Talk:Genetic pollution/Archive 1

Archive 1

NPOV

I don't have the expertise to really work on this article, but it reads like a rant from an anti-GM activist. Phrases such as "Genetic pollution usually happens as a result and a consequence of short-sighted actions of man", random hybridization "plagued" zoos, "short sighted effort" to breed bison, etc. Not to mention the article's obsession with genetic "purity." (Hint, genes can not be pure or impure. Again, that's a value judgement and DNA doesn't have values.)

Furthermore, the article badly needs citations. Wild and fairly extreme claims are made. For example "Widespread genetic pollution leads to quicker extinction of wild animals and plants." What animals or plants have gone extinct because of genetic pollution? No examples or citations given. eaolson 22:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"What animals or plants have gone extinct because of genetic pollution?" - Nesoenas picturata rostrata almost, and it may have finished of the Tasmanian Emu (but that's not certain and it would have been wiped out anyway). There may be other cases, but almost never is extinction through hybridization anything but the final reason in a long list. There is (I think) no taxon that disappeared thus and was not Critically Endangered beforehands. Population genetics math shows quite obviously why this is so. Dysmorodrepanis 15:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It just so happens that your instincts here are correct. --Pvednes 14:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with the two comments above. It is very hard to see how an article on "genetic pollution" can do anything other than mention that fact that the phrase is used by activists to arouse an emotional response that the facts alone cannot arouse. I'm not sure what the form is here, but I believe the article should be deleted. The statements on plant breeding and agriculture are false, as far as I know JeremyCherfas 10:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In concur with the comments above. While I think that the concept is interesting, the use of the term should be contextualized, i.e. who uses it and why, do scientists use it, or rather avoid it etc. I add a Neutrality tag and an expert tag. If the article does not improve, one could think about deletion 80.61.183.71 11:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with these comments. Note the exact same rant was in a similar article at Genetic erosion. I had removed it but the author reverted my edit without comment. This user appears to be writing many articles and then cutting and pasting the same text into each article. This comes close to SPAM and soapboxing. In respect to the genetc erosion article it is not even required since there is an excellent and similar article at inbreeding. David D. (Talk) 22:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Why's it a problem if a subspecies of, say big cat, which is pretty much on its way to extinction and severely inbred anyway from a genetic bottleneck, breeds back into the main species? We can use all the lions we can get, better to have one large mixed population than several genetically 'pure' ones that are likely to go extinct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, it may be a problem if significant (evolutionarily and ecologically) genetic diversity is lost. It is more significant in subspecies, because there needs to be something that is consistently unique to them for us to consider them not morphs or examples of natural variation. And that "something" is, in one way or another, based on a distinct genotype. The difference may be very minute, but something needs to be there. That bit of diversity is generally considered worthy of preservation, to see what might come from it eventually, or how it helps that particular creature survive in its natural haunts. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Soapboxing removed

i have removed the following paragraphs from this article. The soapboxing is absolutely blatant. Maybe we can salvage something from it here on the talk page? David D. (Talk) 22:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Conventional hybridization for higher yield, genetic engineering and the resulting loss of biodiversity, a threat to food security

See also: Biodiversity and Food security

In agriculture and animal husbandry, green revolution popularized the use of conventional hybridization to increase yield many folds by creating "high-yielding varieties". Often the handful of breeds of plants and animals hybridized originated in developed countries and were further hybridized with local verities, in the rest of the developing world, to create high yield strains resistant to local climate and diseases. Local governments and industry since have been pushing hybridization with such zeal that several of the wild and indigenous breeds evolved locally over thousands of years having high resistance to local extremes in climate and immunity to diseases etc. have already become extinct or are in grave danger of becoming so in the near future. Due to complete disuse because of un-profitability and uncontrolled intentional, compounded with unintentional crosspollination and crossbreeding (genetic pollution) formerly huge gene pools of various wild and indigenous breeds have collapsed causing widespread genetic erosion and genetic pollution resulting in great loss in genetic diversity and biodiversity as a whole.

A Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using the genetic engineering techniques generally known as recombinant DNA technology. Genetic Engineering today has become another serious and alarming cause of genetic pollution because artificially created and genetically engineered plants and animals in laboratories, which could never have evolved in nature even with conventional hybridization, can live and breed on their own and what is even more alarming interbreed with naturally evolved wild varieties. Terminator technology represents one currently neglected technology that could prevent the spread of genetic material from GMOs. Genetically Modified (GM) crops today have become a common source for genetic pollution, not only of wild varieties but also of other domesticated varieties derived from relatively natural hybridization.

It is being said that genetic erosion coupled with genetic pollution is destroying that needed unique genetic base thereby creating an unforeseen hidden crisis which will result in a severe threat to our food security for the future when diverse genetic material will cease to exist to be able to further improve or hybridize weakening food crops and livestock against more resistant diseases and climatic changes.

Atulsnischal, apprarently you do not agree this is POV since you keep reverting my edits here and on genetic erosion (same text pasted into that article too). Below I have bolded blatant POV phrases that make this section completely unbalanced and represents an extreme opinion.

"in the rest of the developing world, to create high yield strains resistant to local climate and diseases. Local governments and industry since have been pushing hybridization with such zeal that several of the wild and indigenous breeds evolved locally over thousands of years having high resistance to local extremes in climate and immunity to diseases etc. have already become extinct or are in grave danger of becoming so in the near future."

"Due to complete disuse because of un-profitability and uncontrolled intentional, compounded with unintentional crosspollination and crossbreeding (genetic pollution) formerly huge gene pools of various wild and indigenous breeds have collapsed causing widespread genetic erosion and genetic pollution resulting in great loss in genetic diversity and biodiversity as a whole"

"Genetic Engineering today has become another serious and alarming cause of genetic pollution"

"can live and breed on their own and what is even more alarming interbreed with naturally evolved wild varieties."

"Terminator technology represents one currently neglected technology that could prevent the spread of genetic material from GMOs."

"It is being said that genetic erosion coupled with genetic pollution is destroying that needed unique genetic base thereby creating an unforeseen hidden crisis which will result in a severe threat to our food security for the future when diverse genetic material will cease to exist"

Much of this seems to come from Devinder Sharma who is sourced throughout this section. Who is Devinder Sharma? Is Devinder Sharma a reliable source? The cited work here seems to be from self publiched articles and certainly no peer reviewed. Atulsnischal, you really think this is a well balanced section? David D. (Talk) 20:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I found a link to Devinder Sharma who is a journalist turned activist. He seems to be well thought of from the perspective of a political voice on this subject, but he has no science credentials and if above mirrors his articles, clearly has an axe to grind. He may well be right but the language he uses borders on propaganda. Wikipedia should view this issue from all angles, not water down the Sharma's opinions but ensure readers undestand his role in this debate. i.e. one side of the debate. David D. (Talk) 20:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Can you kindly stop stalking me on wikipedia and read WP:STALKING and stop removing mass text from articles I have contributed on your whims and fancies, I request you to kindly do random editing and contributions on wikipedia articles that genuinly interest you, not stalk my articles like you have been doing since last many months.

Atulsnischal (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained on your talk page I am not stalking you. I was googling for the text that you have repeatedly added, cut n' paste, to mutliple articles in wikipedia. Google pointed me here to genetic pollution. Did you read what other users here thought of your text? See above. David D. (Talk) 23:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

For reference, the text above is at the following articles:

• genetic erosion
• High-yielding_variety
• Hybrid
• Biodiversity
• Agriculture
• Genetically_modified_food
• Food_security
• Genetically modified organism

Possibly there are other example too. David D. (Talk) 23:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:STALKING

How can you expect to not have problems with the POV section that you have cut and pasted into multiple articles? At present you have refused every opportunity to discuss this matter and just revert my edits accusing me of stalking. This is hopeful on your part, and you seem to think that if you say it enough it will become true. If you keep refusing to dicuss this issue i will remove that section from every article you have placed it. It reads like a political scree and is not neutral enough for wikipedia. You need to discuss how this section can be made more neutral, an opportunity that hs been present to you on at least two different talk pages. I am within my rights to remove this section if you choose to ignore all discussion. David D. (Talk) 04:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have already made it neutral enough, i spent days on it, your POV accusation is based on previous POV comments on Genetic pollution discussion page which came when I started the article and wrote two lines on it, i spent a week on it afterwards finding and using references and nuteral enough language, it states the truth. Definitely you have stalked me to my other articles over the months so there you go, I am busy now with other stuff in life. Kindly dont stalk me and bother me and do some constructive contributions instead to wikipedia. Please dont leave comment after comment for me on my talk page it has been bothering me, you are definitely causing stress, and my WP:STALKING accusation for you holds true. Atulsnischal (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Your stalking accusations are unwarranted. I have been a long time contributor to GMO and biology topics here. Why shouldn't I take an interest in genetic pollution-type articles? Why do you think I even noticed your edits in the first place? Show me evidence of my edits not being constructive; almost all my edits have been to help your articles grow. You just can't see it in this case because you happen to disagree with my opinion (one that others share too).

When were those discussions and collaborative edits that led you to improve the POV of this text? To date, I have seen no evidence that you have been willing to receive independent input on this topic.

It’s a shame that you are unwilling to discuss this content dispute and instead try to change the subject and avoid any dialog. Is this your way of informing us you are unwilling to discuss any on the content you have inserted into multiple articles? Your input would be welcome but not necessary. David D. (Talk) 18:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:STALKING

The following text copied from User talk:Atulsnischal by User:Atulsnischal. User David D. wrote:

"So by changing the title of this topic and the subsequent removal of the dialog is your way of informing us you are unwilling to discuss any on the content you have inserted into mulitple articles? Your input would be welcome but not necessary."

The following text also copied from User talk:Atulsnischal by User:Atulsnischal.

Listen I have Archived our previous conversation - it is in my talk page Archives [7], your edits are based on and motivated with WP:STALKING me on Wikipedia which you have been doing since the last year or so, outcome can not be healthy and I dont want to argue with you. Please do not go to my contributions page for following me from there to articles I have been working on, that is called stalking. Please dont get into ego clashes and personality clashes with people, just find articles randomly for contributing.

Hope it makes sense, also I did inform that I am busy with other stuff in life.

Best wishes, hope you will leave me alone. Atulsnischal (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this above text was originally on Atulsnischal (talk · contribs) talk page. It was not titled WP:STALKING, although it is his/her belief I am stalking them since I keep trying to encourage him/her to make the spammed text relevant to the page at hand and less POV. Archiving text from a talk page as a way to avoid a conversation is a passive aggressive technique to try and force ones edits into an article. A long time ago I removed the problem text from this article to this talk page, although, Atulsnischal continually reverts my edits without discussion. Please address the issues and stop edit warring. David D. (Talk) 02:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Overly broad

I think this article is going out of scope and becoming overly broad. I've removed some text. For example the entire section titled "Natural barriers to genetic pollution" didn't discuss genetic pollution at all. It anthropomorphised the fact that different species can't reproduce to imply an intent to prevent genetic pollution. I also removed the asian water buffalo example (the only one I checked), as none of the references refer to genetic pollution. Drawing conclusions from primary sources is original research.

I also wonder if the definition is correct. Almost every reference I can find refers to genetic pollution specifically in terms of the spread of genes from GMOs. The article makes it sound like it's the spread of any undesirable gene. eaolson (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Its very difficult to set this article in the right direction., gene flow is the correct term for movement of genes from one taxon to another, while genetic pollution is term used for genes moving from GMOs to non GMOs by anti GMO people and organizations. Hardyplants (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There is another article. genetic erosion, that is really nothing different to inbreeding. In that case I'm certain it would be better to merge the activist perspective into inbreeding with a redirect. Likewise here, it might be best to merge with gene flow. David D. (Talk) 12:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Focus of this article???

This page is nothing but original research lumped under an jumble of terms. We need to pick one subject and produce a real page out of it and new pages can be made for the other terms, they do not have the same meaning and this article is a jumbled mix and as such invalid. Hardyplants (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

NOR on Genetic Pollution.

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Hardyplants (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Your mass edits and changing the whole nature the entire definition and scope of the well referenced article Genetic pollution is amounting to pure vandalism. Also as noted elsewhere before in the hybridization article you have a blind pro Hybridzation POV. dear "HARDYPLANTS" do not vandalize again you will definitely be reported. Lets contribute and help articles excell and not be a deletionist always. Best wishes Atulsnischal (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point, it might be well referenced but they are cherry picked to represent your own opinion and in some cases do not even do that. The article is completely unbalanced. The only reason this whole article has not been stripped down and rewritten is that few editors are watching this space and your aggressive reverts rather than discussion make the endeavour tiresome. David D. (Talk) 11:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Definition of genetic pollution

It appears this term is evolving. Searches in pubmed and web of science give practically nothing for the term with respect to invasive species or even gene flow from GE organisms to the wild. The one citation that seems to pop up is an op ed title from Nature with regard to the dog/wolf hybridisation (dating from 1994). But the actual papers do not use the term (is this journalistic licence on Nature part?). I notice it is being used for the eucalyptus invasive species and also in a Japanese journal for the euro bumble bee invasion. On the web it is used frequently to describe invasive species but usually by activist type web site groups or government reports; are these reliable sources for its usage by scientists? The article by Rhymer JM and Simberloff, D. (1996) Extinction by Hybridization and Introgression. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 27: 83-109 (doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.27.1.83) specifically acknowledges the term (Natures wolf op ed), along with citations for called “genetic assimilation”, “contamination”, “infection”, “genetic deterioration”, “genetic swamping”, “genetic takeover”, and “genetic aggression”. Their preferred term is genetic mixing for invasive species:

"The latter terms have pejorative connotations. They imply either that hybrids are less fit than the parentals, which need not be the case, or that there is an inherent value in “pure” gene pools. “Genetic assimilation” need have no such connotation, but this term is widely applied to an entirely different phenomenon (143). “Mixing” need not be value-laden, and we use it here to denote mixing of gene pools whether or not associated with a decline in fitness."

What I am wondering now, is genetic pollution an actual scientific term or is it becoming a scientific term with respect to invasive species. Or is it restricted the gene flow from GE organisms? Basically the term seems to be applied differently by many people most likely due to ignorance or by design for maximum impact. It certainly makes writing this article more complicated. At present there is an emphasis to invasive species and this seems to be premature, at least from a scientific perspective. David D. (Talk) 23:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I set up a redirect from Genetic mixing to this article. This seems to be a more appropriate term for the phenomenon of gene flow from an invasive species to the wild population. Possibly we want to move the invasive species examples to that page and start an article that emphasises the science whereas this one can focus on the science and politics of gene flow from GE organisms to wild species? David D. (Talk) 15:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This needs to be overhauled and merged with Introgression. That article is about the same phenomenon, uses proper scientific terminology, and tries to be encyclopedic. Unfortunately, this here load of bullshit is longer.

"is genetic pollution an actual scientific term or is it becoming a scientific term with respect to invasive species" - it's a pop-sci term. Scientists would rather avoid value judgements such as this. Whether hybrid introgression is helpful or harmful depends on the case. Modern humans for example would not be around (or would be different) if it were not for hybrid introgression between hominoid species in the Late Miocene. On the other hand, it is a serious problem in GMO - especially plants - and no real solution seems available. But treating it in such a shitty manner as here does a disservice: the problems this process causes need to be identified, studied, and eliminated. Running around shouting "boohooo bad genetic pollution is coming to get us" is not going to help. Dysmorodrepanis 15:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

For example: "The gene pool of a species or a population is the complete set of unique alleles that would be found by inspecting the genetic material of every living member of that species or population." NO!!!!! It must be "unique set of alleles", not "set of unique alleles" - the alleles may occur in other taxa (brought there by recent hybridization or horizontal gene transfer); it is the individuals' total genotype/haplotype that is unique and in consequence, the gene pool of the taxon (NOT of any population in general; at that level one has to deal with allele frequencies). (This is apart from confusing alleles with genes the most common misconception of pop-sci genetics). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dysmorodrepanis (talk • contribs) 15:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Why "Genetic Pollution" is a scaremounger term

The term Genetic Pollution appears to have been invented to scare people. By the scare mounger definition genetic polution has occured if your conventional Canola crop gets pollinated from your neigbours herbicide resistant canola.

Now in reality the concequences of this occuring is zero. Your Canola is still canola. It still tastes like canola. You can still make margarine out of it. The Canola species has not become extinct. 99% of your canola crop is still "conventional" canola. etc etc.

So this is not scary enough. So if you are a scaremounger what do you do? Well you look about and take over the legitimate ecological problem of invasive species. You equate a GE canola crop as an invasive species. Then you go and pull out the literature on invasive species and then say how dangerous "genetic polution" is.

But an invasive species is a whole organism transplanted to a new ecosystem. An invasive species is a real problem. Witness fire ants in the US or cane toads in Australia. But a GE canola crop with one extra gene it is is NOT an invasive species. And to equate the two as anti GE activist try to do (and as this article does) is completely disingenious.Ttguy (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That about sums it up. David D. (Talk) 14:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I know this is a bit after the fact of the discussion, but.... I would disagree and I think any USDA Certified Organic farmer who has suffered GMO pollen drifting into their crop would agree with your analysis that this is not a serious issue (especially after they loose Organic status). Furthermore, in most cases the affect of artificially transferring genetic segements across phylums and kingdoms has not been adequately studied to prove that no unintended changes have occurred (at this point genetic modification is not in anyway an exact science). Also for the record, I agree with you that invasive species are a more important and very different issue. Peace, Earthdirt (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Organic farmers can not lose their USDA organic status from acidental cross polination from GM crops. This is because USDA certification is based on process not on any detection of GM contamination. The USDA certifies the farm that they don't plant GM crops and that they don't use pesticides (except the pesticides that they are allowed to use ). Cross polination with GM pollen is not grounds to lose your USDA organic certification. Care to cite any cases where this has happened.

As to GM not being an exact science this is true. But it is a far more exact science than the conventional plant breeding we have safely been doing for 10 thousand years. A. I can tell you exactly what protein I am putting in the plant. B. I can tell you exactly where I stuck it. C. I can tell you if I have disrupted any important genes in the spot where it landed. Contrast this with conventional plant breeding. A. I can't tell you what new proteins are in the crop. B. I can't tell you how many new proteins are in the crop. C. I can't tell you what genes have been mutated durring the backcrossing and recombination that occured durring the process of removing all the genes I did not want from the donor parent.Ttguy (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think in some cases "genetic pollution" is a term to scare people, whether intentional or not. I found that term quite often during my research on the dingo (or better on the Australian wild dog, since it's not so sure what actually makes a dog a "dingo"). There the term is very often used when people talk about the phenomenon of interbreeding between dingoes and other domestic dog (the dingo is a domestic dog [just gone back to the wild in most cases] too in my eyes, because it shows several features which are described as being caused by domestication [e.g. smaller brain size than wolves, males mostly fertile throughout the year, ginger coloration, many curled tails]). However this interbreeding is called genetic pollution although there is no prove for any negative results. This is one of the examples of the several articles [8]Domestic dogs wiping out dingos. In fact the researchers said that this interbreeding made the wild dogs bigger. This article also said that they were also getting smarter [9] Wild dog rampage in Victoria . All in all all these articles are pretty much the same over and over again and they are (in my eyes) actually there to scare people or the people who wrote them and made the research were already scared and so had there opinion from the start. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

unreferenced examples....

....that may or may not even be examples of genetic pollution. I removed the following two examples;

• Researchers think some Neanderthal people interbred with larger populations of modern people, causing their descendants to lose their distinctive physical traits and essentially become moderns.
• It is thought that domesticated corn, which needs human help to reproduce, broadcast enough pollen to cause most wild teosinte to become extinct by making it not able to shed seeds.

We should at least have references for these opinions. The phrase "most wild teosinte to become extinct" seems to be contradictory for one. A species is either extinct or not. David D. (Talk) 04:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Lastest mass revert.....

....by Atulsnischal (talk · contribs), with the following edit summary: Genetic crossbreeding with invasuives species has been described as GENTIC POLLUTION. But by whom? Read above and it is quite clear that this term is disputed among scientists. And those that do use it may well be doing so due to ignorance or for political reasons. One or two examples are not evidence that this terminology is accepted by the majority of scientists. David D. (Talk) 15:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

transgenes from GE maize in landraces of maize in Oaxaca Mexico

The report of transgenes from GE maize being indentified in landraces of maize in Oaxaca Mexico is based on Quist D and Chapela IH "Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico". Nature. 414 (6863): 541–543. 2001. doi:10.1038/35107068. Subsequent to the publication of these results, several scientists pointed out that the conclusions were based on experiments with design flaws. It is well known that the results from the Polymerase Chain Reaction method of analysing DNA can often be confounded by sample contamination and experimental artifacts. Appropriate controls can be included in experiments to eliminate these as a possible explanation of the results - however these controls were not included in the methods used by Quist and Chapela.Christou, Paul (2002). "No Credible Scientific Evidence is Presented to Support Claims that Transgenic DNA was Introgressed into Traditional Maize Landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico". Transgenic Research. 11 (1): 3–5. doi:10.1023/A:1013903300469.

After this criticism Nature, the scientific journal where this data was originally published concluded that "the evidence available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the original paper"."Biodiversity (Communications arising): Suspect evidence of transgenic contamination". Nature. 416 (6881): 600–601. 2002. doi:10.1038/nature738. More recent attempts to replicate the original studies have concluded that genetically modified corn is absent from southern Mexico in 2003 and 2004 (S. Ortiz-Garcı´a PNAS 2005 [10])

Consequently it is not appropriate to cite this as an example of genetic polution. Because even if the intital results were actually correct, where is the polution now. If it was real polution then it should be there to see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttguy (talk • contribs) Hardyplants

It might be worthwhile to include this info in the page, especially if the first claim ( that GM genes have moved into other corn in Mexico) is still readily available and in circulation...we need more "examples" and studies covering the topic. Hardyplants (talk) 10:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ttguy is right that the paper was awful and the 35S promoter sequence they PCR'ed up was probably due to plasmid contamination. Worse they used a dot blot procedure to confirm their positives so the size of the amplified band could not be determined either (this was highly unusual, it is normal to run the amplified DNA on a gel to determine the size as well as the amount of background contamination). This even led to a suspicion that their positive signal was not even contamination but just a poorly washed hybridisation. I note that activist like to toute this as some kind of win for biotech. I would see it as more of a loss of scientific integrity from Nature, who acknowledged they published a crap paper despite poor reviews. One can only assume, and call me a cynic, that they did this since they knew it would be news worthy and give their journal free advertising in national newspapers and even on network TV.

The reason I had left it in is that it represents a celebrated example, even if not true. However, I was not aware that the 2005 PNAS paper that discovered no transgene DNA in the wild population, and that would suggest it should not be used as an example.

Does this leave us with no documented example of a transgene escape to a wild population? David D. (Talk) 22:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe it does. The other possible example is from Canola. Canola has wild relatvies that are sexually compatible to some degree. And experiments show that you can form hybrids between them. However, as far as I can tell no one has found such hybrids surviving in the wild. Warwick SI et al Theor Appl Genet. 2003 107(3):528-39 PMID 12721639 have looked in commercial fields in Canada for such hybrids and did not find any. They estimate "the probability of gene flow from transgenic B. napus (Canola) to R. raphanistrum, S. arvensis or E. gallicum is very low (<2-5 x 10(-5))." They do point out that Canola and a weed called birdseed rape are both Brasica napus. And thus gene flow can easily occur between these two plants. But I dunno if this counts as genetic polution. Since they are the same species. .Ttguy (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

They do point out that Canola (Brasica napus) and a weed called birdseed rape (Brasica rapa) hybridize fairly easily and gene flow can easily occur between these two plants. So this could be an example of Genetic Polution. I have not heard of any reports of this actually causing a problem. Ttguy (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It is funny how - if the Canola has been modified to be herbicide tolerant by conventional means (which was done years before GE canola was invented) - that according to the actvists, we don't have "genetic polution". But as soon as it is a transgene the sky will fall in if we have gene flow.Ttguy (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

1983 aticle in NEW YORK TIMES Newspaper, USA about feared GENETIC POLLUTION in wolves from domestic/feral dogs

• “Although wolves and dogs have always lived in close contact in Italy and have presumably mated in the past, the newly worrisome element, in Dr. Boitani's opinion, is the increasing disparity in numbers, which suggests that interbreeding will become fairly common. As a result, genetic pollution of the wolf gene pool might reach irreversible levels, he warned. By hybridization, dogs can easily absorb the wolf genes and destroy the wolf, as it is, he said. The wolf might survive as a more doglike animal, better adapted to living close to people, he said, but it would not be what we today call a wolf.” from Italy's Wild Dog Winning Darwinian Battle, By Philip M. Boffey, Published: December 13, 1983, THE NEW YORK TIMES. Accessed 16 December 2007

Atulsnischal (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

First, when are you going to learn how to formatt references properly? A year ago your idiosyncratic format was OK, I asume you knew no better, but now it just appears that you cannot be bothered to conform with the wikipedia standards. Second, the term used in this context is with quotation marks. Are you sure this is not just signaling unusual usage? That would actaully go against the point you are trying to make. The fact remains that this term is barely used in the scientific literature. Clearly it IS used by activists as a propaganda term. This might well be why TRAFFIC is using the term since it would neatly fit their agenda. Just becuase politicians use the term does not mean it should be applied to the real biology of invasive species. Why don't you add a section on its usage as a political term? David D. (Talk) 21:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that a 24 year old Newspaper article hardly counts as evidence that the term genetic polution is used a scientific term. It is a political term. How come no one was bleating about "Genetic polution" when herbicide tolerant Canola produced by conventional means were introduced? You can bet your life that the genes in these plants transfer to wild brasica weeds at exactly the same frequency as do GM herbicide tolerance genes do.Ttguy (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:STALKING STOP STALKING ME

Atulsnischal (talk · contribs) has made more edits to genetic pollution rapidly pushing this article back to where it was before. On top of this Genetic pollution is currently linked to by 52 different wikipedia articles.

American Bison - Artificial selection - Asiatic Lion - Beefalo - Bengal Tiger - Billy Arjan Singh - Biodiversity - Biome - Central Zoo Authority of India - Conservation biology - Domestic buffalo - Domestication - Dudhwa National Park - Ex-situ conservation - Extinction - Fauna - Feral - Food security - Frozen zoo - Gene flow - Genetic engineering - Genetic erosion - Genetically modified organism - Green Revolution - Habitat fragmentation - High-yielding variety - Hybrid (biology) - Hybrid speciation - Hybrid zone - In-situ conservation - Introduced species - Introgression - Invasive species - Jeremy Rifkin - Lion - List of conservation topics - List of environmental issues - Mallard - Parahuman - Population genetics - Purebred - Red Junglefowl - Selective breeding - Small population size - Species - Terminator Technology - Tiger - Transgene - Transgenic plant - Twycross Zoo - Wild Asian Water Buffalo - Wildlife

I have looked at at about ten of these and in all cases these links were added by User:Atulsnischal. This is becoming a significant POV problem since a quick look at the titles of the articles linking to genetic pollution makes it apparent that the invasive species usage is most common. In other words, this is activist terminology and it "looks" as if wikipedia is being to be used to promote a cause. This is pretty subtle I know, but given how Atulsnischal refuses to discuss this issue and is active on so many conservation related pages to promote this issue I'm wondering if a RFC should be started to address this issue? If nothing else the genetic pollution article should clarify the political usage of this term, assuming there is any good commentary that can be cited. Any thoughts? David D. (Talk) 23:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

David D. (Talk) has been continuously stalking WP:STALKING the articles I contribute to for more then one year, I have made several requests to him not to stalk me on wikipedia and make his contributions randomly but he keeps it up (check my talk page archive 5), now its been more then a year since he has been stalking me, his behavior has started to cause considerable stress now and I loose my motivation to contribute to wikipedia, I think a Administrator should look into it and advise him not to track and stalk me. Completely unacceptable behavior. Atulsnischal (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Editing the same articles as you isn't harassment. Furthermore, this isn't the appropriate place to raise such objections. Take it up at Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard if you must. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that David D.'s edits are reasonable and NPOV. Yours are significantly more POV and you seem somewhat unwilling to engage in discussion on how to improve this article. eaolson (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Sigh, so are Ttguy and Hardyplants stalking you too? As eaolson mentioned, you can take it to Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard or Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents and feel free to open an RFC on my editing patterns. I stand by my edits and the're not even close to stalking. David D. (Talk) 01:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion between lines moved here from ANI

---

Is the problem with the removal of this piece of text after Atulsnischal pasted it into animal husbandry, food security, agricultural biodiversity‎, genetic erosion, genetic pollution, green revolution and others? Tim Vickers (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It was my removal of that from a few articles, but not close to all instances of it, that initiated the stalking response (for the record others include High-yielding_variety, Hybrid, Biodiversity, Agriculture, Genetically_modified_food and Genetically modified organism). I used google to find that text in many different articles. It's basically activist spam. David D. (Talk) 05:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I note I was too hurried writing above, I was referring to the text that I placed and commented on at Talk:Genetic_pollution#Soapboxing_removed. David D. (Talk) 13:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Our initial interaction occurred over a year ago when I began trying to sort out several articles he had started (Some include Asiatic_Lion_Reintroduction_Project, Kuno_Wildlife_Sanctuary, Asiatic_Lion and Gir Forest National Park). There were redundancy problems, copy and pasted text again, as well as massive external links sections that I tried to prune down, as well as massive "See also" sections and no references. He was not happy that I removed many of the external links despite the fact that many of them I returned as cites in the text between <ref></ref> tags. In my opinion all my edits were constructive and i tried to mentor him to added citations in a format that were more user friendly. Still he ignores this advice. This is pretty much in line with his attitude of ignoring anyone who critiques his work regardless of whether it is constructive criticism or not. This refusal to discuss changes with myself and other editors is a massive problem. In short, Atulsnischal has ownership problems, POV problems and does not conform to wikipedia style. David D. (Talk) 05:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of whether it's "activist spam," it's a copyvio. See here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I just realised that TimVickers example is not the specific one I had a problem with. The activist spam bit I had a problem with is seen on the genetic pollution talk page at Talk:Genetic_pollution#Soapboxing_removed. It is very normal for Atulsnischal to copy and paste several paragraphs into many different articles. This is a problem since the context of the paragraphs is rarely relevant to the articles and is rarely an improvement. If Atulsnischal was serious about imporving the articles he would rewrite the points for each article so they are coherent and relate to the article he's adding the material to. Now it seems his stuff is copy and pasted from others. These lazy contributions to wikipedia, copy vio, no context, bad formatting etc. waste a significant amount of time for editors that have to clean up after him. David D. (Talk) 06:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean the example I found wasn't the only one of these boilerplate POV additions? Dealing with a systemic copyright violations like this necessarily involves tracking a problem user's contributions. I think you did exactly the right thing here. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you most of my attempts to help his articles over the past year have barely been touching the surface of the problem. I was hoping he would become more familiar with what is acceptable at wikipedia with some gentle prodding. As my prods became harder his response was to cry WP:STALKING and spam our conversations to many article talk pages, some not even involved in the dispute. For one example, see Talk:Asiatic Cheetah, note that none of the comments that appear to be my edits are my original edits, as is the norm, he copy and pasted the whole conversation from other talk pages. David D. (Talk) 14:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A warning for copyright violation is simplest, and unarguable, then, if he does it again report him at AIV. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This might work for some of his problematic content but he has a strong need to use the term genetic pollution for invasive species. As far as I am aware this is not correct usage. So, for example, all the links to genetic pollution he adds to articles related to invasive species are not copyright issues they are just wrong. Except this is a complex issue since the term has been misused in the past by journalists, but NOT by scientists. He quotes the minority articles as proof that his usage is correct despite its practical absence from the scientific literature. The term appears to be used heavily by conservationists as a political haymaker. I think the easiest solution is to make the genetic pollution article a truly NPOV article that explains the political usage as well as the biological usage. But Atulsnischal continually edit wars to maintain his vision of the article, one that focuses on political drama and invasive species. It is a very misleading view and unscientific, IMO.David D. (Talk) 15:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Discussion between lines above moved here from ANI

Wrote the article myself didnt copy any copyright text etc. as claimed, dont know about the copyvo source pointed above etc.

Atulsnischal (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You can say this but the evidence suggests otherwise. Here is your text with the bolded text verbatum from the pdf cited by Raymond Arritt:

"Genetic erosion in agricultural biodiversity is the loss of genetic diversity, including the loss of individual genes, and the loss of particular combinants of genes (or gene complexes) such as those manifested in locally adapted landraces of domesticated animals or plants adapted to the natural environment in which they originated. The term genetic erosion is sometimes used in a narrow sense, such as for the loss of alleles or genes, as well as more broadly, referring to the loss of varieties or even species."

You don't think the wording is similar? Are you suggesting this is your original work and the author of the pdf has plagiarized your wikipedia entry? David D. (Talk) 19:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrote the article from the cited sources I have mentioned, never seen source mentioned above. Though if others feel above source is credible, then this may be cited too when improving the original article, I am too tired to assist with Genetic pollution article now and taking brick bats personally for modern science, others will hopefully assist in time, currently it lies severely vandalized (Start from here for refrence [11]).

Please someone who knows his responsibility as a admin tell above mentioned user to stop WP:STALKING me, this has been going on for more then one year now. Atulsnischal (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

So you don't know why your text is practically identical to the published cited pdf? David D. (Talk) 20:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Genetic pollution is a regular "Scientific term"

Hi there. These large scale edits you are making to promote the activist term "genetic pollution' are a serious NPOV problem. Can we resolve this through discussion? Tim Vickers (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim, Genetic pollution is a regular "Scientific term", find out....., start from here this version of the article [12], edits from here on just desecrate the article and are nothing but vandalism, mass slashing of article to 2 or 3 lines and wanting to erase it completely by merging it with Introgression etc.

Improve the article if you can in time, thanks.

Ahem... scientists are (usually) aware of the difference between a gene and an allele, and this article has to do some homework in that respect. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Examples of usage of term "Genetic pollution"

• “Although wolves and dogs have always lived in close contact in Italy and have presumably mated in the past, the newly worrisome element, in Dr. Boitani's opinion, is the increasing disparity in numbers, which suggests that interbreeding will become fairly common. As a result, genetic pollution of the wolf gene pool might reach irreversible levels, he warned. By hybridization, dogs can easily absorb the wolf genes and destroy the wolf, as it is, he said. The wolf might survive as a more doglike animal, better adapted to living close to people, he said, but it would not be what we today call a wolf.” from Italy's Wild Dog Winning Darwinian Battle, By Philip M. Boffey, Published: December 13, 1983, THE NEW YORK TIMES. Accessed 16 December 2007
• Butler D. (1994). Bid to protect wolves from genetic pollution. Nature 370: 497

Atulsnischal (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Atulsnischal (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

See the two sections above; 1983_aticle_in_NEW_YORK_TIMES..... and Definition_of_genetic_pollution. David D. (Talk) 13:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the purpose....

....of all these examples?

---

Examples of genetic pollution from Invasive species

• Native captive Asiatic Lions in Indian zoos until recently were genetically polluted with genes of Circus confiscated African Lions which had been randomly hybridized with them leading to widespread genetic pollution in the captive Asiatic Lion population. Once discovered this led to the complete shut down of the European (EEP) and the American endangered species registered breeding programs (SSP) for Asiatic Lions as the founder animals originally imported from India were ascertained to be genetically polluted with the genes of African lions. Since then India has corrected its mistake and now breeds only pure native Asiatic Lions which are critically endangered with extinction and has helped revive the European endangered species registered breeding program (EEP) for Asiatic Lions but the American SSP which completely shut down in early 80’s has yet to be revived and receive pure bred Asiatic Lions from India to form a new founder population for breeding in the zoos on the American continent.
• Wild Jungle fowl, specifically Red Junglefowl in India and South Asia are the ancestor of all Poultry Chickens. These are thought to be facing a serious threat of extinction because of genetic pollution which is occurring at the edge of forests where domesticated free ranging chickens are commonly kept in bordering villages and towns, these meet and breed with their wild cousins indiscriminately genetically polluting their ancestors.
• The Wild Asian Water Buffalo is facing a serious threat of extinction because of genetic pollution when it comes into contact with common abundant Domestic Asian Water Buffalo, which live in villages and towns all around forests. The domesticated animals daily come to graze within forests which have been designated as Wildlife Sanctuaries and National Parks for their very rare wild ancestors and interbreed with them genetically swamping the wild gene pool raising fears that no pure Wild Asian Water Buffalo may be alive today.
• Many herds of surviving American Bison, even though they look exactly the same, were hybridized with genes of beef cattle by landowners in a short-sighted effort to improve their meat quality (see Cattalo), leading to widespread genetic pollution in the surviving bisons in America. The current American Bison population has been growing rapidly and is estimated at 350,000, but this is compared to an estimated 60–100 million in the mid-19th century. Most current herds, however are genetically polluted or partly crossbred with cattle hence are in fact what are called "beefalo;" today there are only four genetically unmixed herds and only one that is also free of brucellosis: it roams Wind Cave National Park. A founder population from the Wind Cave herd was recently established in Montana by the World Wildlife Fund.
• Tara, a hand-reared supposedly Bengal tigress acquired from Twycross Zoo in England in July 1976 was trained by Billy Arjan Singh and reintroduced to the wild in Dudhwa National Park, India with the permission of India’s then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in an attempt to prove the experts wrong that zoo bred hand reared Tigers can ever be released in the wild with success. In the 1990s, some tigers from Dhudhwa were observed which had the typical appearance of Siberian tigers: white complexion, pale fur, large head and wide stripes. With recent advances in science it was subsequently found that Siberian Tigers genes have polluted the otherwise pure Bengal Tiger gene pool of Dudhwa National Park. It was proved later that Twycross Zoo had been irresponsible and maintained no breeding records and had given India a hybrid Siberian-Bengal Tigress instead. Dudhwa tigers constitute about 1% of India's total wild population, but the possibility exists of this genetic pollution spreading to other tiger groups, at its worst, this could jeopardize the Bengal tiger as a distinct subspecies.
• Release of feral Mallard Ducks worldwide is creating havoc on indigenous waterfowl, unlike wild Mallards these don't migrate and stay back in the local breeding season and interbreed with indigenous rare wild ducks devastating local populations of closely related species through genetic pollution by producing fertile offspring. Complete hybridization of various species of rare wild duck gene pools could result in the extinction of many indigenous waterfowl. Wild Mallard itself is the ancestor of most domestic ducks and their naturally evolved wild gene pool gets genetically polluted in turn by the domestic and feral populations.

references

---

Are these all examples that are referred to as genetic pollution by traffic? Or are these just random examples. If they are specifically referred to as genetic pollution by TRAFFIC why is traffic a reliable source in this usage? Is their usage motivated by science or politics? And there are too many references and they all need to be formatted in an acceptable style.David D. (Talk) 22:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Just clicking through the multitude of references above it becomes apparent that few even mention genetic pollution and the few that do are probably the most unreliable of the sources. David D. (Talk) 22:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I nominate the following sentence for removal:

"It is also important to remember that genetically modified plants are domesticated and can therefore not repopulate in the wild without human intervention. Because of that, this term is biased and used by people with a negative view of genetic modification."

This sentence occurs in the first section. I think that the point of this sentence is irrelevant to Genetic Pollution and should occur in the GMO article (if at all). I want to delete this sentence, but I will wait for comments to avoid an edit war.--Shady Jade (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I just removed it. David D. (Talk) 03:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It was also BS. Ability to "re[produce] in the wild" has nothing to do with domestication prima facie. It is a question of the main mode of proliferation (light seeds favor, tubers disfavor) and as regards transgene escape, with hybridization potential. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

just to let you know to say that bison are low in number becuse of cross-breeding with cows is incorrect because we drove them to very low numbers in the 1800's they didn't call buffalo bill, buffalo bill for nothing  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.48.251 (talk) 02:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC) 

Unreliable source regarding African wild dog

The source http://www.eoearth.org/article/Alien_species is not reliable regarding the African wild dog. I have checked the source it cites ([C. Michael Hogan. 2009. Painted Hunting Dog: Lycaon pictus, GlobalTwitcher.com, ed. N. Stromberg]) regarding "genetic pollution" in this organism, and no such claim is made in that source. I also note the lack of mention of hybridization in the African wild dog article and the low likelihood of successful (fertile) inter-generic hybrids in an animal (as opposed to a plant). Allens (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Seeing no disagreement, I am removing this material. Allens (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Repeated use of the term "undesirable"

The major question here, which the article fails to adequately specify, is "undesirable by whom?". Allens (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Effect upon endangered species

I have marked this as dubious because, as seen with genetic erosion, increased genetic diversity is frequently exactly what these populations need. (It is also dubious because, if they have significant gene flow with non-endangered populations, they aren't species in the first place.) Without a citation being available from a reliable source for this being a particular problem, this statement needs to be removed. Allens (talk | contribs) 11:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Gene flow does not happen between true species

The sections citing gene flow from invasive species are contrary to the biological definition of species. Perhaps "what they consider endangered species" or "what they consider invasive species" would be a better way to phrase this? Allens (talk | contribs) 11:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed off-topic

I removed the following line because it isn't relevant:

The goal of genetic engineering crop plants to help advance tenability and condition of the world food supply has at times had difficulties with public health concerns raised about the safety of the food from the end product.

Sinus (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; thank you. Allens (talk | contribs) 12:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

undazdggle

Hi, I noticed that in this article the word "undazdggle" is used.

I thought perhaps it was just some weird word I had never heard before, but a quick Google search showed me that in fact it wasn't a word, and the only results that came up were for this page.

I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough about the subject to properly edit it, but I hope that this information reaches someone who can fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.16.30 (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Genetic pollution. 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/20061024055647/http://www.nature.com:80/nature/journal/v416/n6881/abs/nature738_fs.html to http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v416/n6881/abs/nature738_fs.html

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} 15:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)