I don't know about the "first brewing", but as alcohol occurs naturally (just leave some fruits in the open on a warm day; monkeys do that and get drunk), I'm not sure it would apply anyway.

The bread was probably detected by residues on some tools, and on bad teeth in fossilized skulls... I'm not sure, but somewhere I have a (German) book titled "5000 years of bread", and they probably didn't write it without some evidence. I'll look it up and remove it if it's wrong. --Magnus Manske

The reason I posted the original question was that I believe early civilization had better chance to discover alcohol making earlier than making bread. Mainly because things turn to alcohol naturally as you have pointed out, even the monkey got drunk. But making bread seemed to me required some deliberate efforts. Hence I doubt that bread making was the first application of Biotechnology when brewing seems to be a likely candidate. For one thing, bread making could not predate cooking, however, making alcohol could easily done eons before the using of fire.

I'm sure making alcohol predates bread, I'm just not sure it is the first example of "biotechnology". As you said, there is (almost) no "deliberate effort" if making alcohol by just standing there and waiting for it to happen. It seems to me it's the same as waiting for fruits to grow instead of just eating the tree. Of course, I could be wrong;) --Magnus Manske

I disagree on this point. Discovering alcohol in spoiled fruit is accidental, but collecting fruits and place them in containers and wait for them to turn into alcohol is considered brewing and in fact a deliverate effort. And of course other technologies in brewry such as distillation came much later. Planting the trees for fruits is called agriculture, it is an application of knowledge, though not nessarily technology. Along the same argument, making bread is not technology either. So you either rule out both alcohol and bread or you put alcohol first. In either case, saying bread is the first example is inappropriate.

Alcohol production became biotechnology when people realized it was a biological process, rather than a self-occuring event. In other words, when they started actively using yeast in brewing, it became biotechnology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.99.140 (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Defining biotech

The current definition excludes much of what we call the biotechnology industry. The gene chip, for example, is not a directed use of organisms by humans for production, but the use of technology to study DNA; however, gene chips and companies like Affymetrix that make them are considered part of biotechnology. Radioactive tracers places in the bloodstream is biotechnology. Raising chickens is a directed use of organisms by humans for production, but not what I would call biotechnology. I'd offer a better definition, but I'm not sure I can come up with a satisfactory one. How about "technology informed by modern biology, especially when used in agriculture and medicine", followed by a list of examples? - Tim

Actually I share the same view point with you but what is mean by modern biology?--meaningless 12:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This line should be removedproducts." By this definition, if I (organisms), forcing them to work in a mine (do practical things), then it is biotechnology. 59.183.156.224 19:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Vader1941

due to deficienciency of which vitamin leads to murmuring

There is a problem in the article. In it said taht vavilov carried research on animal breeding in 1800 Vavilov was not born in 1800 and he did research on plant and not amimal

You are right (unless this was somehow a different N.I. Vavilov, which seems quite unlikely). I removed it. -- Curps 08:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maggots & Leeches

How is the use of maggots, leeches, etc for medical applications classified? It seems this is "red" (medical) biotech, but is there a name for this practice?--StAkAr Karnak 15:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

red, green, white biotechnology

Is this really established terminology? I've never heard it before and I feel pretty confident that there are plenty of 'biotechnologists' that have heard of it either. This sounds like something invented by a Wired magazine columnist. Opinions? ike9898 04:52, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. These terms struck me as very strange. Should be removed.

These colour codes are explained in an issue of the Electronic Journal of Biotechnology (EJB) entitled 'The Colours of Biotechnology: Science, Development and Humankind'. Although the article does not clearly define when and where exactly these codes were determined, it demonstrates that they have been used by governmental organisations like the United Nations, the European Commission and others for many years. The terms white/grey, red and green biotechnology are also well established in the biotech industry. I would therefore advocate keeping the terminology in the article. The EJB articles adds a much wider array of colours to these, many of which I also wasn't aware of. I suggest adding further colour definitions to the article as biotechnology in those areas evolves and the colours become more established. Next candidate is likely to be 'blue'.

The article referred to here is an editorial that goes through several ways in which concepts in biotech have been linked to colours. Featured alongside this red-green-white/grey division is an amusing 5-colour "Mad Cow alert" scale! Although "red" seems to be gaining currency as a term referring to medical biotech, these colours hardly form a comprehensive classification system in common usage -- that should tell us how they should be used in the WP. In my opinion, a passing reference to these is all that is required and appropriate. Ben Cairns 13:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have worked in biotech in Boston, MA for 15 years, and have never heard this red/white/blue stuff either 24.60.137.141 01:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)ezracolbert@comcast.net

I have worked in biotech (US based - Biopharmaceutical) for a decade and have not heard these terms used within my specific field.--75.15.86.106 04:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have just filled a poll on science that uses the red/green/white terminology. As it is focus in Germany, it may be just of european use. if true, this clarification should be added.

History

8000 BC Collecting of seeds for replanting. Evidence that Babylonians, Egyptians and Romans used selective breeding (artificial selection) practices to improve livestock.

8000 BCE is pretty early--it's almost certainly inaccurate to have Romans in this list, as they came on the scene significantly later. ~ Dpr 07:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Someone ought to make the timeline convention consistent. AD (Anno Domini) preceeds years; if we want to keep using it, we need to convert (for example) 2003 AD to AD 2003. For legibility, I suggest switching BC to BCE and AD to CE instead; both can follow the year. ~ GDM 00:59, 22 April 2006 CE.

Students editing the timeline

I just wanted to let all wikipedians know that I have suggested that my students update the timeline. They are enrolled in a high school course, Honors Genetics and Biotechnology, at the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics.

Thanks. It would be still better on your part if you suggested them to cite references (Wikipedia:Citing sources) if possible. --Victor D ^PARLE 10:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Way too much spam?

Wow, this article has a lot of spam at the bottom. Are those really all necessary for this article? —Wknight94 (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added a clean up spam template in the external links section, it will be screened and trimmed soon. --Victor D ^PARLE 10:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Victor D ^PARLE 15:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Allerca cats?

Should anything be mentioned about the genetically engineered cats of Allerca? Joffeloff 16:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Plant collecting?

In the timeline of biotechnology, I noticed the curious "1500 AD Plant collecting around the world" entry. Does anyone have an explanation of what this means? --Fjmustak 06:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I can only assume that it refers to early agriculture. Early civilizations sometimes collected plants and domesticated them in other areas. I am not sure whether agriculture is a form of biotechnology though. --Freyr 13:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally think agriculture is biotechnology. The species of grain (Wheat, corn, barley, etc..) we cultivate today look very different than their original ancestors, and all that differentiation was done in ancient times. It doesn't take recombinant DNA to change an organism... Don't know if this matters at all to the article, just wanted to add my eight cents. Adenosine | Talk 17:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

But 1500 AD? People only started agriculture 500 years ago? I would remove this line, both because it's ambiguous and if it means what we think it means, probably inaccurate. --Fjmustak 21:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Plant collecting refers to the gathering of plants for taxonomic classification? In that case 1500 AD would be a reasonable time frame. Although I would find this very hard to classify as biotechnology, since it does not use organisms to produce a specific product or use. It is simply a scientific pursuit.

Patenting living organism

I know that in the American text books there is the legend that the first patent of a living organism in the History was in 1980, but it was a century before that Pasteur patented the first one. It was usual in Europe. I'll include -modified- the reference in the History article. Llull 20:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Definition

A definition of biotechnology: using living organisms which have been genetically altered using recombinant DNA technology; the organisms can either be used as living cells (eg bioremediation) or for production (eg transgenic goats that produce antibodys) or simply as sources of material (eg DNA or RNA) which is used in vitro to produce materials (eg, large scale in vitro translation). This definition would largely exclude diagnostic or analytical technology such as microarrays, DNA seqeuncing, etc: these are tools used by the biotech sector (in the way that a hammer is not part of the auto industry, but a tool used by the auto industry) This excludes anything prior to about , roughly, 1975, such as using traditional breeding to make better crops or beer. This also makes the distinction between allied industrys, such as tradional pharma, which uses organic chemistry to make products. 24.60.137.141 01:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)ezracolbert@comcast.net

Role of academia and the financial community

No discussion of biotech would be complete without mentioning the role of academic scientists and financiers (angels an venture capitilists —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.137.141 (talk • contribs)

Biotechnology utilizes methods and tools to manipulate the genes of microbes, plants, and animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.48.15 (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

Why has been deleted the Biotechnology timeline and the link to the expanded article? 81.36.160.44 09:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The timeline was moved to the History of Biotechnology article. Dr. Cash 23:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikibooks and this article

Much of the recent edits to this article seem to be directly copied from Wikibooks, article "Genes, Technology and Policy/Applications in Medicine". That's certainly not a copyright problem by any means, but shouldn't it instead be summarized here since there is already a reference to the Wikibooks article? -- ArglebargleIV 15:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I second your opinion, it is certainly getting very long. --Victor D ^PARLE 23:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Focus on Genentech's products

I note that there are two references to Genentech's products, Herceptin and Avastin. I think that biopharmaceutical product representation should be either removed or better balanced (in the interests of full disclosure I work for a competing company). That being said, I would like to see the statement referring to Avastin in the introduction be modified to replace Avastin with Rituxan (another Genentech product) as Rituxan has been equally successful in terms of sales for a longer period of time (approx 10 billion over 9 years compared to Avastin's 3 billion) over 3 years. I think that the sentiment that biotechs contribution (or lack thereof) to pharmaceutical sales in general is overstated.--75.15.86.106 05:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Im a bit doubtful about this paragraph, it looks like Genentech advertisement, and omits vaccines, washing enzyme, bacterially produced food supplements etc.

There has been a great deal of talk—and money—poured into biotechnology with the hope that miracle drugs will appear. While there do seem to be a small number of efficacious drugs, in general the biotech revolution has not happened in the pharmaceutical sector. However, recent progress with monoclonal antibody based drugs, such as Genentech's Avastin suggest that biotech may finally have found a role in pharmaceutical sales.

Narayanese 18:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Herbicide Tolerance

This article doesn't mention that increase herbicide tolerance often leads to increased application of the herbicide to the crop and potentially increased residue in the end product. This is one of the reason GM crops have faced opposition.

= Better organization

I sure would like to see a better organized introduction. What I'm reading now feels like a biotech advertisement for something, not a biotech overview explaining what the field is about. Sorry to be so wishy-washy, but I came to this site to learn, and I came away feeling I did not. I feel I got an opinion on a subset of the field rather than a balanced overview of it. (The discussion above about the "color biotechnology" is a good example of what I'm feeling. What? Huh? This comes out of the blue.)

121.136.81.52 11:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Vaccinology

Vaccine preparation is also the part of biotechnology. So, please have something on it. --Nirajrm Δ | [sign plz] 06:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

is that so?

"In modern times some plants have been genetically modified to produce specific nutritional values or to be economical."

That is, as far as i know, simply not true - unless it is meant to refer to herbicid resistance, which is the only successfull application i know of. Go ahead and name specific plants and changes --Echosmoke 15:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Golden rice. Llull 17:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Biotech.

Biotechis works with tech. based on biology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.27.114 (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

RNA genes (sometimes referred to as non-coding RNA or small RNA) are genes that encode RNA that is not translated into a protein. The most prominent examples of RNA genes are transfer RNA (tRNA) and ribosomal RNA (rRNA), both of which are involved in the process of translation. However, since the late 1990s, many new RNA genes have been found, and thus RNA genes may play a much more significant role than previously thought. In the late 1990s and early 2000, there has been persistent evidence of more complex transcription occurring in mammalian cells (and possibly others).Know more —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.165.35 (talk) 09:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Geeze

has it occured to you that this page may be a little long??? 750hgn1md4 00:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Biotech responsible for mass suicide?

Sounds like vandalism, so I deleted this portion: "mass suicides in India, corruption"

It's source didn't check out and made no reference to mass suicide. Intranetusa (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

This has to be more comprehensive. User:Ykerzner November 3, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.4.56 (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

References from Wikibook

I've imported the references for the Agriculture section from Wikibooks Genes, Technology and Policy. The information was copied from Wikibooks in March 2007 without the accompanying refs (just the ref numbers). Vsmith (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Impresice caption under microarray image

The image of a microarray (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Microarray2.gif) is captioned "DNA Microarray chip -- Some can do as many as a million blood tests at once". Although this gives a rough idea of what these do, it is also potentially misleading. There is a link to the main article on microarrays in the caption, but it would be nice if caption text was better.

Any suggestions that would remove potential ambiguities (a million blood tests on a million different individuals? a million tests on the same individual?) and inaccuracies (in reality, there are perhaps up to a million spots on a chip but these represent about 30,000 markers) but remain succinct?~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfravolda (talk • contribs) 17:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

biotecnology....

is technology base on biology especially when use in agriculture,food,science and medicine... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.94.117.243 (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed section from criticism in biotechnology

Research that appeared in this section was not supported by legitimate scientific research, instead the citation lead to an anti-monsanto web site. There are real reasons to criticize GMO foods instead of making up research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.126.154.122 (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality?

I know biotechnology is widely regarded as a good thing. The definition is broad enough to include selective breeding. But at a certain point we have to leave room for its abysmal failures.

Africanized bee

The bioethics article should be referred within this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfravolda (talk • contribs) 04:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory?

This two statements from the article seem, perhaps, to be contradictory:

1. "Most of the current commercial applications of modern biotechnology in agriculture are on reducing the dependence of farmers on agrochemicals."

2. "From 1996 to 2001, herbicide tolerance was the most dominant trait introduced to commercially available transgenic crops, followed by insect resistance."

If they're not, could someone in the know make this more clear. (Perhaps this is saying, obliquely, that increased tolerance to herbicides doses was the major application but now it's reduced need for herbicides.) 81.159.88.206

Well a goal of biotech is to use less herbicide. How can you achieve that? Well by implanting a specific herbicide resistance into crop thus everything dies but not your crop. cfr roundup soja if i'm not mistaking. Isect resistance is something else. That is achieved by producing insecticides in the plant. Thus the plants become insect resistant cfr western corn rootworm I think. So the farmers dependence for insecticides is "nihil" and he only has to buy 1 kind of herbicide (monopoly danger!). --Snelleeddy 16:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Creating herbicid resistant plants is not necessarily going to increase the amount or danger of herbicide in the environment. As Snelleedy noted above, the case of Round up glyphosate and GM soy beans is an example of making it easier to apply an herbicide that is significantly less environmentally persistant than many others (although this case is less than clear cut, since glyphosate was already used on soy beans, but had to be applied by field workers on individual weeds).

Bacillus thuingiensis toxin is another GM crop instance. Here, genes for a naturally occurring toxin were cloned into corn (maize) making them death to corn eathing caterpillers (but we don't seem to mind eating it). This sounds great, but may also have its downside Bacillus_thuringiensis#Lepidopteran_toxicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfravolda (talk • contribs) 04:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

How does Biotechnology solve problems in the Agriculture Industry ?

Im a student and we were given an assignment on this topic. Can anybody help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.97.3 (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Poor writing

I started editing this when I saw an obvious mistake in the first sentence. As I went on, I found the paragraph is confusing and delves into specialized terms (such as vector and Agrobacterium) that are unncessary for an introductory paragraph. It would be good to re-write this.

"Before 1971, the term, biotechnology, was primarily used within the agricultural industries. Since the 1970s, it began to be used by the Western scientific establishment to refer to laboratory-based techniques being developed in biological research, such as recombinant DNA or tissue culture-based processes, or horizontal gene transfer in living plants, using vectors such as the Agrobacterium bacteria to transfer DNA into a host organism. In fact, the term may be used in a much broader sense to describe the whole range of methods, both ancient and modern, used to manipulate organic materials for purposes including the production of food or other substances derived from living things. So the term could be defined as, "The application of indigenous and/or scientific knowledge to the management of (parts of) microorganisms, or of cells and tissues of higher organisms, so that these supply goods and services of use to the food industry and its consumers.[2]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfravolda (talk • contribs) 00:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Notable researchers and individuals ... uh, well??

I think it is nice to see a list of important people, although it would have to be incomplete. However, this seems a quite incomplete and I can see several mistakes right off.

First of all, the section title is redundant (are any of these "individuals" not "researchers"?)

Second, why and how are people assigned to nations (Sydney Brenner assigned to the US??)?

Third, what makes them important to biotechnology (many of these people are pivotal actors in molecular biological science and not "technologists").

Fourth, there are some really glaring exclusions (Fredrik Sanger inventor of DNA sequencing, Kary Mullis inventor of PCR).

Perhaps it would be better to list people alphabetically and provide a short description of their contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfravolda (talk • contribs) 04:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Careers In Biotechnology

Article should talk about the careers in Biotechnology for young enthusiasts to get guidance. 122.161.59.156 (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad Source

Reference number 5 is unverifiable, as the link is broken (http://www1.ibisworld.com/pressrelease/pressrelease.aspx?prid=115). Removing the 1 after the www does not fix the link. The section that is referenced there is therefore also unverifiable. Here is a potential link that may help with creating a new, similar passage: http://www.ibisworld.com/industry/default.aspx?indid=2001. I do not have time to learn the guidelines and edit this myself, nor do I wish to disrupt the section if proper citations can be provided, so I'm hoping someone else will have more luck with this issue.68.63.139.125 (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Haven't check the article, but note that Wayback Machine is a useful tool [1]. Materialscientist (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea. However, isn't it perhaps a bad idea to rely on an archive like that as a reference? It did however serve as a useful way to search for the study. I searched for the quoted entire first paragraph from the wayback archive, and only 3 results turned up in Google, all of which reference the IBISWorld study which cannot itself be found. It looks as though the original source material was redacted from the web, which may be because of unreliable information. Given that the original source can no longer be located, it is my guess that it would be appropriate to remove the section referencing it; however, I am unaware of the policy for these sorts of situations.68.63.139.125 (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Bioscience redirects here

Why does bioscience redirect here? I'm not 100% sure, but wouldn't it be more accurate if it redirected to "Biology" instead? Wawawemn (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I was looking for the publication BioScience Trashbird1240 (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Rennet in the /* Improved taste, texture or appearance of food */ section

Normally I confine myself to purely grammatical changes such as dividing run-on sentences. Even I found the following discussion on the use of artificial rennet to be so petty and irrelevant to biotechnology as a whole that I removed it:

This also eliminates possible public concerns with animal-derived material, although there are currently no plans to develop synthetic milk, thus making this argument less compelling. Enzymes offer an animal-friendly alternative to animal rennet. While providing comparable quality, they are theoretically also less expensive. Katharine908 (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Could someone qualified make at least 5 individual sentences from this...

... "one fullstop" unreadable monster?:

Biotechnology is the research and development in the laboratory using bioinformatics for exploration, extraction, exploitation and production from any living organisms and any source of biomass by means of biochemical engineering where high value-added products could be planned (reproduced by biosynthesis, for example), forecasted, formulated, developed, manufactured and marketed for the purpose of sustainable operations (for the return from bottomless initial investment on R & D) and gaining durable patents rights (for exclusives rights for sales, and prior to this to receive national and international approval from the results on animal experiment and human experiment, especially on the pharmaceutical branch of biotechnology to prevent any undetected side-effects or safety concerns by using the products).

or simply delete it because it's redundant?! ; -) thx a lot for your help in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.64.249 (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

One article needed

'Biotechnology industry in India' artilce is needed. I would request to the editors of this article to look into it if possible. Thanks in advance. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 09:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Biotechnology and RELIGION YO

Biotechnology is used to make god and churches and stuff, yo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.68.120.109 (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

revisions today

Just read this today. There was a lot of unsourced, essay like content here (somewhat promotional, like straight outta BIO), and for the most part this article was not in dialogue with the other closely related articles in WP. Went through and trimmed a lot, added sources and content and wikilinks to related articles. Hope it is seen as improvement but in any case I am happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Biomaterials

Biotechnology is about formulating and inventing new types of biomaterials on different applications. This is the key of biotechnology commercialization. Others are for theoretical inputs and laboratory researches only. This should be mentioned in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.36.109.73 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 1 June 2014‎ (UTC)

I work in biotechnology and the term "biomaterials" is rarely used. And the article you want to link to is written poorly and says almost nothing. And you should never edit war - as per WP:BRD the first time you are reverted, you should open a Talk page discussion. Not after the third. Jytdog (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Biomaterials are bioactive in its applications, it is the beginning, not after laboratory research as you work at only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.36.110.80 (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposing major edit to lead section

I have prepared a new lead section for the article:

Biotechnology is the modification of living systems and organism to develop useful products. Through biotechnology has existed since the Neolithic Revolution, modern advances in the field of biotechnology have enabled the mass-production of medicinal proteins such as vaccines and synthetic insulin. Biotechnological advances have also led to the development of genetically modified crops, which rely on recombinant DNA technology. The field of biotechnology is not strictly defined, and may overlap with bioengineering, especially biomedical engineering.

References

In my opinion, the current lead is verbose and does not introduce the important applications of biotechnology. The proposed revision uses clearer language, corrects the use of two citation systems and provides well-documented uses of biotechnology, instead of general fields.

I am a new editor, and this is my first edit to a vital article. Thus, I would appreciate feedback as to whether my edit improves the article. Thank you! Denny1213 (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEAD. The lead just summarizes the article. It is not some overall thoughts on the field in general. The questions to ask are - does your draft lead summarize the whole article better than the current one? Does it give WP:WEIGHT according to the weight given to each topic discussed in the article? I don't think it does. Let me know what you think after reading LEAD. Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I have been working on revising this article, and my (incomplete) revision can be found in my sandbox. I am still familiarizing myself with WP policies and am uncertain whether my revisions are productive. If you can, feel free to skim the work in my sandbox (beginning to History.Fermentation) and tell me if my revisions improve the article, before I devote more time to unnecessary revisions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Denny1213 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 21 February 2015‎ (UTC)

Your plan is not productive. I am not going to carefully read your new version and try to figure out how it is different from what is here, and skimming it is pointless. If you want to propose a different organization for this article, please propose the new structure here on Talk for discussion. If you want to introduce some new section please say so here and explain how much WP:WEIGHT you want to give it and how that makes sense in light of the whole article. if you have proposed copyedits to existing content, you should just go ahead and implement them, in small bites, and slowly, so that other editors can react to them individually, and you can get practical feedback so that future edits are better. If you dump a whole new article over this article, it will simply be reverted. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Enjoy the weekend! Denny1213 (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Biotechnology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090204181251/http://eurogentest.org:80/patient/public_health/info/public/unit3/DefinitionsGeneticTesting-3rdDraf18Jan07.xhtml to http://www.eurogentest.org/patient/public_health/info/public/unit3/DefinitionsGeneticTesting-3rdDraf18Jan07.xhtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Discussion: proposal to change "scientific agreement" to "scientific consensus" on GMO food safety in all GMO articles

A fresh discussion has started with a proposal for revision to this sentence:

There is general scientific agreement that food from genetically modified crops is not inherently riskier to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis. [citations omitted]

to:

There is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis.[citations omitted]

The discussion is taking place here at at the talk page of Genetically modified crops. Please comment there. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Discussion of Rules for RfC on GMO food safety

A discussion is taking place here about a proposed RfC on GMO food safety language based on the five proposals at GM crops here. This RfC will affect the current language in paragraph 5 of the Agriculture section of this article. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} and Laser brain (talk) have graciously volunteered to oversee the RfC. In addition to discussing the rules, The Wordsmith has created a proposed RfC here. This is not notice that the RfC has begun. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms

This is a notice that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms is open for public comment. AIRcorn (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Opinionated

> Biotechnology is the research and development in the laboratory using bioinformatics for exploration, extraction, exploitation and production from any living organisms and any source of biomass by means of biochemical engineering where high value-added products could be planned (reproduced by biosynthesis, for example), forecasted, formulated, developed, manufactured and marketed for the purpose of sustainable operations (for the return from bottomless initial investment on R & D) and gaining durable patents rights

But simultaniously claiming elsewhere that **brewing** is also biotechnology, including folksy images. Notes the wording, positive ones, "high value-added", "sustainable", "bottomless initial investment", "gaining durable patents". A terribly neoliberal point of view; it's not done for the public by government funds!

This does not fill me with confidence..88.159.64.170 (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

What are demerit of GM crop

GM crops are subject of discussion in scientific and ecologist community about some srious demerit of application of GM crop Asheesh Pandey 12:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandeyasish (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Biotechnology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.europabio.org/what-biotechnology
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070912065554/http://usinfo.state.gov/ei/economic_issues/biotechnology/biotech_faq.html to http://usinfo.state.gov/ei/economic_issues/biotechnology/biotech_faq.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141222081325/http://www.ilsi.org:80/Documents/2011%20AM%20Presentations/CERAPaarlberg.pdf to http://www.ilsi.org/Documents/2011%20AM%20Presentations/CERAPaarlberg.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121102112216/http://irri.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&layout=item&id=10202&Itemid=100571&lang=en to http://www.irri.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&layout=item&id=10202&Itemid=100571&lang=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016100707/http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file15655.pdf to http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file15655.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Comparison of terminology: "Biotechnology" vs "Technology"

User:Jytdog and I have been having a spirited debate on the Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Another_business_thing and Talk:Silicon Alley#Biotech pages. The questions people are invited to comment upon: 1) Is it reasonable to include Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area in the "see also" section of the Silicon Alley page? 2) More fundamentally, do the terms "biotechnology" and "technology" carry nothing more in common than the four letters "tech" (User:Jytdod's opinion), or is biotechnology one form of technology, or at least carries significant commonality with the term "technology" (my opinion)? Thus far, User talk:Prevalence and Ɱ, outside neutral opinions, have been ultimately non-committal, albeit User:Prevalence suggesting some overlap between the terminology. Castncoot (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

That is not an accurate statement of the dispute nor of my position. Argh. And Prevalence included companies that produce fMRI equipment as part of the biotech industry in their comments at WP:ORN.. Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I think it is accurate indeed. On the Talk:Tech companies in the New York metropolitan area page, you said, "You are hanging your whole argument on the fact that "biotechnology" includes the word "technology" which is about as sensible as putting articles together about "pathology" and "PATH trains"[2]. Subsequently on the Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Another_business_thing page, you said, "for pete's sake castncoot under your logic we should class peanut butter as Category:Dairy products because it has the word "butter" in it."[3] Most fundamentally, you've entirely refused to acknowledge all along that the definition on the first line of this page (Biotechnology) includes "any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use" (UN Convention on Biological Diversity, Art. 2)." Castncoot (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The core dispute is about whether to include about the biotech industry in Silicon Alley. My position is that the tech industry and the biotech industry -- the industries - are wildly different, and your effort to lump them together because they are both applied science is WP:OR and not in accord with reality. I have brought a shitload of sources which you haven't read, and all you do is keep citing the dictionary. Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment No wonder no one is responding, these discussions are spread all over the place. I had to look at five pages to get a grasp on the situation. I am not sure how well anything I say on this matter will be taken as I have been involved with both parties previously so may not be considered neutral (small world this), but since it has come to a page I watch I may as well opine. From what I can gather the essence of the issue here is whether biotech and tech are the same. They are related slightly in that you use tech in biotechnology (especially bioinformatics), but as industries go they are quite different and if you want to include biotech companies in Silicon Alley you need sources saying there are biotech companies in Silicon Alley, not just tech companies. There are three sources cited [4][5][6] and I am not seeing evidence that the biotechnology sector is also growing in Silicon Alley, although admittedly I can't access the WSJ one. AIRcorn (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the confusing search. In that confusion, I believe you missed the three main cited sources - [7] (now on Silicon Alley), [8], and [9]. The point is that biotechnology is merely one form of technology, as stated on the first line of this very article's page; as this fundamental definition has been accepted by consensus, other Wikipedia articles must conform to maintain one voice. There's really nothing magical about biotech that renders simply alluding to it in the Silicon Alley article invalid or undue. And yes Aircorn, you and I have quite an entertaining history on opposite sides, but I have no question about your neutrality here. Castncoot (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

source 11 does not mention Silicon Allley and no it is not in the article; it is just a list of NY biotech and pharma companies. I have never argued that there are no biotech/pharma companies in NY. Ref 13 is a bunch of tech/consumer goods companies with not a biotech company among them; doesn't mention Silicon Alley. Ref 12 is the one - literally the one - kind of interesting ref that Castncoot has brought. It is a blog on the BIO website, talking about Cornell's tech campus. It includes an interview with Nate Tinker the head of NY Bio, the NY biotech trade organization, where he talks about the Cornell tech campus will mean to the NY biotech industry. I can imagine what he said (something along the lines of having engineers might be useful to help with the medical device industry or with some aspects of manufacturing... nice things i am sure) Unfortunately the link to what Nate actually said isn't there so we don't know what he said. But if you actually read about the Cornell Tech Campus you will see it is 100% tech; they have no wet labs. Nothing to do with biotech. So that is the one weak ref to support Castncoot's argument. Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. [10] added to Silicon Alley, though I disagree with your assessment of the ref you deleted (!) from the article. Should I say checkmate? Nah, I'm too collegial for that. I'll just take "certainty". Let me also say that you're fighting a WP:BATTLE which you shouldn't be. Please just face the fact that you're making an unreasonable argument; I'll give you an olive branch and let's move on collegially. Best, Castncoot (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

So that is a blurb from Columbia's tech transfer office discussing the NYC biotech startup scene. That scene does exist; it is entirely separate from the Silicon Alley tech scene. This is what I have explained to you a ton and provided refs for - they are different worlds, with different people working in them, different investors, etc etc. Tech transfer offices do touch on both worlds - for instance Columbia is very strong in both engineering/IT and in biotech/pharma. You really have no idea what you are talking about. I have told you this and provided tons of refs. You keep bringing bad refs and citing the dictionary. Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Now your behavior is really getting to be WP:DISRUPTIVE. It's Columbia TECHNOLOGY Ventures, Peter Thiel is an investor, and it's the same ecosystem. And I'm not citing the "dictionary". I'm citing this actual biotechnology article, and its definition in the first sentence of this article. Please address this before disrupting the Silicon Alley article again. Castncoot (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope. I keep asking you to work the DR process and you won't. We have a content dispute - don't turn this into a behavior problem. Please work the DR process. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

No, this is indeed very much a behavior problem on your part, I'm sorry to say. I'm in total disbelief that you actually just did it again(!) (deleted this latest and absolutely legitimate ref) from the Silicon Alley article! The ONLY reason I'm not going to revert your foolishness now is that I don't want to risk being blocked. But truthfully, your behavior is entirely worthy of your being blocked at this time. Castncoot (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Refs that tech and biotech are distinct

Here are all the refs I have brought to this discussion, in various places, now consolidated.

general

• A Tale of Two Startup Worlds: Biotech And Tech VC Ecosystems
• Why Biotech Startups are Not the Same as Tech Startups
• Peter Thiel on what it is like for a tech investor to move into the biotech space
• a video! for those who don't like to read, on the difference between tech and biotech called (ahem) "Where to Invest? Tech vs. Biotech Startups with Rowan Chapman (Mohr Davidow Ventures)"
• Wasserman, Noam (2012). The Founder's Dilemmas Anticipating and Avoiding the Pitfalls That Can Sink a Startup. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 9781400841936. by Noam T. Wasserman pp 30-31 says:"The dataset and case studies both focus on the two most central industries for high-potential startups, technology and life sciences. Together, these industries dominate every measure of young startup employment and funding. Of the initial public offerings (IPOs) during the decade (2000–2009), 48% came from those two industries, and no other industry accounted for more than 12%. Furthermore, of the angel capital invested during the decade, 74% went to those two industries, as did 71% of venture capital." (emphasis added). This is footnoted to three footnotes. One says "According to Thomson’s Venture Expert Database, accessed September 16, 2010, technology investments (including Internet, computer software and services, communications and media, semiconductors and other electronics, and computer hardware) accounted for 56% of VC investments from 2000 to 2009 and life sciences investments (medical/health and biotechnology) accounted for 15%." Another says: "According to my analyses of annual reports from the Center for Venture Research at the University of New Hampshire, which compiles perhaps the most reliable data on angel investments, technology investments (including software, hardware, telecommunications, and IT services) accounted for 45% of angel investment across the decade and life sciences investments (biotechnology, life sciences, and health) accounted for an additional 29% (Sohl, 2001–2009)." The third says "According to Thomson’s Venture Expert Database, accessed September 16, 2010, technology investments (including Internet, computer software and services, communications and media, semiconductors and other electronics, and computer hardware) accounted for 56% of VC investments from 2000 to 2009 and life sciences investments (medical/health and biotechnology) accounted for 15%." (NB: the breakdown here is common as dirt - tech is distinct from biotech)

descriptions of Silicon Alley that discuss its nature as focused on tech (digital, computing, IT, etc)

• list of "healthcare" companies at Alleywatch - all IT based. None of them are doing lab work; in other words, none are biotech. They are health IT or "healthtech"
• slate on the NYC tech boom - digitial, which is focused on the NYC Tech Meetup, which is all about digital
• Xconomy article on the NYC tech scene - all digital.
• service provider for Silicon Alley - tech and digital
• NYT article on death of Silicon Alley Magazine, which was "known for its unabashed boosterism of New York's new media entrepreneurs" ("new media" = "digital" ie tech)

NYC government approach to the two sectors

• here is an in-depth review of the different kinds of things NYC has done to foster these two very different industries.
• NYC EDC report on the tech sector. Contrast with this, the life sciences sector report, which is completely different.

some very specific differences between the two worlds

• Patent fight: Tech vs. pharma, round one (the role of IP is extremely different)
• this about fundamental differences in common terms, like "API" and how people stumble over them going between the two worlds.
• need for lab space for biotech as well as this, which you can contrast with this about tech startup space in NYC

-- Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC) (added Wasserman book and quotes from it; added Thiel interview and wharton video) Jytdog (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

You keep quoting these over and over with wasted breath, but you don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. As long as biotechnology is defined the way it is by consensus on its Wikipedia page (and by the United Nations, for goodness sakes!), other pages need to conform to provide one Wikivoice. You would be better off taking this discussion to redefine biotechnology on the biotechnology page, rather than disrupting the Silicon Alley page for whatever reason. And stop misrepresenting me that I'm quoting "the dictionary", I'm quoting this very biotechnology page and its first line formed by consensus, "any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use" (UN Convention on Biological Diversity, Art. 2)." The [11] reference is absolutely legitimate, and you didn't and don't have a legitimate basis for deleting it from Silicon Alley. I'm ONLY refraining from reverting you to avoid the risk of being blocked; your behavior, on the other hand, clearly needs to be examined in that vein. Castncoot (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The Columbia ref says nothing about Silicon Alley and supports my argument more than yours and the UN definition yes very much emphasizes biology, which is what makes the field so different from IT based industries. In any case are not going to agree. We need other people to help resolve this, as I noted here. Let me know how you want to proceed. Jytdog (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. You're engaging in a circular argument. Silicon Alley is the metonym for the tech sphere in the New York City metropolitan area. Columbia TECHNOLOGY VENTURES is supporting the biotech ecosystem in Silicon Alley, as is Peter Thiel, a world-renowned tech investor. I state that tech includes biotech based upon the fact that Wikipedia's biotechnology article states flat out that biotech is tech; and the United Nations also states that biotech is tech. You say not, and you quote other refs (fair enough), but you don't understand the principle of WP:WikiVoice. How do I want to proceed? I want you to stop disrupting restoration of the [12] reference on Silicon Alley, as well as stop disrupting the innocuous restoration of Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area in the "see also" section of Silicon Alley. And we're already on the ultimate Talk page forum on Wikipedia for this discussion. Castncoot (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

we agree that Silicon Alley is "tech". We disagree on what "tech" means. You think it means all applied science, and I know ( :) ) that it means the "tech industry" which means IT/digital stuff and does not include biotech. We have a content dispute and we need to pursue DR to resolve it. (If you don't understand what I mean when I write "DR" please read WP:DR. ) Please reply to the options I offered here. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 04:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The point is that Silicon Alley has both. For you to claim that tech and biotech have zero in common is just plain ridiculous. Lines are becoming increasingly blurred, and you've now deleted a sentinel ref I've put on the Silicon Alley article to support my point. Most importantly, you must conform to WP:Wikivoice created by consensus. Let's see what others have to say on this page. This is part of the normal WP:DR process. Castncoot (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be discussing some abstract "fields" and I am not. Please don't say that I am. I am talking about the actual industries - the companies, the people who do the work, the investors, the regulatory environment, the customers, the way things are marketed and actually purchased, etc. The industries are distinct. Silicon Valley is a geographical cluster of companies in the tech industry. Yes NYC also has a sort of biotech scene but it is not nearly as prominent nor as well defined as the tech scene. You have not brought any refs showing that people widely consider "Silicon Alley" to include the biotech industry. But there is no point in you and me further butting heads, so let's stop so that others can actually have air to make comments. I believe we ran right over the one person who had chimed in. So far. User:Aircorn my apologies. Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I would WP:rfc it. It is obvious to me that you two will never agree so there is probably no point continuing to try and convince each other. RFCs can be a bit hit and miss in terms of who or how many will show up, but they remain our best option for these kind of disputes. Some editors watching this might not care enough to get into protracted arguments, but would be willing to make a simple support or oppose !vote in a RFC with their rationale.

My advice would be to agree on the question you are asking and the format to use before starting it. I would also hold it at Silicon Alley as that seems to be the centre of the dispute. And obviously keep the back and forth to a minimum as that is off putting for other editors. Make your strongest cases early (using the best refs) and avoid badgering other !voters unless it is necessary.

For me personally it basically comes down to verifiability and WP:due. If sources specifically mention biotech industries (not tech) in Silicon Alley then we can say that, if these sources are weak or in a minority then we should use the appropriate weight when mentioning them. AIRcorn (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

And the appropriate weight has indeed been allocated to biotech in Silicon Alley all along, thank you (a little more than a paragraph near the bottom of the article). By the way, check this ref out: The National Venture Capital Association of the United States itself tables venture capital funding of Pharma and Biotech in the same vein as IT hardware and other tech, including software defined separately from the other two: [13], please see page 11. Along with this ref, you already have [14] and [15]. Most importantly, the index biotechnology article itself defines biotech by consensus as "any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use" (UN Convention on Biological Diversity, Art. 2)", and WP:WikiVoice must apply by WP:Policy. The bottom line is this: the WP:status quo regarding biotech on Silicon Alley has been there for such a long time undoubtedly because it has met the standard for reasonableness to various editors; these new references in this paragraph additionally support that degree of reasonableness in WP:verifiability, and the latter two should be allowed into the article; moreover, to gut the existing material on biotech in entirety will therefore take a gargantuan consensual effort. Given this perspective, I don't believe Jytdog has a reasonable case. In any case, the interesting discussion on this page has just started less than 72 hours ago, and there is no WP:DEADLINE to delete material that has existed on Silicon Alley for years, especially when biotech is becoming ever more closely synergistic with non-bio tech with time, if anything. Just chill out. Castncoot (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Aircorn, In my view an RfC won't work on this kind of yes/no issue with a lot of background to dig through -- which is why the ORN failed and which is why I have suggested mediation or third party. Am interested to try those. Jytdog (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Castncoot, i already had removed the biotech info from Silicon Alley which took about a minute. Dif. Not even close to a "gargantuan" effort. You didn't agree with that, which is the center of our dispute. Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Jytdog, you WP:BOLDly removed longstanding material without WP:CONSENSUS. Anybody can delete thousands of bytes - that's what vandals do, didn't you know that? By the way, are you going to first change the fundamental definition of biotechnology on the biotechnology article? You realize that would be a prerequisite, I'm sure. Castncoot (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Yep we have a dispute. All i am saying is that the "gargantuan" thing was silly. And apparently only you and me care about this issue. Not like we have to convince a lot of other people. And no, we don't have to do anything to this article in order to fix the Silicon Alley article. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course you'd have to change this article first. As currently consensused, it directly contradicts your fundamental premise that biotech cannot be considered tech by any means, contradicting your argument by crystallizing at minimum that it is at least reasonable to consider biotech to be tech. I have the standard of reasonableness on my side, versus your draconian viewpoint, which will take a high consensual threshold (gargantuan) to adopt in order to entirely ablate the status quo. Castncoot (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You have made it very clear that you understand the biotech industry to be "tech". You don't need to keep repeating it. Look if you are correct then the biotech content will stay in Silicon Alley and if you are wrong then you will need to rethink your approach to the industries and the concepts; so one step at a time please. Jytdog (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2017

Tulika2609 (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Nanotechnology: A very important use of biotechnology is in the field of nanotechnology as it has varied uses in pharmacy,cosmetics, industries etc.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Biotechnology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.europabio.org/what-biotechnology
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130529030847/http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000745325&fid=1725 to http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000745325&fid=1725

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Biotechnology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121107072612/http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true to http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_ARTICLEMAIN&node_id=1188&content_id=CTP_003377&use_sec=true&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=5a1c54a6-ff5a-4f69-84c1-763835d11162
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070616013805/http://www.primate.or.kr/bioinformatics/Course/Yale/intro.pdf to http://www.primate.or.kr/bioinformatics/Course/Yale/intro.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ahmed Albikairi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Biotechnology

Application of biotechnology in livestock 118.107.131.143 (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Biology

Describe biotechnology? Write a details note on the biotechnology 2 to 3 pages 223.123.86.249 (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)