Jump to content

Talk:George Church (geneticist)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:George M. Church)

Untitled

[edit]
  • This page could be moved to the corresponding User page, if that is the more appropriate place for it, but the bots don't seem to permit such a move nor enable compliance with the request that "poorly sourced must be removed immediately". George Church 02:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, adding tags, on principle

[edit]

I am a very great admirer of Prof Church's science and broader contributions. I am also a fan of his forthrightness in self-representation, and other aspects of his editing (including clear striving for neutral POVs), here at Wikipedia.

However, there is no gainsaying that the bulk of the material in this article on him, per se has not been introduced by independent editors. As indicated below—and I encourage other editors to review the whole of the article Edit history as I did—the bulk of total material has either been introduced by Prof Church, or (it appears, clearly) by his spouse—see article lede for mention of Ting Wu, and appended. Until there is a commitment here in Talk, on the part of both, to not add any material, in small part or large, to their own articles, this POV tag should remain in place. Earlier Talk covered placement and removal of at least one earlier POV tag, after the matter of the early edits by Prof Church himself; submission, however, is to the letter and not spirit of the WP: policy, if one's spouse makes the next major block of edits after one agrees personally not to do so.

Extended content

The way forward, as I see it, is a commitment on the part of these two significant WP contributors not to add further to their own articles (or to enlist others to place particular text, either). While it is always acceptable to encourage others to take interest in content, including related to ones own interests, the encouragement must be with "open hand", allowing the independent editing to take whatever direction it wishes, and so remain truly independent.

If, in relinquishing control over the accuracy or completeness of this article, Profs Church and Wu identify issues, they have the accepted recourse of all editor's here—to come to Talk to persuade other editors to take notice and repair things. But they should no longer do anything themselves, on in any fashion enlist others to do so for them; the article should evolve away from the two of their contributions, toward true, WP-mandated article independence. Or, as I often do, sources with content that they come across that they believe should be added can be posted here to Talk, with comment, for others to read and digest (and decide fully independently) whether or not to add them. I for one will monitor the Talk page, to help in any way time permits.

For these reasons (incl. the evidence appended), and because the preeminence of the discoveries listed in the article are self-reported and are based on primary sources (therefore violating WP:POV, and requiring WP:OR to evaluate)—the set of article tags appearing were placed, rather than take a more war-like but accepted approach of reverting the non-independent edits. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • 04:44, 9 June 2013‎ C.-ting Wu (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,646 bytes) (+13,845)‎
  • 04:46, 13 April 2007‎ George Church (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,051 bytes) (+1,533)‎
  • 00:18, 23 January 2006‎ George Church (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (1,490 bytes) (+1,490)‎
Non-independent edits should only lead to tags or reverts if they are inappropriate. There is no absolute ban on people editing their own bios, as long as they adhere to NPOV. Because this is difficult where oneself is concerned, other editors should check for POV, but if, as you say above at the start of your comment, the subject's edits are NPOV, there's no reason not to accept them. There is no reason either to request a commitment from anybody not to edit here. COI means there can be POV, it does not imply POV. --Randykitty (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Striving for NPOV is not achieving NPOV; read the article. Then, please reply to the rest of my comments, rather than attempt to derail this initiative based on an opinion on one part of the issue. While replying, please clearly indicate the secondary sources mentioned that give precedence to the claimed, self-reported discoveries of this scientist — sources that are independent of the article subject, and for that matter, independent of the editor making the edits. At the same time, please further note any controversies that have occurred involving this scientist, and where they are discussed in this article. Then, finally, to make clear your point, please, discuss again how this article is encyclopedic and truly neutral in content, and so differing substantially in tone and content that might appear on this academic's CV or Harvard web page.
Otherwise, given your support of the clearly problematic course of the article, I'll call its attention to other editors with BLP backgrounds, sooner, rather than later. The non-independent editors that have created this page understood from early on that involved parties should not be adding materials (and a spouse is an involved party, and is not independent); the two editors addressed are creating a personal representation of one of them at Wikipedia, and need quickly to understand that your response is not indicative of general perspectives on the matter. Leprof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the article history, it looks like George Church has not made any substantive edits to this article since 2007. A large edit has indeed been made by an account claiming to be his wife (although this is likely the case, we never can be sure, of course). Note also that many other people have edited the article without signaling any problem. Now to go back to your original questions and request to these editors, I repeat: WP has no ban on editing an article with which one has a COI. COI editing is discouraged, because most people cannot write neutrally about subjects they are involved with. But other people can, so there is no interdiction (which would be impossible to enforce anyway, only because Dr. Church and his spouse self-identify are we aware of any COI here). Given this, there is no a priori reason to think that any involved edits should be reverted wholesale, such would only be allowable if the involved edits were inappropriate. The foregoing is about the principles of COI editing: no ban, just discouraged and only if there is a POV problem could a ban be considered. Now about the practice: if you feel that the article suffers from inappropriate POV, well, go ahead and fix it. If it doesn't and your only problem is the fact that there has been COI editing, I tell you that is not a problem and you can remove the tags. I have no intention to do all the research on this person that you suggest, as I don't see any reason for myself to do so, but, again, feel free to do so yourself and edit the article. As long as you adhere to WP:BLP guidelines, don't go overboard and introduce a negative POV, and make sure everything is sourced to reliable sources, I don't see any problem with that. Just casting aspersions on the article without giving proof is uncalled for, however, as is the addition of POV/COI tags on a BLP without indicating what exactly the problem is (which in itself could then be seen as POV...). Hope this explains policy clearly enough. --Randykitty (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We agree that GC has not edited since 2007, but that Prof Wu (GC spouse) contributed material more than doubling the size of the article in Jun 2013, adding much of the material to which I have referred in my questions regarding precedence of discovery. I imagine we can also agree that between the two of them, they have contribute more than 60% of the total material (and likely far more than that). Were this all to the matter, then your policy summary would suffice.
But, you have have passed, twice now, on addressing the clear and already stated matters challenging your "all is OK" perspective—that these two major contributors establish precedence of discoveries not via independent, secondary sourcing, but rather by their own primary publications (a clear policy violation, non?), that there is no mention of controversy in the article though the word is used repeatedly in the press regarding his neanderthal comments (and in general regarding a wide variety of synthetic biology and personal genomics implications), and finally, that in presenting his perspective on himself, essentially entirely, without critical thought, we are simply publishing his CV, or serving as a personal website for him.
As I said at the onset. I admire this man's accomplishments and his scientific work (as a junior peer in a related field). I do not believe this is an appropriate use of a Wikipedia article (or that your review/analysis was carefully enough performed to draw any firm conclusion about my original posting, for that matter). Please leave the tags in place. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my comments again, I don't say "all is OK". If you see problems, well, then WP:SOFIXIT. If the only problem is the use of primary sources (you don't indicate anything else here), then that should be the only tag on the article. I'm fine with tags, I often place them myself, but if you cannot explain why a certain tag is needed, they should go, regardless of who added the content. Your "neutrality" tag, for example: you don't give any reason why this article is not neutral. Lack of secondary sources? Fine, you have argued that. But your cleanup tag with accusations towards the subject is incorrectly stating "subject provided", while in reality it wasn't the subject but somebody else (with a COI, but still not the subject himself). This is a WP:BLP and you have to be careful with such tags. --Randykitty (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS: looking at the list of references, I see a plethora of independent secondary sources (newspapers -both US and foreign-, government websites, etc). Perhaps some inline tags "secondary source needed" are justified, but certainly not a general tag like you have placed now. --Randykitty (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's step back, and begin reading each, what the other writes. I do not claim all tags need ultimately remain, but I do argue that all are currently germane and speak to substantive issues, and so should remain until other interested editors besides us alight on the article to address the matters raised. (Tags are not a means of expressing personal displeasure; they are a means of alerting readers to issues, and drawing WP editor attention, and that is how I am using them.) I make no claim whatsoever about news coverage of the scientist (i.e., that it is lacking); rather, I claim that what does appear is one-sided, ignoring otherwise clear controversy surrounding the article subject. Then, in re: the actual issue stated with regard to primary sources: To use primary sources to establish primacy of scientific discovery involves, per WP policy, original research (see discussion in re: use of patents and primary sources); when this is done by the article subject and his wife, this constitutes a COI and POV issue. Please, bring this to immediate administrative adjudication. I will do so shortly, regardless, and certainly if you make any substantive changes to the tagging. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted this at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#George M. Church (you were pinged so you may have already seen it). Let's see what the people there have to say. --Randykitty (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the discussion to the more specifically relevant COI noticeboard, see last entry of this date, at the link appearing immediately above. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion all the current clean up tags should be removed and replaced with a simple NPOV tag.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The earlier set of tags to which Keithbob refers were removed, then tags were returned to the article by User:Kashmiri, see [4]. There seems to be acceptance of the current location and set of article tags, with effort underway to move the article toward independence and secondary sourcing, so all tags can be removed. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to let you know

[edit]

That I have given up trying to have the general, objective expectations of this venue—that people to not create and populate the articles about themselves and their loved ones, because it leads to inevitable bias—apply to the pair of your personal articles. It seems, in the same sense that the founder of Wikipedia can post immediate edits based on his first hand (unpublished, and so unverifiable) experiences in clear defiance of founding policies, it is simply true that rules applied by consensus evolve to be applied selectively, and seemingly least-wise to those with position or power. I would simply encourage you and your spouse to find a way, other than those used in the past (of cross-editing and maintaining each others WP articles), and so abide by the neutral, independent sourcing policies and aims of this site—even if the site itself cannot consistently hold itself to that standard. That said, I would reiterate what I said during the course of the COI/OR dispute, that while I have been critical, on principle, of the self/spouse maintained BLP content, I am truly a "fan" of your and your spouse's illustrious efforts and bodies of work. Cheers, and best wishes for that and for health and productivity in your pursuits in 2015. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. How do we proceed?

[edit]

I just noticed the 13-Jul-2014 to 8-Feb-2015 talk page comments, and am open to suggestions. Reading over the discussion, it seems like the COI "commitment" policy is not a full consensus, but I'm willing to abide by the strict version. If there is a "subjective" phrase unsupported by legitimate citation, then whoever sees it can remove it. The question of primary vs secondary sources is interesting. Most primary sources (like references 11,17,19,21,24,29,30,31,33,37,39,47) are in peer-reviewed journals. References (5,6,14,15,43,44,52,54) are not peer-reviewed, but are factual and easily checked, while many of the "secondary" sources in various wiki articles (not just this one) are based on press releases. It seems like a mixture of primary and secondary is valuable, but if anyone wants to delete any/all 20 of 69 references which are "primary", that is fine with me. Also anything related to Neanderthal, Synbio, etc. can be marked as controversial, if that would help the NPOV. What else can be done to fix the COI and Peacock tags added by Kashmiri on 8-Feb-2015? Thanks and best wishes. George Church (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George, thanks for the reply here.I can work to reverse this, but need your assistance. (I had intended to phone you, but it has been a busy real-life quarter.) In principal, I would go back to what I suggested early. This is a general suggestion to all individuals that wish to ensure that the quality of their personal page remains high:
  • Place any sources found regarding ones own work or person, here, in a Talk section, appropriately entitled (e.g., "New source on… [biographical information, or new position, or review on synbio, etc.]
  • Then, await other interested editors making the changes suggested in the new sources, in a manner that is completely independent of your input.
  • Likewise, have all those closely associated with you desist from making edits on your behalf.
  • Thereafter, as issues arise in the article (or your wife's article), at the article Talk page, start a new Talk section, explaining the issue. E.g., "The direction that is being taken now in describing the Neanderthal controversy has become biased, as evidence by the fact that…". You are free to call attention to issues, here, that we might act on, and this is far, far preferable to your and yours doing the corrections yourself.
Yes, this distancing from your page can be aggravating. In many cases when one offers sources, they are ignored or only acted upon very slowly—the result being periods where the article is not up to date, or otherwise inaccurate. However, the alternative is that ones personal page becomes viewed as a page existing solely to maintain a perception of the title subject by the subject him/herself. And this is of course contrary to encyclopedic content. In the case of your article, I think I can assure you that inattention will not be a major issue, though I'm sure patience will at times be necessary.
If there are priorities here, for you, to move things forward, I would say they are:
  • (1) identify, here at Talk, independent sources for any poorly sourced or unsourced biographical material. This can be challenging. But any published article on you and your work that is not an interview is better—more independent—than a source simply re-presenting your self-prepared biographical material. That is, we requite independent sources over a conference bio, speaking agency bio, Harvard faculty bio page, etc. Databased documentary evidence such as bibliographic entries are satisfactory to be able to speak to many specifics, such as where trained, when graduated, etc. (E.g., I recently settled this sort of issue, establishing the Berkeley Ph.D. of documentarian Annalee Newitz using the Scopus entry for her dissertation.)
  • (2) identify, here, press sources that fairly present controversial issues related to your work or person. Granted, these will include your opinion, second hand, because you selected the article to call to our attention. But the editor's involvement thereafter is what is required to establish the content of this article as independent; you are simply providing the starting point, and your view of balance. Your perspective is important, but it cannot be the defining word—as it is, in the case of your and yours creating the content, per se.
  • And, saving the most challenging for last: (3) identify secondary and tertiary sources, that I and others interested can use to replace the preponderance of primary sourced material in your article. As I have said repeatedly, I am not doubting the primacy of discovery stated here, for various firsts; it is a matter of principle not to cite the primary research discovery alone (or for that matter, reviews by the discoverer). To establish the primacy there needs to be a preponderance of stated secondary source material, establishing discovery by an individual. In the same vein, patents will not do at all, because by WP policy, the selection of a patent to include as support for discovery—the very act of selecting one patent from all that might apply—is an expression or WP:OR, original expert research, and a patent is, by definition self-published, and therefore prohibited by WP:SELFPUBLISH, so that editors are barred from these. Note, these strictures also include press releases, for the obvious reason that a press release alone has not survived journalistic scrutiny; it is simply, as we both know, a statement of an institution associated with the individuals involve, and therefore has vested interested (and so fails the test of source independence).
Bottom line, independent secondary and tertiary sources, presenting vetted/checked biographical information, and in the case of new science, appearing a bit of time after an original discovery—these are what make scientific content truly encyclopedic. Independent crafting of your articles by concerned editors—count me in, for at least some—based on such sources will make a lasting article that is above reproach. Still may call, but this is fodder for thought until. Cheers. Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beginnings of independent edit

[edit]

In response to the dialog, above, with Prof Church, I have begun a major edit. The goal is to make the article independent, and to improve its sourcing, so its tags can be removed.

Today, I made the lede more representative of the article, and moved personal information to a new section at the end. I also started removing all self-published biographical material, trusting other independent sources to appear (or, failing that, we remove the unsourced information).

Because the lede now represents the article, and does not have the issue of independence or POV raise by another editor, I have moved those article tags, and the tags calling for more and better references, to below the lede. I know this is unusual, but it reflects the citation-free nature of the lede, and its neutrality (for I am unrelated to and have never worked with or for the title subject or his institutions).

Extended content
No, you shouldn't do that, moving the article tags. The citation-free nature of the lede isn't a sufficient reason, well, maybe it is, but I would like to see some Wiki justification for such, please?--FeralOink (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not a wiki-lawyer, just a content matter expert, so cannot cite chapter and verse to justify this move of tags. BUT, am trying to settle a long-running back-and-forth tag/untag history on this article, which finally seems to be moving forward productively (to deal with underlying issues). Would like this to continue. Moving the tags down is a bow to those that are strong proponents of "no work needing be done" here (untag cadre).
I have persuaded Prof Church that it is in long term interests to indeed make changes (in content and editorial process), but want to ensure peace with his proponents. Besides the fact that lede is citation-free, and so the appearing citation-related tags do not apply to the lede, I re-wrote the lede, and so the independence and POV tags do not apply to the lede, either. That is, no appearing tags are germane to the lede. As well, specific instructions relating to refimprive allow that tag to be placed, not at top of article, but above reference section, and so there is, in principle, precedent for what I propose. (Lor' he'p me, that I know all this.) I will move the tags back down, and hope you can find the WP: justification for making an exception here. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, so YOU are the voice of reason and compromise here! Don't let Professor Church and his wife intimidate you, okay? He has no business messing with this article. I can cite the talk pages of two other academicians of equal or greater stature as Prof Church (in other fields) who were not allowed to meddle in their BLP articles. Wiki-lawyering isn't a perquisite here, e.g. I am a mere financial economist but I know that the COI rules apply to everyone. I only found this article by accident, due to an adulating sophomore student of Prof Church. so I won't raise any further ruckus. Please don't allow self-interested parties to browbeat you into submission, okay? A drastically shortened, simplified version of the article might be an alternative option. This is a BLP. We need to know Prof. Church's religion, spouse(s), number of children if any, that sort of thing. Carry on! I'll cease and desist.--FeralOink (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just as you took hold of the wrong end of the stick in the image deletion matter, you have done so here. You are taking issue with the editor (Le Prof) who has not in any way been brow-beaten. Despite initial conflict with various independent but interested editors at WP, we've actually succeeded—after a personal respite, for practical reasons—in seeing strict COI policies followed at this article. Notably (and thankfully), it was Prof Church, on hearing of the dispute, that responded and supported a new paradigm of participation—that he and those closest to him recommend and advise here, but not edit directly. That is, Prof Church was a part of the solution now being applied, and in no case did he attempt to intimidate. (Some proponents of the initial, non-independent and primary sourced article were more defensive and less flexible than GMC himself.) Please, FerO, don't muddy waters with quick read-responds to the complex situation and matters at hand. We are on a new productive course. Please join in constructively, here, or wherever you can. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What a lovely rebuke,71.239.87.100 or um, Leprof 7272! You are most welcome for the barn star. I still think you deserve it even though you clearly think I indulge in (vapid) "quick read-responds to the complex situation and matters at hand". I'm just an emotional woman, I'm afraid. I did not take hold of the wrong end of the stick in the image deletion matter. I have plenty of experience with such matters on Wikipedia. Look at Robert Kagan's BLP talk page. Prof. Church could learn a little humility. Look at Prof. Brian Wansink's BLP talk page. Wikipedia didn't tolerate his wife's meddling. The current George Church page has unacceptable, non-NPOV sources.
Are you using both an IP address AND a user name to edit? If so, why are you doing that? You are muddying waters. It is also considered bad form if you don't state it on your user page. Other Wikipedians are not allowed such indulgences and obfuscation. (If not, is there both a LeProf IP editor and a LeProf 7272?) I have been told not to muddy waters by the IP editor/LeProf/LeProf 7272 though.
Ting Wu is using her BLP article to SOAPBOX for her eugenics-related education business for charter school students in Boston and Washington D.C. Her article needs editing of peacock language and especially, pruning of copious links to Common Core lesson plans on eugenics and Hollywood celebrity industry associations!--FeralOink (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Points taken, and will reply further, but your good humour goes a long way toward easing tensions, and we will find our productive stride here. Know that I am as passionate about principles as you, just more the negotiator, yet, and found here, accidentally, that Prof Church was willing to engage in a fair and collegial manner, and so I am proceeding. As for IP and regular login, yes, both, but always with clear connecting the two so no hint of sockp... for the reasons related to past stalking. I get my edits in, from where ever I find myself, and use the login as I need to elevate the debate, WP in general, etc. Cheers, perhaps more later. Will take a look at your User page. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If interested in this matter, don't just revert or take sides (see Prof Church's very engaging comments above)—choose also to engage in the discussion about ways in which Prof Church and Prof Wu might best support their articles (see preceding Talk section), and begin the long task of independently reviewing sources and "re-sourcing" non-independent material, or material that is based solely on primary sources.

I expect, as a pattern of work emerges that includes replacing self-published sources and further substantiating material heretofore only supported by author publications, the two tags regarding independence and POV can quickly disappear (and the sourcing tags, as quickly thereafter as we can deal with issues).

Next, I will look to the PNAS/National Academy bio, and use it as source for whatever good material it contains. While it is not necessarily the best for independent biography, it is certainly better than ones own faculty pages, or award or other self-produced blocks of biography. Cheers all.

Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have begun to add independent sources for biographical information, and am listing reliable sources I find, at least temporarily, as "Further reading." Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to independent edit queries

[edit]

Thanks for your efforts. I’ve tried to fill in the requested dates and secondary sources below. George Church (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, will get to them as soon as I can. You can further assist by speaking up if any of your many fans discover the changes to the page, take offense without reading the Talk, and revert recent edits. If a reversion "war" begins, your being the one to return us to the current, progress-focused status quo would go a long way to discouraging unnecessary reversions and argument. First sign of wasted effort (via reversions), and I am out, and back to non-futile cycle ventures.
Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have begun this work, please note progress, and the vector it proposes for how we can proceed (what sources/requests do and do not immediately work). If you can add to and edit the following, in the same style/format, it might make it easiest to keep this going (e.g., no bracketed ref apparatus, etc., rather than me having to take time to re-present your information in a way that others can see and respond to quickly). Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing for needed information, provided by Prof Church, for editors use

[edit]

The following is information provided by Prof Church, for editors to check for relevance to article, notability of content, and appropriateness of referencing, etc. It is divided into two parts, edits to old material and proposed new content. In the material, the text to search and edit in the article is in italics. Please, editors, mark changes as  Done or  Not done, with any needed explanation given in following, inset and signed. Thank you. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

edits to old material

Extended content

...attended high school at the preparatory boarding school Phillips Academy, in Andover, Massachusetts, from 1968 to 1972.

  • Alex Salton, 2009, "Geneticist George Church ’72 Sought Independence at PA," The Phillipian, April 17, 2009, see [5], accessed 2 March 2015.
 Done Also added this source to further reading, because it may have other useful content. Note change of format is to accommodate all needed information (including date accessed). Please only standardize citation formats later (they often encumber subject matter expert editors); begin after all content, and all bare URL and other sourcing deficiencies are gone. Goal is GA status, which means content work, then beautification of formats. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At Duke University, beginning September 1972, he completed a bachelors degree in zoology and chemistry in two years.

  • ref name=NairNASbio
 Not done No mention of year 1972 in Nair, and degree duration already sourced. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Fall 1973, Church began research with Sung-Hou Kim, work that continued in a graduate program at at Duke September 1974. Research there included contributions toward 5 research publications, on a three dimensional structure of a folded nucleic acid and on models for protein-DNA interactions

  • Commenting on the new Wayne Anderson, Brian Matthews, et al. structure of a Cro repressor-DNA complex, and on the new David McKay and Thomas Steitz structure of a CAP-cAMP complex; David Davies, 1981, "Two DNA-binding proteins," Nature 290:736f, see [6], accessed 4 March 2015.
  • "Sung-Hou Kim Publications 1975-1965".
First pass edit done, but this specific content addition was  Not done because (a) S.H. Kim citation, not used, lists a single Church publication, and is otherwise not a good/adequate source for the suggested content (esp. not dates, and 5 paper tally), (b) Davies citation, though useful, and added and excerpted as formatted here, also only mentions a single citation, and does not support the dates appearing here. Rather than overstate the content of these suggested sources, material was derived from the Nat Geograph biographical piece and the Duke letter of 1976 (see article). The 1973-1974 dates were nevertheless added, along with a call for sourcing,[citation needed] since that is still inadequate (however true the dates might be). Le Prof. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Church transferred to Harvard University September 1977.[citation needed]

 Done But with citation needed tag remaining until date is sourced. Note also, if this is not quite the accurate story—if other content mentioning departure from Duke, and subsequent application at (not transfer in good standing to) Harvard are the case, this needs further edit for accuracy Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Duke and Harvard information was edited based on the Nat Geograph information regarding withdrawal from Duke, and entry at Harvard. Not perfect, but seemingly more accurate. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

…

employees at Biogen (1984)… Faculty in 1986.

  • ref name=NairNASbio
 Done Both pieces of information, and more, found in Nair source. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In his research career at Harvard and collaborating institutions, Church has risen to the level of Robert Winthrop Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School,

  • Heidi Legg, 2014, "Harvard Professor George Church and the future of genomics," at BetaBoston, a Boston Globe site (online), December 25, 2014, see [7], accessed 2 March 2015.
 Done As above, placed also in further reading for other editors to mine. Again, please honour temp. change in format. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and of Health Sciences and Technology at Harvard and MIT.

  • ref name=ocw
 Done and  Not done The ref "ocw" is to the bare URL citation" "OCW HST.508 Genomics and Computational Biology". 2002., which is a course page, and not an acceptable source to make the text claim. However, a separate source was found, and so a citation is added, and this tag removed. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 04:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

…

co-authored more than 300 publications and 50 patents.

 Not done This statement needs, in my view, a news citation—someone like the NYT or WSJ saying this, so we have source and "as of" date, rather than an OR effort to generate it—unless another editor can make clear that it is acceptable to base tallied accomplishments on search-results-plus-logic that may go dead in future. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and  Done, for now: found an mit media lab source indicating a publication and patent tally, and so added this citation. While this is imperfect, as it is not independent—almost certainly, the media lab is reporting tallies provided by the title subject—it is likely near to accurate, and is sourced, and can await a better source as it identified. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 04:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

…

a multiyear (1987-2015) award from the U.S. Department of Energy.

:  Not done the mandell reference cannot be located, and the osti.gov citation covers a part but not all of the data range. Will wait for clearer sourcing for this historical statement.

…

Church was also co-inventor of nanopore sequencing in 1989-1995,

  • ref name=wang
This and following edit request moved to a separate section below.

which is now commercially developed by Oxford Nanopore Technologies and Genia Technologies (Roche),

This and preceding edit request moved to separate action below.

using protein motors to step DNA through tightly-fitting protein pores (or modified bases moving past such pores) as described in Church's contribution to the original patents.

…

proposing an alternative "open consent" mechanism.

  • ref name=nhgri
  • ref name=angrist

…

In 2013, in response to a question from Der Spiegel, Church speculated that it could be technically possible to make a Neanderthal by reconstructing the DNA of a Neanderthal and modifying living human cells accordingly.

Then the MIT Technology Review fabricated a "Want-Ad" headline, "Wanted: Surrogate for Neanderthal Baby."

 Not done Need statement from published source that MIT "fabricated" this, not just source for purported fabrication. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soon other media, such as The Daily Mail, picked it up.

In 2015, his Nature paper on biocontainment

  • ref name=mandell
  • Mandell DJ, Lajoie MJ, Mee MT, Takeuchi R, Kuznetsov G, Norville JE, Gregg CJ, Stoddard BL, Church GM (5 Feb 2015). "Biocontainment of genetically modified organisms by synthetic protein design". Nature. 518 (7537): 55–60. PMID 25607366.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

drew criticism on both sides of the GMO debate, for providing reassurance that GMOs can be made safe, as well as for "mollifying [anti-GMO] campaigners" that there might be any safety problems.

proposed new content

Extended content

NEW SUBSECTION: Cautionary Notes on Exponential Technologies

He is a member of the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER) and Future of Life Institute (FLI).

Here is possible better source for this (independent of organisation being reported on):
  • KutzweilAI, 2012, "The Cambridge Project for Existential Risk," at KURZWEILACCELERATINGINTELLIGENCE (online), June 29, 2012, see [8], accessed 2 March 2014.

He has recommend safety precautions for CRISPR gene drives.

He has participated in the Presidential Commission

 Done As a result of progress in adding good, independent citations to the "Principal career elements" section, the "refimprove" tag has been removed from that section. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 04:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image issue addressed

[edit]

I just nominated this photo for deletion.--FeralOink (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The image is there on the profile, in one of zip files. It is PD, then. kashmiri TALK 11:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Issue addressed, see the link in the initial comment from FerO. Cheers, glad this was a matter quickly settled. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second of three images of title subject moved to Talk

[edit]
Image of Church portraying his role in the Personal Genome Project.

The following image is moved here because the legend provided lacks meaning ("How does one portray a role..."?); and without guidance (sources indicating when and where it was taken), no legend can easily be composed. In addition, the photograph adds little to the foregoing and following images—there is no striking difference in appearance, age, etc. that is captured. Hence, I think it can simple remain omitted. Perhaps more appropriate would be Church-created images in the public domain that capture principal ideas from his research. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining Issues

[edit]

There is one question about the word “fabricated”. The current version say that the Daily Mail “fabricated a "Want-Ad", but their story ran 3 days after the MIT Tech Review story. If the issue is the connotation of the word, then a word like “constructed”, “reported” or “declared” could be substituted.

The image in question, I agree, doesn’t add much.

The "proposed new content" reference change looks appropriate. There are 6 citations needed. If the text is changed slightly, then appropriate citations can be assigned (see below).

George Church (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing for needed information, provided by Prof Church, for editors use, Part II

[edit]

As above, please investigate and perform individual edits, or extend edits as you see fit based on sources, marking each  Done or  Not done as the case may be. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Prof Church proposes substituting “constructed”, “reported” or “declared” for “fabricated” where the current version says that the Daily Mail “fabricated a "Want-Ad".]

  • No change of citation proposed.

Citation: technologyreview.com/view/510071/wanted-surrogate-for-neanderthal-baby (Date of Tech Review precedes date of Daily Mail by 3 days) George Church (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Church did research work at Duke with a young assistant professor of biochemistry, Sung-Hou Kim,[citation needed]"

  • Church proposed citation {Le Prof correction] = Brock, 2008 Miller, 2015
 Not done and then  Done. The only content I could find in Brock is that "He [Church] took a summer course in quantum physics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and then began a job in Sung-Hou Kim’s crystallography lab." This is not historical information, as it lacks the dates and detail to allow it to be useful here, and indeed, prima facie, appears to incorrectly suggest Prof Kim at MIT. If there is mention elsewhere in Brock related to this sentence, please indicate. But note, in the long run, even this would need to be replaced, as it is interview information, which is self-referential, and is generally no a good source for historical encyclopedic content. However, ultimately, in following up a further point below, I found reference to S-H Kim and Duke, and was able to add a citation here. Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Church was in a graduate biochemistry program at Duke with an NSF fellowship;[citation needed]"

  • Church proposed citation = Brock, 2008; Peter Miller, 2015
 Done. While not perfect, Brock is sufficient for NSF, and Miller for being at Duke. Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

["Peter Miler" should be "Miller".]

 Done. Note, @George Church:, this type of minor copyedit is something that you can go ahead and do without pause (for there is no neutrality or verifiability issue that could be raised). Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Church began graduate work anew at Harvard University in 1977 under Walter Gilbert,[citation needed]"

  • Church proposed citation [Le Prof expansion] = Jeffrey Perkel, 2013, "BioTechniques: Celebrating 30 Years of Methods Development," BioTechniques 55(5), November 2013, 227–230, see [9], accessed 21 March 2014.
 Done. Perfect. Only ask next time that we be provided with a usable, full citation, rather than just the URL (as we strive to avoid the appearance of Upstairs, Downstairs modes of collaboration here). Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"multiyear award from the U.S. Department of Energy.[when?] from 1987 to 2003[citation needed]"

"not in the form embodied in Church's contribution to the original patents.[25][broken citation]"

  • This is fixed in the "edits to old material" section of this Talk page [above].
 Not done. Not fixed above; citation URL remains broken. This sentence has three sources and edits, and for its complexity, and the work involved, is moved to a separate Talk section below. Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"He has been an early advocate of online, open education since the MIT Open Courseware (OCW) in 2002.[citation needed]"

George Church (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed edit of nanopore sequencing sentence

[edit]

The following edit is proposed by Prof Church:


Change from—

"Church was also co-inventor of nanopore sequencing in 1995,[citation needed] which are now commercially available (e.g. Oxford Nanopore Technologies),[citation needed] but not in the form embodied in Church's contribution to the original patents."

Note, this reference remains broken, and even if found elsewhere, is an unprocessed press release from Genia, and therefore not a suitable independent source for any claims made regarding the system or the primacy of its fundamental discoveries. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about removing the broken url and using this one? genomeweb.com/sequencing/genia-licenses-nano-sbs-tech-columbia-nist-plans-2014-launch-nanopore-sequencer George Church (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change to—

"Church was also co-inventor of nanopore sequencing in 1989-1995,"

  • Church proposed citation = wang
 Not done. Proposed citation is not explicit enough to assign to citation in current bibliography, or to literature otherwise. What is the full citation, to which "wang" refers? Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the currently excluded source that you wish to cite?
  • Yue Wang, Qiuping Yang and Zhimin Wang, 2015, The evolution of nano pore sequencing, Front. Genet., January 7, 2015, DOI 10.3389/fgene.2014.00449, see [10], accessed 21 March 2015.
Rsvp, here. Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That is the relevant Wang et al Frontiers in Genetics. 7-Jan-2015. George Church (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"which is now commercially developed by Oxford Nanopore Technologies and Genia Technologies (Roche),"

  • Church proposed citation [Le Prof expansion] = GEN, 2014, "GEN News Highlights: Roche Acquires Genia for Up to $350M," Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News (online), see [11], accessed 21 March 2015.
 Not done. Oxford's involvement is not covered by this source, and so at least one additional source will be needed. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about this for Oxford? medgadget.com/2008/08/dna_sequencing_technology_from_oxford_nanopore.html George Church (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"but not in the form embodied in Church's contribution to the original patents."

Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done. The best that I could do from the one usable source is the following:

The Church group continues to contribute to important fundamental technology advances for the development of nanopore sequencing; for instance, in 2012, Genia Technologies (a Roche acquisition) launched a collaboration to combine its complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) circuitry with protein constructs from the Church group and Tag-based sequencing chemistry and nanopore-based sequencing by synthesis (nano-SBS) developed by the groups of Jingyue Ju at Columbia University and John J. Kasianowicz at the National Institute of Standards and Technology.[1][2] The Jingyue Ju (Columbia)-led consortium of that group and Church's at Harvard, and the Genia team was thereafter 1 of 8 research teams to win a two to four-year "Revolutionary Genome Sequencing Technologies–The $1,000 Genome" grant from NIH’s National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI); the $5.25 million grant was from an award pool of about $17 million from the NHGRI's Advanced DNA Sequencing Technology program aimed at reducing costs of practical DNA sequencing.[1][3]

  1. ^ a b GEN, 2014, "GEN News Highlights: Roche Acquires Genia for Up to $350M," Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News (online), see [1], accessed 21 March 2015.
  2. ^ Shiv Kumar, Chuanjuan Tao, Minchen Chien, Brittney Hellner, Arvind Balijepalli, Joseph W. F. Robertson, Zengmin Li, James J. Russo, Joseph E. Reiner, John J. Kasianowicz & Jingyue Ju, 2012, "PEG-Labeled Nucleotides and Nanopore Detection for Single Molecule DNA Sequencing by Synthesis," Nature Scientific Reports 2, No. 684, September 21, 2012DOI 10.1038/srep00684, see [2], accessed 21 March 2015.
  3. ^ NHGRI, 2013, "New NIH awards focus on nanopore technology for DNA sequencing," National Human Genome Research Institute (Bethesda, Md.), September 6, 2013, see [3], accessed 21 March 2015.
This will be placed in after a reasonable period for discussion. Note, @George Church: the URL second source remains broken and so the related tag must remain; at present there is no other citation in the sentence to cover patent embodiment statement.
Other editors here in the life sciences, esp. with background in mol genetics technology, please join in on checking these references, and adjusting text as necessary to allow removal of [citation needed] tags. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Milestone: Refimprove tag removed from Section

[edit]

The Refimprove tag could be removed today, from the "Early life and training" section, see [12]. This is a milestone, a challenging one to achieve (given the article state and the ambiguity of many sources as to historical detail). But having reached it, it is a good step toward having this article fully sourced with independent review of the material. Only the call to expand remains in this section, which aims to have all aspects of training relatively uniformly covered in this section. Cheers to all involved and helping reach this milestone. Please continue the pattern of only adding new material to this (and other) sections, with sources, as work proceeds. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Milestone: COI tag removed from Multiple Issues/Article

[edit]

The COI tag could be removed today, from the head of the article, in the multiple issues markup, see [13]. This is a milestone, and is based on a solid month or more of collaborative work with prior COI contributors, who are now working with other editors to migrate the article toward independence, and full sourcing. This too was challenging one to achieve, given the state to the article, and its history, but thanks are due in large part to Prof Church for fostering this evolution in the direction of good, independent encyclopedic writing (and WP policy compliance). This step toward having the article fully sourced with independent review of the material is one that can continue, with absence this COI tag, as long as no party too close to the title subject appears and begins to edit with narrow source reviews or aims. Cheers to all involved and helping reach this milestone. Please all, continue the pattern of only proposing new material here in Talk, if you are closely connected to the title person, allowing other editors to review and add the content; and again, only make additions with clear sources, as work proceeds. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information, companies of greatest impact

[edit]

In order to improve the sourcing and emphasis on the commercial side, I am asking for sources/articles that reflect the five or so most important companies that have arisen from GM Church's commercial ventures, so that at least these sources can be quickly added to the article, and can be reflected in the lede. (Current companies listed in lede are artifactual in the criteria for their selection; they are simply those for which clear commercial aims were already available at time of lede rewrite, in this case through wikilinks to WP articles on the companies). The aim would be to replace these with companies with clear sourcing indicating important business and scientific contributions. Cheers, reply here. Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary/tertiary sources: Lynx/Solexa, Agencourt/Beckman-Coulter: Genomeweb.com/harvard-s-church-calls-open-source-non-anonymous-personal-genome-project Warpdrive: Bostonglobe.com/business/2014/03/16/warp-drive-hunt-for-natural-gen-based-treatments/JOxl4FTdzqzi3OZ8e3Jj2L/story.html Editas: Nextbigfuture.com/2013/11/george-church-has-new-43-million-dollar.html Genomeweb.com/business-news/editas-inks-three-licensing-deals-genome-editing-technologies BGI/CGI: Bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-09-17/bgi-shenzhen-agrees-to-buy-complete-genomics Genia/Roche: Bio-itworld.com/BioIT_Article.aspx?id=138708 Sigma-Aldrich: Bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2009/10/05/daily12.html George Church (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on George M. Church. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 13:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on George M. Church. 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:

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) 02:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4 problems could be easily fixed

[edit]

the dead link (ref #1) could be replaced by: http://www.recode.net/2014/12/8/11633602/the-time-traveler-george-church-is-racing-into-the-future-and

The Daily Mail fabricated ... should be ... The MIT Technology Review fabricated http://technologyreview.com/view/510071/wanted-surrogate-for-neanderthal-baby (Date of Tech Review precedes date of Daily Mail by 3 days)

He co-developed Multiplex Automated Genome Engineering (MAGE) and optimized CRISPR/Cas9 discovered by Jennifer Doudna and Emanuelle Charpentier for engineering a variety of genomes ranging from yeast to human ... should be ... He co-developed Multiplex Automated Genome Engineering (MAGE) with Harris Wang and Farren Isaacs. He co-developed (with Prashant Mali and Luhan Yang) homologous recombination in human stem cells using Cas9 (discovered by Rodolphe Barrangou and others) plus CRISPR single-guide-RNA (discovered by Martin Jinek, Jennifer Doudna, Emanuelle Charpentier, and others).

Church has co-founded 9 companies ... should be ... Church has co-founded 13 companies ... Adding http://www.editasmedicine.com/our-team http://www.egenesisbio.com/founding-team.html https://www.readcoor.com George Church (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on George M. Church. 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:

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) 02:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on George M. Church. 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:

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) 21:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Nebula Genomics to list of companies founded

[edit]

Hi all,

Under the "Research" section and "Technology transfer and translational Impact" subsection, several examples of companies that Dr. Church have co-founded are listed. I think it would be fair to include his new blockchain genomics startup Nebula Genomics on this list, as this company represents his first step into a totally new field (blockchain) and has drawn significant media attention (see https://news.google.com/search?q=nebula%20genomics&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen). Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.24.120.241 (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an actual Engineer ... How is George Church an "Engineer"

[edit]

1.152.106.13 (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Church_(geneticist)&oldid=1257444214"