Jump to content

Talk:Genetically modified organism/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 21:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Reviewing now, but I might take a few days. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • vital to the discovery and development of cures and treatments for many serious diseases. – I would be careful here. "Vital" seems not the the correct word, as there are other means of curing diseases, GMOs are not "vital" for this.
  • says that the plants or animals – what about other lifeforms, such as bacteria and fungy? Maybe say "life forms" instead? Same issue repeats on several other locations.
  • with genes by introduced, eliminated, or rearranged – something missing here?
  • The term GMO originally was not used until it became common through popular media to the point even scientists began to use it. – Bit vague, when was it not used? Besides, any term would not be used before coming into use, so the sentence does not make a clear point.
This one was my doing, so I'll address it. Basically, GMO has not been a preferred term by scientists compared to genetically engineered organism as outlined in the rest of the paragraph, and GMO really wasn't used at the time. The sources are basically describing that GMO became more common in scientific literature after it caught on in popular culture despite the initial preference and precision issues. I've changed the text a bit and moved it behind the sentence talking about precision in terminology to make this a bit more clear. Let me know if something still isn't clear on that front. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest to name the section "definition" instead of "etymology".
Done. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This can be taken from a cell containing the gene – suboptimal wording, I suggest to simply write "This gene can be taken from a cell".
  • "certain stresses (e.g. thermal or electric shock)." – maybe "(e.g. thermal stress or electric shock)"?
  • inserted it into a plasmid and then induced another bacteria to incorporate the plasmid – "induced other bacteria" or "induced another bacterium
  • engineered to produce human tissue plasminogen activator in 1987 – Maybe an explanation (what is tissue plasminogen activatior) would be good here.
  • ice-minus strain – can you link or explain?
  • The first genetically modified animal to be approved for food use was AquAdvantage salmon in 2015. – Approved in which country?
    • USA. Added a second sentence mentioning that they are raised in Panama as well AIRcorn (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • FDA approved in the US, but as of Feb 2019 still not being SOLD in the US. Release to market got stalled in labeling law. Instead, first actual sales were in Canada, August 2017. I added refs to confirm both. Raised in Panama does not mean sold in Panama. And anyway, AquaBounty changed its mind and intends to produce fish for US in Indiana. For the moment, not allowed to move eggs from the egg facility in Canada, to US.
  • Bacteria are the simplest model organism – Model organisms are species, but Bacteria is a large clade.
  • Most food-producing bacteria are lactic acid bacteria, and this is where the majority of research into genetically engineering food-producing bacteria has gone. – Maybe add which foods they produce?
  • reduce toxic byproduct production – is "reduce toxic byproducts" enough?
  • Food products from genetically modified bacteria – again, I think we need to know which countries this applies to.
  • Application of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and other bacteria can help protect crops from insect infestation and plant diseases – How does this work? How do you apply a bacterium? Do you mean specific genes or proteins taken from this bacterium?
    • This was just part of an introductory sentence into bacteria used in agriculture. It is application of the whole bacteria in a spray usually used by organic farmers. It is quite popular, or at least was. I think there are issues with the sun degrading it and rain washing it off, so not sure how effective it is. The genes taken from this bacterium form a large part of the GM crop section. I kept most of the info tied to that section. If it is less confusing I can move it down there, or just delete it as I am not talking about them as specific GMOs here. AIRcorn (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • they can compete with the ice-plus bacteria – you write "the ice plus bacteria", but this term was not formerly mentioned, and deserves explanation and/or a link.
  • Heading Virus – Maybe in plural, Viruses?
  • set back the development of this approach for many years. When was that?
  • Herpes simplex viruses is a promising vector – mixes plural and singular
  • Another approach is to use vectors to create novel vaccines for diseases that have no vaccines available – How does this work? Maybe try to provide some general idea?
    • The original source was quite broad so found an example for tuberculosis (which is possibly the most important one). Don't really want to go into too much detail here as I am trying to keep it overviewish. It went to phase II trials, but although safe wasn't as effective as hoped. AIRcorn (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Outside of biology scientists have used a genetically modified virus to construct a more environmentally friendly lithium-ion battery and other nanostructured materials. – Maybe a short explanation here to get an idea how it works?
  • and as of 2016 two genetically modified yeasts involved in the fermentation of wine have been commercialised – again, in which country?
  • to create new colours in plants – unprecise. Does it refer to flowers, or to colors of crops?
  • It was the first plant to be genetically engineered – Tobaco is not an originally engineered plant. Maybe reword "It was the first plant to be altered using genetic engineering"?
  • As such the transgenic tools and procedures are well established  – but only for tabacco? Maybe make this clear
    • Clarified. Arabidopsis is up there too, but this is made implied later.
  • has abundant bioinformatic resources – I don't understand this.
  • (actually lavender or mauve) – please link these colors
  • to produce greater volume and better products. – better is too vague and not neutral. There are many people who would not consider any GMO product as "better".
  • plants can modify the proteins post-translationally – maybe add an accessible explanation in brackets.
  • user:Aircorn, very interesting, and important article. Looks very good. I copy edited as I went. More comments soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break

[edit]
  • the end aims are much the same as plants – "as in plants"? "as for plants"? I'm not a native speaker.
  • The development of the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing system has effectively halved the amount of time needed – How does that relate to the previous info? Does it allow to change stem cells directly?
  • Human alpha-1-antitrypsin is another protein that has been produced and is used in treating humans with this deficiency – but is this also from the mentioned goat?
  • GMO lifestock: You are listing several, but without stating if these have already been approved somewhere. I guess not?
  • to become publicly available as a pet – but not worldwide, right?
  • The article is supposed to be in British English, right? Whatch out for American spellings, such as color.
I didn't notice British variants being used before, but in terms of WP:ENGVAR, the first usage I could find was generalize (as opposed to generalise) making the default American English and the most recent comment in 2014 I could find said American too. I can go through and standardize to American unless anyone has strong objections to this change? Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I probably wrote 80% of the current article (if not more) and while not British, my native variant is closely related to that. As such my default spelling comes out. So many lame wars have been fought over what in the end is a relatively minor issue that if someone wants to enforce WP:Retain to an American version I am not going to to fight it. AIRcorn (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I personally don't usually find it a big deal which one is used even if it's inconsistent (I didn't notice at all in my previous reviews), but I also saw a fair mix of both uses now that I look. You never know if someone might raise a fuss in the future on RETAIN though, so it'll save some hassle by going to American now since it'll be copy-edited now anyways. I'll take care of that in a bit. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It obtained regulatory approval in 2015 – but where?
  • Transposons are well developed in Drosophila – what does "well developed" mean here? Maybe write "abundant" instead?
  • in its egg passed regulatory approval in 2015. – Where?
  • are used in development biology – developmental biology research?
  • nemotode – you consistently spell it like this, but isn't it "nematode"?
  • say that absent scientific evidence of harm even voluntary labeling is misleading – should it be "in the absence of scientific evidence"?
  • The regulations section has very little on regulation of research. Do these regulation mean that certain nations are much more advanced in GMO research than others?
    • I have had a tremendous amount of difficulty finding sources on the regulation in lab as opposed to the release. When I wrote Regulation of genetic engineering the best source I found was from the University of Woolongong. I don't know if this information is just not easily available, is kept in house or is just flooded out by regulations involving the release of GMOs. It has been a little while since I searched for this so will give it another go now. AIRcorn (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay found a few decent papers (-crops and -food in the search engine helped). Added quite a bit to the regulation article and a trimmed down version here. Hopefully this covers enough. Luckily the laboratory regulations are pretty consistent across all countries. AIRcorn (talk) 08:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • As to whether some countries are more advanced than others, I have not really found anything useful to add here. Common sense would say that countries with less scientific funding in general would be behind, but that is not A GM thing in particular. The regulations for research appear pretty consistent across most major scientific players so I imagine the reulations themselves don't play much role in this. AIRcorn (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To get a more worldwide view, maybe mention the (apparently only three) countries where GMO foods are banned entirely?
  • Article is strongly focused on the US, but almost nothing on China, despite it being a major player in research. I wonder what the regulations are in China? Apparently labeling is mandatory, but research seems not to be as strongly regulated considering the resent human babies?
    • The babies were not approved (for want of a better word) so were done outside of the regulatory system. It does pose questions on their checks and balances though. It may take a while, but I will see what I can dig up. I can add some info on crops from Genetically modified food in Asia#China, but may struggle to find info on research. As to the US bias, they are the major pusher of the technology (in crops anyway) so it is mainly focused on them. I tried to keep the regulation as a contrast between Europe and the USA as they are probably the most conflicting in terms of regulations. If that isn't apparent then I will look at rewording it. AIRcorn (talk) 08:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am in two minds about this. I understand the world view concern, but the fact is most sources focuses on the US vs EU conflict. Also as far as I can tell most other countries seem to base their regulations from those ones. The He controversy is still too new to really get a gauge on regulation wise, but may in the future provide some content suitable for here. We don't mention the ethics or regulation of human genetic engineering, because until now (well really Lulu and Nana still need better confirmation) it has always been the realm of sci fi. I also find this whole regulatory issues very dry and don't really want to add too much on regulatory agencies and legislation to this page (Regulation of genetic engineering is better suited to that). I could add the table I made at Genetic engineering here, but I feel I repeat that section too much already. I am going to leave this for now. Let me know if it is an issue that needs resolving and I will come back to it later. AIRcorn (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other ethical issues – the issues listed in the previous sentence are not (at least not all of them) ethical. I suggest to remove the "other".

Controversy section

[edit]
  • You state that there is no scientific evidence for negative impact on human health. But to be fair, there is evidence for other (e.g., environmental) concerns, such as gene flow. I think this evidence, especially regarding gene flow to other species, should be mentioned, with examples.
    • Most of that subject matter deals with Genetically modified crops, so I wonder if that would be a better question when that article is under GA review considering how the network of articles/daughter articles is set up? This one gets tricky because a lot of those "concerns" are WP:UNDUE or even WP:FRINGE depending on what's being asked. There have been talk page discussions about things like that in the past and this explains some of that. For your example, the risks of gene flow are basically no different between GMO or traditional breeding in the crop world at least (e.g., it doesn't matter whether herbicide tolerance came from traditional breeding or genetic engineering).
This sort of stuff has basically been set aside in the last paragraph of this article (and other articles) including some environmental things to "describe the controversy". I guess I'm not sure how much more could really be included at this broad overview article yet without first fleshing out more in the daughter/granddaughter articles before assessing the WP:SUMMARY here. Considering the potential legwork needed, maybe that's more relevant of the comprehensive scope for an FA instead of GA? Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider all my points as mere suggestions for further improvement. Not everything is required for reaching GA, including this point. My personal goal is not to pass it as GA as fast as possible, but to help improving the article as much as possible. Please feel free to skip everything you feel unreasonable. But if you are planning to get the article to FAC at some point, I have the feeling that the "Controversy" section is the weakest part of the article, and should ideally be improved before submitting to FAC. My suggestion above was one, probably ill-conceived, attempt to get the section into the right direction. This controversy is for sure of high relevance (maybe not so much for science, but for society in general), and in my opinion could be fleshed out without violating Summary style. I'm really not sure what to do precisely. It somehow remains very general and vague, without really getting to the points. A clear structure is also difficult to spot (most of the section is about food, with some bits in-between about other concerns). Maybe try to discuss concerns point by point. One more point that you may want to consider:
  • Although doubts have been raised,[315] most studies have found growing GM crops to be beneficial to farmers.[316][317][318] – "beneficial" is quite vague here. Using GM crops is arguably not beneficial for the farmer's health, as GM crops come in a package with pesticides. On the other hand, few would disagree that GM crops would be beneficial to the farmers as they increase yield. So why mention the farmers at all in the introductory paragraph? In my feeling the whole discussion revolves more around environmental impact and consumers health. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'm just feeling out what you were looking for along with some of the logistics of handling some of these topics in various depths. I'm mostly just trying to help wade through of the reasoning and history for the layout of this article and how it fits with the other articles. I'm not sure if this would be nominated for FA, but until it would be prepped for FA-like depth, I'd really only expect the gene flow topic to have a sentence or two at most on gene flow (currently mentioned in the controversy section) and more in the daughter articles. A bit more history on the controversy section is that it is meant to be vague as it gives brief mention of largely fringe viewpoints without going into depth or undue weight of those viewpoints while leaving more for Genetically modified food controversies. What you're seeing was an intent to balance describing the controversy with other policy, so while tweaking could be done, some vagueness was intended too.
For the sentence you mentioned, beneficial includes different aspects like financial, health, etc. in the cited sources. The health one is a big factor because the GM crops either have plant-produced insecticides or herbicide tolerance. The former replaces foliar insecticides, which are often a health risk for farmers, with one farmers generally don't have to interact with that also doesn't affect human health. The latter for herbicides currently uses a much less toxic herbicide that still gets sprayed like any other pesticide, but that's replacing older more toxic herbicides. Your comments are reminding me of a few areas here that could be strengthened, so I'll see if I can do some tweaks in this area in the next day or two to tackle some vague wording. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to streamline the controversy section a bit. It's going to be a sort of catchall either way, so if anyone else has ideas, it might be worth trying them. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I undid one of your edits as I think it is important to mention the secondary pest concern. I will expand on it when I get time. I am not sure about removing the health introductory sentence either. From my understanding health is the major concern anti-GM groups focus on so deserves a bit more weight. I think it is important for the narrative that we outline what the concerns are before we dispel them. That is followed by the environment, which although it gets less mentioning in the media has more evidence in the reliable literature. My general thinking weight wise is two paragraphs on health (one covered by the arb wording), two on environment (one focusing on gene flow - which is probably the most significant), one paragraph covering the other issues (IP, religous etc) and one paragraph giving us an intro to the opposition (including the groups involved). AIRcorn (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. The secondary pest thing isn't really unique to GMOs per se (open a niche with resistant plants or other control methods, GM or not, and something can still fill it) and probably fits better under the crop section, but I'm ok with your current version as is in terms of the GA nom at least. No strong feelings on any of my edits in the section really.
For a bit more clarification, the introductory sentence removal was meant to cut down on redundancy since the health stuff was more or less covered by the arb language, but it was just my stab at trimming if it worked. I also added the Kniss source in terms of parity because the Gilbert source isn't peer-reviewed (i.e., written only by a science journalist as opposed to a statement by an actual weed scientist that is usually considered reliable when attributed). There's more to flesh out on the gene flow topic to make sure everything is WP:DUE when mentioned, but it's also not something I'd fuss over any more for the GA at least. I agree with you that I'd rather see the controversy stuff integrated into the article and remove the section (and maybe get rid of some headaches trying to work with that material), but that's probably something for another day after GA. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it took a while to get down to here. While many of the agricultural issues are common to all farming (monocultures, pesticide use, etc), they are brought up a lot with regards to this technology. Maybe that paragraph needs to state that somewhere. I would love to move many of these specific concerns to the crop section, but the same could be said about the health paragraph (fish aside) and no one is going to touch that. Crops is mentioned as the major concern in the lead and intro of this section, so I don't think there are Due concerns giving it extra weight. I might include a sentence on containment of research GMOs somewhere to broaden the scope a bit if I can find a decent source. I actually misread your use of that parity source and see now it was for the preceding sentence. I still feel we need a stronger source to say that rates of weeds have not increased. I would be surprised if there was not a journal article on this.
As to the health info, my main problem is the constraints placed upon us by the GMORFC. It makes writing a flowing article a bit difficult (i.e. the regulatory sentence would fit in better above and there is no real lead in). In the end it is doable, and if we hadn't got closure on that I would not even be attempting this. A single paragraph could work, but it would need that one to be changed slightly. I think allergenicity needs to be mentioned as a concern, along with HGT to humans (although less so). Pusztai and Seralini could be something else that is linked (I think we did it well somewhere else). Obviously they need to be balanced with how much of a risk there actually is. I am of the opinion that not mentioning something due to unscientific concerns just makes the problem worse. Better to mention it and then explain the science. It does get a bit tricky for overview articles, but we all knew this was going to be a difficult section to get right. AIRcorn (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Part of my removals were just for streamlining with prejudice against fleshing those topics out if they fit better, so that all sounds pretty good. Allergenicity definitely can be pretty easily addressed in a WP:DUE fashion by mentioning that allergens are screened for as part of the regulatory process (i.e., adding a peanut allergen protein isn't going to get approved). For HGT, I’m still looking for good sources we can use here (I usually deal with the primary literature on this subject), but here’s a recent example of a primary source at least I have watch listed that's at least better quality in a parity sense. There are some older reviews that basically say HGT is not a significant risk to human or environmental health either. I’d still have to think about how to tackle this one too (maybe next week when I’m not on mobile). I don’t see this as something that would necessarily hinder the GA process and could be dealt with at a later time, so there doesn’t need to be a rush on this, but there’s also the now is as good as time as any aspect too. I'm getting more drive to really dig into developing this topic again, so I'd be willing to help out in either case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it depends how deep down the rabbit hole we go. There is the Brazilian nut and the pea which were self regulated to a degree. Plus you have the option of potentially removing allergens through GE. I added a source saying they are tested for toxicity and allerginicity. HGT to humans is overstated by many so not sure we need to give it more than a passing mention. Of the two studies often cited one is misunderstood and the other would be interpreted as background by most researchers. I added the older source you mentioned, if a newer one comes up we can replace it. I think we cover gene flow to other similar (or wild-type) species adequately now, but feel free to make some adjustments. Overall I am pretty happy with our coverage of crops, although I might look for some non-food controversies. AIRcorn (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The controversy sections are the biggest headache in all these articles. They take up most of the talk page discussions and have burnt out (sometimes unwillingly) many editors. I agree it is the weakest section here, and it is likely to remain so no matter what we do as there are so many different opinions on the topic of GMO safety and what is due weight. I think it is best to keep this as general as possible and not get too tied down in the arguments and counter arguments. We have Genetically modified food controversies for that. If it was completely up to me I would get rid of the controversy section altogether and incorporate it into other sections, but there are probably fair points to keep it in given the feelings and coverage of this issue.
I feel we cover gene flow well enough, I could potentially explain the Mexican maize example as it is probably the most well known. I should probably do the Monarch Butterflies for the same reason too.
Yeah I wasn't sure where to put the farmer info as it is often disputed as to whether there is any actual benefit to them from growing GM crops. It does look out of place; I will move it to the crop section where it should fit in better.
Personally I am not interested in getting these articles to FA level. I feel the amount of fine-tuning needed is not the most efficient use of my time. I could probably get half a dozen of these articles to GA standard in the time it takes to get one to FA.
Anyway, thanks for your patience, this section could take a while to get acceptable to everyone. AIRcorn (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten comments

[edit]

My apologies, I forgot two:

Thanks. This was exactly what I was looking for in a review. I will work through these with KofA over the next few days. AIRcorn (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything to add at this point. Your changes all look good from what I see. The controversy addition looks good too (notable opinions put in the right place etc.). Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you did an amazing job, the whole thing is much better now, including the "controversy" section. Happy to pass the well-deserved GA. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genetically_modified_organism/GA1&oldid=884478477"