Talk:Synthetic biology

Synthetic life: See old talk-page here

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2019 and 4 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PinguiculaRK. Peer reviewers: Kasarlo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Twin studies misattribution

The twin studies in Nature are mistakenly both attributed to Elowitz et al. Only the repressilator is relevant to this attribution. The toggle switch should be attributed to Gardner et al. This is a significant oversight considering these studies are widely considered the birth of modern synthetic biology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlsthn (talk • contribs) 04:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Risks Amidst Advances

Removed this section, because it (1) reflects personal opinion, (2) restates information from the previous section (Challenges), and (3) provides no meaningful insight into the discussion on bioethical considerations of synthetic biology. 2607:F470:8:2022:6974:9D2B:4489:E37D (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC) rjeff 12:46, 4 September 2013

• As previously stated, Synthetic Biology opens a door of opportunity through the engineering of living systems. Its vast potential also carries some risks to be noted. A primary concern is the accidental release of these redesigned organisms. Current policies are prepared to deal with this situation if it were to occur. An even more daunting possibility is the fact that terrorist organizations could use engineered microorganisms to harm others. Questions are also raised over the unpredictable nature of these pathogens. Biosecurity measures within the field of synthetic biology must be finalized to reduce the sense of fear that accompanies its advances. Even if no immediate danger exists, ethical issues remain as synthetic biology can be deemed as "playing God". Redesigning organisms opens the possibility for redesigning humans. Similar debates remain within the fields of eugenics and epigenetics.

External links

• Removed links to individual labs and only left links to multi-institution endeavors and departments in synthetic biology. Rpshetty 13:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

18 months later, i just remvoved a load more individual projects.Yobmod (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Enabling technologies

I kicked off the key enabling technologies section. But it still needs quite a bit of work. Rpshetty 20:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• the statement in the introductory paragraph, "There is significant controversy over whether synthetic biology as currently practiced is in accordance with the holistic approach," needs supporting references or it should be deleted.

• it might be good to break out new sections having to do with technologies that help with synthetic biology. sections might include:
  • modeling (including mathematical modeling)
    • quantitative modeling can be broken down into a number of categories, such as
      • Atomic models of biomolecules, including quantum (ab initio) calculations of enzymatic reaction mechanisms, molecular dynamics simulations of protein-protein, protein-RNA, and protein-DNA interactions, hybrid QM-MM simulations, and equilibrium Monte Carlo calculations of free energies
      • Course-grained models of biopolymers, including RNA and DNA, that describe their folding/loop dynamics
      • Simulations of 'network-level' dynamics or statics, which includes the usage of Boolean networks, ODEs, SDEs, and Master equations (or Continuous Time Monte Carlo simulations aka stochastic simulation), that describe how a system of proteins, RNA, and DNA molecules (and their binding sites) evolve over time. (I could write a primer on this topic. Wikipedia uses LateX, right? :) )
      • Bioinformatic models that use evolutionary information to infer structure-function relationships
  • fabrication (including de novo DNA syntheis)
  • measurement
  • others?

(I still think mathematical modeling should be under engineering. A simple question will determine the best location for it. Which occupation studies and uses more mathematics: any engineering discpline or molecular biology? I could write a longer justification, but the answer will be the same.) Salis 23:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

(Agreed that, at the moment, engineers tend to be the ones who are using the math, but... Most of the engineers/physicists who are now working in biology aren't working to engineer biology, rather they are working to help understand natural biological systems. The four sections are really meant to introduce the different types of work happening in synthetic biology, not how the work is done (i.e., what are the motiviations and applications of each faction?). E.g., much of Adam Arkin's work, Jim Collin's work, Alex van Oudenaarden's work is in service of analysis of natural biological systems, not engineering new synthetic biological systems. So, I was sort of viewing math and modeling as a technology that is applied in service of a particular application, in this case the science of biology, as opposed to the engineering of biology. And, since the math. and models. can be used all over the place, I still like the idea of pulling them out of the introductory text entirely and starting a new sections on technologies that enable synthetic biology) Endy 15:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

(That's true. Most of the current usage of mathematics is to study natural biological systems. The next step, which is really a very small step from the technology usage point of view, is to hypothesize synthetic biological systems that perform a specific function and then to build those systems in the lab, ie. design and construct. I think the tools for studying biological systems and designing them will be almost identical. For ODEs, there's Auto and XPP. For Master equations, nothing like that exists yet, but the research is moving in that direction. Then the only thing that separates the science from the engineering is the intent of the study. Do you want to understand how a natural systems works or propose systems that perform some desired function. Of course, understanding how the system works will make it easier to propose new systems that do something interesting. Salis 17:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC))

(Agreed. Also, note that understanding is essential for engineering, but perfect understanding is not. In fact, trying to gain a perfect understanding may prevent essential work on the actual engineering. E.g., the telegraph was invented and deployed ~30 years before Maxwell's equations got figured out. Historically, human's have been able to engineer useful artifacts prior to perfect understanding. In the early days of recombinant DNA technology, my guess is that the folks wanting to express human insulin in bacteria did *not* care about making an ODE, SSA, or any other type of formal mathematical model/simulation of their system. So, for me, intent is real important (i.e., intent is key). Finally, one foundational idea in engineering is insulation. Insulation, when it works, makes modeling easier. If Gerry Sussman were "here" he'd point out that you, and your computer, don't care about the complex magnetic field produced by the jumble of powercords running behind your desk -- even though we could try to model and simulate this electrical field -- instead, via insulation, we simplify the part of the physical world that we want to engineer (the wire) so that the modeling and model-based design are easier. Endy 18:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC))

(Right. All models are simplifications of reality and a perfect understanding of the system will never be achieved. The good models are ones that capture the important mechanisms and provide insight into how they work (and work together) to exhibit a certain behavior. Importantly, the knowledge gained from the model should supercede the specific model itself. So determining the effect of a feedback loop in one specific biological reaction pathway is ok, but using that knowledge to say something about all feedback loops in any system of such and such characteristic is much more useful. But that's why models are useful: you simplify the system down to the lowest common denominator of all interesting systems and then you see what it does. You can always add complexity, but good models are only augmented by additional complexity...not qualitatively changed by it. On the other hand, I am also of the mind that a "good model" is one which can be directly used to build something useful. So if the model is too simple and is completely disconnected from reality then it's not very useful at all. But that might be what separates a physicist's model from an engineer's. The engineer really does need to know what the numbers mean and how they quantitatively affect the system at the end of the day. As for the electrical field surrounding my computer, I'm sure the guy who designed my motherboard made it robust enough to tiny electromagnetic perturbations. He probably didn't make it robust against large electromagnetic perturbations, which is maybe why my friend likes to scare me with his Tesla coil. ;) Salis 04:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Adventures in Synthetic biology.JPG

Image:Adventures in Synthetic biology.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

RESOLVED --Squidonius (talk) 12:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use is not an issue for this image, as the entire comic book is freely available under a CC license. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.79.6.216 (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The image was quite nice and as someone mentioned it is CC. Can it be re-added or is it to playful for a science article? --Squidonius (talk) 10:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Second that (I think).. I haven't seen the image, nor the comic book (apparently a comic book I guess), nor do (did?) know that it was from a comic book, because not only the image is gone, but so is any description of what it was. At least when the CIA [etc.] redacts things, they leave the black box so you can guess whether the redacted text was a single name or something bigger.

The name of the image in the topic list here caught my interest. Being of an over-inquisitive mind (isn't that the curse of all Wikipedians?), this particular image sounds interesting. Being from a free comic book (apparently, according to the above), I suppose I could find out? If I knew where to find it. At least interesting sounding refs are deleted from a page for whatever reason, if I really want to, I can (try to) trudge back through the history with WikiBlame (I really hate that talk page mentions of things people have deleted almost never give a link to a diff link). Not so with a deleted image, not even a mention of where the image can be find. Last time I checked, printing a citation to a copyrighted image was not in itself a copyright violation (if it were, I guess all elementary-school to post-grad-school students would be criminals) Jimw338 (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Bioengineering

I posted this in the bioengineering talk page too, but isn't Synthetic Biology a part of Bioengineering? The two pages aren't even linked and never mention each other. As a person ignorant on the topic, I don't know, but there is certainly overlap and I think the differences or classification of synthbio with bioengineering should be clarified. I'd help, but I know nothing on either topic. Just thought I'd mention this apparent discrepancy. Djdoobwah (talk) 09:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Bioengineering is engineering for biology (such as a medical scanner, a prostetic limb or neuromorphic vison chips) while synthetic biology is engineering biology itself (say a triffid). other similar terms are biotechnology which is using a biological component in vitro (Arial low temperature bio clothes washing liquid), genetic engineering is more of a technique and is more limited.

This pages is the right length, but these various biotech aspects need to be more linked. how, I do not know. --Squidonius (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

PROBLEM Biotechnology currently does not mention synthetic biology. --Squidonius (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither of these articles mention each other, nor is an explicit contrast made. While one would eventually conclude they are quite different after their own search, the fact they are not directly linked is rather disconcerting. Other Wikipedia articles have had asides along the lines of "This is not to be confused with X, which is the study of Y rather than Z." This could be added somewhere early on, or perhaps inserted into "See also" section. Maybe there's even a professional article out there drawing out the differences. ThePatman42 (talk) 06:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Origin of term

The article states "In 1974, the Polish geneticist Waclaw Szybalski introduced the term "synthetic biology"". I must dispute this. In a book entitled The Mechanism of Life by Stéphane Leduc, first translated into English in 1911, the author uses the term 'synthetic biology' several times. Indeed, in the introduction he explicitly states "In a subsequent chapter I have dealt with the rise of Synthetic Biology, whose history and methods I have described. It is only of late that the progress of physico-chemical science has enabled us to enter into this field of research, the final one in the evolution of biological science." The book also contains a chapter entitled "Synthetic Biology". Whether Leduc coined this term or whether it preëxisted, I am not sure. --Oldak Quill 23:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

PS. It might be the case that the modern concept of synthetic biology from Szybalski is different to Leduc's concept. I do not know enough about either to comment. --Oldak Quill 23:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This is true and is very often missing from Synthetic Biology papers which keep citing Szybalski as the origin - a little frustrating. Leduc was actually trying to assemble a cell from it's chemical constituents prior to us understanding DNA was the genetic code. One might conclude in 1911 he was a little too ambitious for our understanding of the cell. However in another 10 years we may draw the same conclusion with our current attempts at Synthetic Biology. However - and to me this is also important - who do we point to as the first "Synthetic Biologists"? Is it Tom and Randy or a bunch of MIT students who did a summer project? Is it someone else prior to what became iGEM? Whoever you decide, I bet they may comment that they had never known of Szybalski's comments as influencing them or even knowing who Leduc was. I bet they came up with it themselves and I suspect if we were to consider it was Tom and Randy, then I am sure they would comment Synthetic Biology arose because of a desire to see a translation of technology. Setting an engineering context for the delivery of biotechnology naturally follows this. Randy himself states the underlying question of Synthetic Biology is whether we can build biological machines from interchangeable parts - or is biology too complex? I think this question is worth placing in the wiki. In this regard the combining of the Synthetic Life wiki is worthwhile. LenPattenden (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Craig Venter

The article references to the team at Craig Venter as it was in 2006. In 2010 they made news headlines over the world for the creation of the world's first synthetic organism. This needs an update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.112.78 (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

On Synthetic Biology definition

I find Drew Endy's definition interesting, it is an approach to engineering biology, a means to an end, not a particular application but the approach/method used to get there, it is not making something in particular but how to make it.

You can see it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIuh7KDRzLk

I think it should be included in this article.

Ulalume (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I find his definition is interesting. You have to remember there are many people out there who say Synthetic Biology is nothing new - it's nothing special. We've been doing this for years but you are just renaming Molecular Biology to make it seem new (chemists can say the same thing about nanotechnology). I think Drew thought about those arguments long and hard before he came back with this definition. The problem is the philosophical different views between an engineer and a scientist. Engineers often take a beating in these arguments and they are also a lot less concerned with what scientists might think so don't even consider they are taking a beating. But Drew is a little more articulate and I think he saw the dangers of the view that Synthetic Biology "is just Molecular Biology". To an engineer we have technology freely available to society from the IT revolution of the last few decades - we have laptops and mobile phones to name two examples. However, the biotech era didn't really do too much. You don't go out and buy recombinant self-emitting christmas lights or bacterial spack-filling fluids to fix cracks in concrete. Engineering is concerned with the delivery of technology and this is what a goal of Synthetic Biology is. It is not merely Molecular Biology but is a process to deliver the technology. This is a critical distinction as it contextualises the efforts of Synthetic Biology and now shows it is indeed a distinct field. Synthetic Biology utilises things like Molecular Biology as tools, but is distinct as a discipline from Molecular Biology. If you want to see some more on this I described it in the TEDx Brisbane conference in March 2010 and my iGEM team (RMIT 2009 iGEM team) described this in 2009 for cell-free synthesis. Slovenia also used it in 2010 and made an animation you can find here on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVA6qS8YPgg). I call this the "Seabiscuit" analogy (I actually stole the concept from the movie Seabiscuit). Basically Henry Ford modernised manufacturing and brought the car to the world by developing the production line. Though Benz made the first car it took him 12 months to build one, whereas Ford could roll one off every minute as each person in the production line had a defined task. Synthetic Biology utilises techniques as workers in the production line to produce technology - that is the discipline. LenPattenden (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Why just one definition for Synthetic Biology? lets use flavours like "a la iGEM"

A Definition is just an agreement of the meaning of a term in a discourse that follows. Definitions change in time at the same pace as we learn more about the subject.

Synthetic Biology is a name that fits many independent work lines. With different uses of the word "synthetic". For that reason, when I have to explain it as a participant in the iGEM since 2006, I refer to "Synthetic Biology a la iGEM" as the search to use true Engineering Design Principles in comparison to classical Genetic "Engineering", i.e. synthesizing (or modifying) new biological systems from modular biological parts called Biobricks(tm).

It is an ongoing research plainly justified because it is a way to know more about some notion of biological module if it exists as we conceive it.

Synthesize biological systems as we can synthesize electronic systems from standardized parts is a big challenge. It may result that no general biological modules exist, it does not matter, because we are learning many things with this approach, and there are many success stories of biobricks in the iGEM jamboree even if those are not as portable to other systems as desired.

For that reason I suggest not to find a general definition of Synthetic Biology or even a less desirable monopolization of the term for one research line. Instead let's qualify each flavour of Synthetic Biology as I do with "a la iGEM", "a la Craig Venter", etc. That definitely avoids polemics and greatly improves the communication of concepts in a more precise way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.140.166.82 (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Whenever a field is moving quickly, with sever heavy hitters involved, they will each have their perspectives, and it is best not to either choose among them, or synthesize the (and so do WP:OR). Limit yourself to good secondary sources, define who are the major players whose opinions matter (through the density and impact of their primary publications, in part), and then compose a paragraph with 3 or 4 key definitions. This can be kept up to date, by the same standard very easily—a new one might add, one might fall away, or a couple might seemingly merge as time passes. If you want am example, see the stub on biomimetic synthesis, which has two meaning, and one of the meanings two interesting variants (all the result of heavy hitters early on). Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Different Subjects

We are entering a new age (cliche), but it is true. Thus really good terminology has not yet been agreed upon. However, some disiderata can be identified that might clear up usages of "synthetic biology" from "synthetic life", "biotechnology", "nanotechnology", etc. First of all, molecules that take part in living things such as microbes, may not be viewed as actually living. Thus DNA: living or simply a molecule? Most would say DNA is a macromolecule, that takes part in life's processes, but need not be actually living. On the other hand, viroids may consist only of DNA (or RNA) yet many researchers seem to agree that viroids are alive. Perhaps the best approach is to view "synthetic biology" as the construction of molecules, ribosomes, etc. that may not themselves be viewed as alive. (I may be wrong, but last time I looked, no one had created life in a test tube.) One must keep in mind that "synthetic" DNA, may be used to create novel "materials", as opposed to living things (thus also a connection to nanotechnology). Some of the significant research in this area includes:

• DNA with novel bases (other than the typical A, C, G, T). Two leading researchers doing research in this area are Eric Todd Kool, and S. Benner. Consider X to be a T analog, thus Watson-Crick bonding is between A and X, and C and G. Consider Y, where Y is its own Watson-Crick complement (thus A/T, C/G, Y/Y pairs). Aside from the creation of novel materials, novel base analogs could be targets for pharmaceutically active drugs. Kool also has done research with non-Watson-Crick complements.
• Codons (and anti-codons) are typically composed of DNA base triples, such as [C,A,G], etc. However, using novel base analogs in DNA such as the Watson-Crick pair iso-C/iso-G, novel codons may also be constructed. Thus S. Benner constructed the 65th codon [iso-C,A,G] with anti-codon [iso-G,U,C] (in synthetic mRNA). This novel codon was active in vivo, and in fact coded for iodotyrosine (a novel amino acid incorporated into polypeptides). Thus we must entertain the field of synthetic proteomics. However, that is not all! Research by people such as H. Murakami and M. Sisido has focused upon codons composed of more than 3 bases, such as 4- and 5-base codons. These areas of research may be applied to help understand and even mediate medical/genetic diseases based upon a better understanding of ribosomes: for example, research in Duchenne/Becker Muscular Dystrophy and frame-shifting.

The current policy of Wikipedia editors seems to be to exclude references to researchers such as Eric T. Kool, S. Benner, H. Murakami. M. Sisido and others. Their reasoning is that these people are not well-known; therefore not significant. However, in the new field of synthetic biology, these experts are *very* well-known. If the Wikipedia editors' advice is followed, it may not be possible to enter information on new discoveries in this field at all! That's a real pity. (By the way, I have never met or spoken to any of the aforementioned researchers, and have no particular agenda. I would appreciate feedback from Wikipedia editors regarding which researchers they would accept.)

Secondary sources, mate. Not web URLs, not faculty web pages, not NYT or WSJ, or blogs or other drivel. Look for Nature Chem Biol and related bedrock reviews, discussions, etc. Book compendia. If it is not secondary at this stage, it is either not a source, or you are doing WP:OR in evaluating the primary reports for validity and longstanding importance. Such is not copacetic. I am much better qualified than most, and I will not do it. Sorry. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not a wikipedia editor or curator, but a regular practice in science is to cite peer reviewed articles. That is a reliable quality measure, even if there exist very few and for that reason well known cases of arbiter's mistakes. Vgr. the rejection of Belousov-Zabotinsky reaction was refused in first time because the arbiters considered it impossible, and super-turing or super-recursive systems, were admitted having wrong arguments.

What should not be taken into account is isolated work of persons whose work is not validated or evaluated by other researchers of the same area. Even if they were as popular as your favourite singer.

That is the reason for journals, magazines, symposia, workshops, etc. Science can't be done hidden in isolation, it is a very collaborative task.

Some examples of what to reject, are charlatan physicians who have a secret medicine to cure illness that no other one have done, always complaining about the rejection of the establishment, having lots of "patients" giving "testimony" of their (secret) miraculous cure. Or other smart merchants who hear that some substance has an important role in blocking cancer, for example, and start to offer miracle pills with that substance citing a serious but out-of-context research work.

Every serious research work must be open to the scrutiny of their colleagues from independent groups.

Unfortunately some times very skilled kids with lots of free time, that assume the roll of editors in wikipedia, erasing many contributions, just because that does not fit with their high-school notes. For an example see the entry for mathematical function in spanish. Shadow600 (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

While it is true that no-one has created an entire bacterium from scratch, an entire virus has been created from scratch, and in 2010 the entire genetic material of a bacterium was sythesised, and successfully implanted in a cell with no DNA. This is most of the way to creating a living organism from scratch, since the DNA is the part of the cell that controls its behaviour.Elroch (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Think hard about that one, @User:Elroch; when I was (I'm guessing) your age, I likely believed about the same. But with feet up, and Scotch in hand, consider. Have you any different sense of awe about an automotive designer like J Mays (see, here [1]), that comes up with new car designs from scratch, and then prototypes, often driving forward new engine designs, new transmission and drive train technologies (to give the torque at a given weight or size, etc.) … versus a guy who buys a couple three old cars, and parts them out, then gets all the rest of what he needs of stock items from dealers, aftermarket, etc., where the sources are so rich he really does not have to make one custom piece… which of these is most admirable, and which is most like the Ventner operation? Where do the nucleosides come from, ask yourself, that they feed into the OChem making the phosphramidites (or whatever activated precursors are the rage now), that go into the gene synthesizers? Bottom line, they are doing near nothing independent of the original design, and they are not even independent of biological sourcing. It is slight of hand, and a lot of good PR. No, the real clever ones in this were the likes of Al Eschenmoser and Steve Benner of ETH, and to some extent Leslie Orgel at Scripps, who designed whole new genetic codes with alternating sugars and base pairing, etc. Of course, that work has never been finished, and never will be. Because the real task to "creating life" is none so simple as the Ventner crew would have us believe. Like the space program, their work is one very small step for man (and one very expensive step for mankind). One old guy's perspective, who knew some of the players. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Gates foundation funding synthetic biology research

National Public Radio broadcast from the BBC reported on 03/38/2012 that the Gates foundation is funding synthetic biology research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.93.34 (talk) 07:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Merger

The long-time merge proposal of Synthetic life into this article is overdue and seems uncontested. I will do a selective paste merger (WP:SMERGE) now and I hope that I will get all the technical merge aspects of it OK. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Xenobiology

Previously, xenobiology was a redirect to astrobiology. I've updated it to be a disambig page that also links to synthetic biology. However, this article doesn't make any mention of nucleic acid analogues such as xeno nucleic acid, which are the primary motivations for disambiguating "xenobiology" in the first place. It would probably be good to expand the article to discuss the creation of new biological building blocks, in addition to the novel manipulation of existing building blocks. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 13:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Systems Biology Open Language

Would anyone mind if I added s short section on standards in synthetic biology, for example a mention of SBOL (sbolstandard.org)? A168 192 1 1 (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Synthetic biology in fiction

I believe this is a valid category for works such as Blade Runner Megaman X and Alien. User:Ryulong is reverting all of my additions. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#CensoredScribe's categories on discussion on how CensoredScribe is inappropriately making dozens of categories of questionable quality. CensoredScribe, this is not the page to make this sort of discussion, either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

After a review of the citations made clear a number of problems

…tags were added to the beginning of article, and to some lines and sections.

First, this citation was removed, as a faux citation (no citation at all, just a wikilink with some wrapping text (and the wikilink already appears in the text). Sentence was left in, and was added to the line:

• Engineers view biology as a technology – the systems biotechnology or systems biological engineering.

• REF: Zeng BJ., On the concept of systems biological engineering, The Communications on Transgenic Animals, CAS, Nov. 1994. (no verifiable citation here)

Second, these bare URLs are also not appropriate citations. Statements need to be supported by independent sources, and professor's webpages are not such sources. (They are promotional; we use them to attract graduate students, show off a little bit about our research to our competing colleagues, etc. They are not reliable sites of scholarly information.) If it is on a faculty web page, and reliable, it is someplace else as well, and it is that "some place else" source that we want. Hence, this sentence stayed in, but the sources came out, and another tag was added:

• In the same tradition, some aspects of synthetic biology can be viewed as an extension and application of synthetic chemistry to biology, and include work ranging from the creation of useful new biochemicals to studying the origins of life.

• REFEric Kool's group at Stanford, the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, Carlos Bustamante's group at Berkeley, Jack Szostak's group at Harvard

Third, to a degree I cannot map out this evening, the citations used indicate a relatively low regard for proper scientific sourcing. A quick skim indicated about a third of the 60 sources being news reports (NYT, WSJ, Sky online, etc.), and another third of the citations being primary sources of varying quality (see following). Of the remaining (~20 or so), less than half were decent secondary sources and book citations (though the books were mostly without page numbers, and relying on URLs). The remaining citations, about 20% of all, were URL-only citations, blog posts, and other miscellaneous weak sourcing. Looking just at the last 10 references as of this date and time, there is a single substantial source, a few weak primary sources (mostly philosophical, talking about talking… about Synthetic Biology), and the rest—more than half of this sample, were useless, unverifiable nonsense:

• 56 Report of IASB "Technical solutions for biosecurity in synthetic biology", Munich, 2008.

• BARE URL; UNPUBLISHED WORKSHOP REPORT

• 57 Marliere P (2009). "The farther, the safer: a manifesto for securely navigating synthetic species away from the old living world" (PDF). Systems and Synthetic Biology 3 (1–4): 77–84. doi:10.1007/s11693-009-9040-9. PMC 2759432. PMID 19816802.

• PRIMARY SOURCE; PHILOSOPHICAL ESSAY/EDITORIAL ("...A MANIFESTO…")

• 58 Schmidt M (2008). "Diffusion of synthetic biology: a challenge to biosafety". Systems and Synthetic Biology 2 (1–2): 1–6. doi:10.1007/s11693-008-9018-z. PMC 2671588. PMID 19003431.

• PRIMARY SOURCE; PHILOSOPHICAL ESSAY/EDITORIAL (" BIOSAFETY CHALLENGE")

• 59 Organisation for International Dialogue and Conflict Management (IDC) Biosafety Working Group

• BARE URL, DEAD LINK; NO RELATED CONTENT ON PAGE

• 60 WWCIS 2009 Ethical Issues in Synthetic Biology. An Overview of the Debates

• SOLID CITATION, 2ND TIER; FNDN PUBLICATION

• 61 Parens E., Johnston J., Moses J. Ethical Issues in Synthetic Biology. 2009.

• BARE URL, NEWS STORY, MISLABELED; REALLY ABOUT SLOAN FNDN FUNDING OF WWCIS

• 62 Kronberger, N; Holtz, P; Kerbe, W; Strasser, E; Wagner, W (2009). "Communicating Synthetic Biology: from the lab via the media to the broader public" (PDF). Systems and Synthetic Biology 3 (1–4): 19–26. doi:10.1007/s11693-009-9031-x. PMC 2759424. PMID 19816796.

• MORE SUBSTANTIAL THAN MOST, BUT STILL ONLY A STUDY OF JOURNALISTS WRITING PRESS RELEASES ABOUT SYNTH BIOL

• 63 Cserer A, Seiringer A (2009). "Pictures of Synthetic Biology: A reflective discussion of the representation of Synthetic Biology (SB) in the German-language media and by SB experts" (PDF). Systems and Synthetic Biology 3 (1–4): 27–35. doi:10.1007/s11693-009-9038-3. PMC 2759430. PMID 19816797.

• PRIMARY SOURCE, AGAIN WEAK; ARTICLE TALKS ABOUT TALKING ABOUT SYNTH BIOL

• 64 New Directions The Ethics of Synthetic Biology and Emerging Technologies Retrieved 2012-04-14.

• BARE URL, DEAD LINK

• 65 The Ethics of Synthetic Biology: Reinventing the Wheel? Retrieved 2012-04-14.

• BLOG POSTING, ANONYMOUS, UNAFFILIATED WITH MAJOR NEWS, ACADEMIC, OR OTHER REPUTABLE ORGANIZATION

• 66"Presidential Commission on Bioethics Calls for Enhanced Federal Oversight in Emerging Field of Synthetic Biology". Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. December 16, 2010. Retrieved August 29, 2011.

• BARE URL, DEAD LINK

Fourth, the key citations in a number of locations are primary literature reports, and these lack the necessary perspective to be able to draw sound conclusions about the importance, and indeed success of the studies reported. This is why WP:V promotes secondary sources for scientific articles. That one group reports something does not mean either that it is reproducible, or that it has longstanding importance. Encyclopedias report things of longstanding importance, and not science news. This is why it is all the more troubling that in paragraphs relying on primary sources, there is also a parallel reliance on news reports to establish scientific details. News reports about science are good to substantiate that the science being reported was newsworthy; science reporting is not to be used to figure out what was done, and how. (See also next point).

Finally, and critically, the tone of the Synthetic Life subsection and some other points in the article, and their sourcing, are clearly problematic from a scientific POV perspective. The Wall Street Journal is not a place that you go to get details of a key scientific experiment that was performed. The WSJ story began with a press release or similar, from Ventner et al (the study authors), which was fleshed out with interviews and a little research. The only thing this reporting is good for, is to establish newsworthiness of the publication, and for quotes regarding the scientists' opinions of their work. Notably, there is a sentence suggesting not all were as enamored with the Venter accomplishment as Venter et al (and the WSJ) were, themselves. However, there is not a single citation to any source where the notability of this primary source is discussed. At the same time, the WSJ article was used repeatedly (5 inline citations) to discern what was done in this reported seminal experiment (!), and how important it was. Bottom line, this is not objective, balanced encyclopedic writing, and so a POV tag was added, both above this section, and at the head of the article, until this and related areas of content step back from being promotional, and becomes balanced (with balanced sourcing).

Result of all of this were addition of two source-related tags to the head of the page, and two comparable specific section tags (as well as adding some inline citations to mark sentences needing attention, the removing of the dead or improper citations given above.

All for now. Bottom line, this, like many of its sources, is a news story or essay, and promotional, and not ready for prime time. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. This is an important subject (article), and it has to be re-written. The task requires more time that I am willing to volunteer, but with guidance like this I could work a bit every now and then until it comes into shape. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

What to say

Undo is really simple. So the editor has to justify to every concerned watchperson. Thats the way it works. Great, thanks. I think these banners (or tags or whatever) are fugly. Why not add 10 more annoying banners? Concerning this article : so sad to read in the first sentences that synbio is reduced to machine metaphors. I was happy to level up the granularity of this article and now I have to write in this talk page and debate worthiness and conventions with strangers. Life is short, no? Either way - you got what you want, I'm not angry anymore but had to get out of bed (here it's night) and restart my laptop bc the tablet rejected my changes, too. So everythings superduper and maxed to the max. I still hope for Wikipedia in general that the reductionists blow out every metashit. Sorry :/ :) -Truyopx (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

YES you are accountable to a bunch of strangers. This is Wikipedia where WP:CONSENSUS is what we are all about. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Editors are accountable, but edits should be constructive, and "undo" is a last-resort not a first option (WP:REVERT). All edits should be in good-faith, and no article should be held hostage by a single editor. See WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. Blacksun1942 (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Removing "Drive-By Tagging"

As far as I can see, it appears that this article is the victim of drive-by tagging; the tags appear to be a straightforward example of "warning the readers against the content of an article" (see WP:TC and WP:NODISCLAIMERS). Per WP:DETAG, I am removing them. For example, the NPOV and personal reflection/opinion tags seem obviously unreasonable, and are completely unsupported by any section here in the talk page; unless I am mistaken, the person who tagged this article apparently didn't bother to create new sections explaining why here. The introduction is now only three sentences, is clearly not overly long, and in fact, likely needs to be rewritten (and perhaps even expanded) in accord with guidelines (see WP:LEAD). There are, as of today, 67 references, the page ranges for these references appear to be no more than a couple of pages (see WP:REF). I acknowledge the section above regarding citations, though I note that this does not appear to characterize the current list of references (which, as of now, seems similar to featured articles on scientific subjects). I personally encourage taggers to adhere to best practices per WP:TC, to explain the reasons for tagging here so that they may be discussed, to first consider tagging individual sections rather than the entire article, and to consider consolidating tags using the multiple issues template (which points out this example of what to avoid). Blacksun1942 (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The article was quite terrible and deserved every almost every tag that was on it. Your review above is very high level and doesn't appear to be based on actually reading the article and seeing the vast amount of unsourced text and editor opinion that was in there. I went through and deleted most of the offending matter that was unsourced, essay-like. Either the tags would stay and we would continue to allow that material to remain, or the tags and the material both go. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I resent your ultimatum and personal attack on me by stating that I haven't read the article. Besides, your statement is inexplicable given that we're obviously talking about the article as it is *now*. I don't see the "vast amount of unsourced text and editor opinion" to which you refer. I definitely don't agree that the article is "quite terrible." Can you point out the "terrible" content? Which sections? You're saying the material *still* needs to be improved, yes? If you have time to write here, then surely you have time to make those improvements rather than merely tag the article? What's the issue? Blacksun1942 (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that you're now in the process of deleting vast amounts of content, giving "in the absence of tags..." as a reason. In fact, I don't necessarily disagree with the removal of this specific content per se, but the way you're doing it obviously goes against best practices regarding editing. Why can't you use inline tags, section tags, or multiple issues, and then simply explain your opinions here in the talk page so that they may be discussed and consensus reached? To be clear, the problem isn't the tags (though multiple issues should be used instead of cluttering the top of the article with tags per this example, see WP:OVERTAGGING); the problem is that no explanation was given regarding the tags in the talk page; this is drive-by tagging, and WP:DETAG means that they can be removed. Blacksun1942 (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, while I personally don't disagree with the way the article is now after your edits, it's clear that you've violated the three-revert rule, which, despite WP:IAR really is an important rule that should be followed in all but the most unambiguous cases (i.e. reverting vandalism); in this case, you've reverted good-faith edits. I want no part in any edit war, but I'd certainly agree with any editor who thinks you've acted in bad faith. Blacksun1942 (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

when editing, it is a terrible idea to take out huge swaths of text at once. i made a series of edits so that any one of them could be reverted if any one disagreed with it. I did not act in bad faith at all. (oh and your initial note above was at 13:39, 11 September 2014 and you removed the tags at 13:41, 11 September 2014‎. I started removing bad content an hour later, starting at 14:45, 11 September 2014‎ and finishing at 15:14, 11 September 2014‎. So when you detagged and left the note above, all that bad content was indeed still there.) best regards, Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry you took what I wrote as an "ultimatum" - not what I meant at all. I really do have the best interests of WP at heart. An article full of WP:OR and lacking sources should have tags, or the offending material removed. I don't see how you can justify having a bunch of OR crap in an article without tags. How can you? (btw some of that content had been there unsourced for several years, and to me it is just not OK for it to remain and be untagged. I don't see how even an inclusionist can justify that. I really don't. But in any case please don't personalize this.) But please do explain your perspective on essay-like, unsourced content. I am interested to hear. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Just an FYI; I've reported your edits via WP:AN3. I've done this because I think that this is technically the right thing to do. I appreciate that you think your edits are in the best interest of the article. Blacksun1942 (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

blech. shall we discuss substance? Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

For a long time I've wanted to remove the unsourced assay-like material from this article. I am glad user Jytdog took the initiative when nobody else did in years, and if I was an administrator, I would dismiss the 3R complaint. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Blacksun1942 we are supposed to use this lock-down period to discuss the issues. Do you have any remaining issues that you want to discuss, or is this resolved? Thanks Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

edits sept 2014

27 Sept 2014: It seems an editor wants me to justify my recent edits here, rather than keep editing? So here goes. The WP SynBio site is a very important source because not only is the field new and big, but also it is poorly defined and understood. Yet I found WP's site a month ago to be one of the least informative, self-serving sources available on SynBio. Firstly, it was dominated by references to Markus Schmidt, a non-experimentalist. Secondly, there were no mentions of 2 of the most important 5 or so pioneers in the field: Knight and Keasling. Thirdly, the majority of SynBio's genuine practitioners are the tens of thousands of iGEM students, but this was hardly discussed. Fourthly, the most important books were not referenced. Will try to provide sources that meet your highly restrictive sourcing policy. For example, how about citing this book reference?: http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/p837 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.96.147.89 (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

hi thanks for two things - 1) your interest in improving this page, and 2) for coming and talking! Everything in WP happens by a combination of each editor being bold and by talking about disagreements, so on those two things you are acting perfectly. Thanks for that. Some other things, however, that you are not understanding, are also very fundamental to Wikipedia, and they are that we do not allow "original research" and complementary to that, everything must be verifiable by what we call reliable sources. I hope you can see how those two things fit together, and also why they are very important to WP -- if we allowed editors to add any old content that they wanted - whatever popped into their heads - WP would very quickly have become a garbage dump. (and because this is an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" there are unfortunately whole articles, and part of articles, that are complete crap, because that nobody caught crap content when it was added nor caught it later) Please just a minute and think about that. What keeps wikipedia scholarly, are editors' constant efforts to use and enforce those two policies - no original research, and everything must be verifiable. You ~appear~ to have some expertise in this area, and that is great. Please read WP:EXPERT -- experts are great because they generally have a great sense of how much WP:WEIGHT should be given to a given topic within in an article (which is something you discuss above), and maybe more importantly, they generally have a great grasp of the literature, so they can quickly find and add sources to verify content. Both things are really useful. However, especially when they are new, they sometimes get impatient with wikipedia's policies and guidelines (and with other editors) and feel entitled to just add content to articles based on their own authority (and not on any sources). New experts who don't step back and take the time to learn how this place operates and just keep pushing forward end up getting reverted constantly, and end up frustrated and leaving, often after lots of (sadly confused) angry foot stomping. We have LOTS of experts who have taken the time to learn, and have become productive and happy members of the community. I am hoping you will become one of the latter! Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I provided an excellent source for my edits: ref 11. I also cited ref 11 again as ref 13 because I haven't figured out how to make both refs #11. If you can kindly fix that, I will learn how to do it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.96.147.89 (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

thanks! i consolidated the duplicates. what page numbers in that book supports the two pieces of content you used it for? I will add them to the article so you can see how to do that. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look the page numbers up. Meanwhile, I see the "Challenges" bioethics section at the end also needs serious editing and cutting. Can someone help with that? It presently consists of roughly 1/3 of the text and references of the website and is presumably written by a self-promoting bioethicist. SynBio bioethics has never been a major issue in the field, but readers cannot appreciate this viewpoint from the website. Many regulatory mechanisms were already in place to control genetic engineering before the term synthetic biology became popular. The main new danger was from increasing ease of commercial gene synthesis, addressed well in this important ref: http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v25/n6/full/nbt0607-627.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.96.147.89 (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The page numbers for both my refs 11 and 13 are pp22-23 (and both topics are discussed later in the book as well). It seems my new heading and two shufflings to better organize the logical flow of the article were also denied for some reason? Regarding the one third of the article related to ethics, after all the talking, have any new laws have been enacted to justify the talk? Can the section be moved to its own page, where ethicists can talk as much about it as they like? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.96.147.89 (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

i'll add the page numbers now. i noticed that revert, but haven't had time to sort out exactly why they did. will try to get to that tonight. thanks! oh - and on the ethics thing. this sort of content gets loaded into articles waaaaaaaaaaay too often. quite often by students taking classes in which they edit wikipedia for credit. you get a lot of armchair navel gazing/worrying about things that can go on and on. i will have a look at that section. in the meantime, if you know of really key ethical issues and good sources for them, and could list them, that would be helpful. thx Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Other than adding the nbt0607-627 ref I cited above, I'd just keep the existing Presidential commission ref (the last ref). All the other ethics refs could be dropped. Please let me know when you figure out the reason for the revert.

keeping to secondary sources as much as we can

just a reminder as this article develops. please try to avoid stringing together a bunch of primary sources to tell a story. if you look at the synthetic DNA section, you'll see it is done in just that way. This is WP:OR - the editors doing this have constructed a history of researchers going from oligos to whole genomes, like a historian would do. We don't do that in WP. Instead we rely on the work of historians to tell us what the key events have been (the historian assigns WP:WEIGHT to this achievement or that, and we cite the WP:SECONDARY source. We can cite the primary source in addition, for historical interest. I hope that makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Most of the secondary references are newspapers, popular science, meeting reports, websites or worse. Shouldn't they be substituted with reputed journal or book references?

e.g. Shouldn't these references be tagged for substitution:

1."Synthetic biology: promises and perils of modern biotechnology". Marsilius Academy Heidelberg - Summer school. Heidelberg University. Retrieved 2014-09-11.

2."Registry of Standard Biological Parts". Retrieved 2014-09-11.

8.Zeng, Jie (Bangzhe). On the concept of systems bio-engineering. Coomunication on Transgenic Animals, June 1994, CAS, PRC. [cited 1994-06-05];6.

9.Chopra, Paras; Akhil Kamma. "Engineering life through Synthetic Biology". In Silico Biology 6. Retrieved 2008-06-09.

16.Rollie, Sascha. "Designing biological systems: Systems Engineering meets Synthetic Biology". Science Direct, Chemical Engineering. Elservier LTD, 2011. Retrieved 6 June 2014.

17.Pollack, Andrew (2007-09-12). "How Do You Like Your Genes? Biofabs Take Orders". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2007-12-28.

23.Wade, Nicholas (2007-06-29). "Scientists Transplant Genome of Bacteria". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2007-12-28.

25."Scientists Reach Milestone On Way To Artificial Life". 2010-05-20. Retrieved 2010-06-09.

27.Robert Lee Hotz (May 21, 2010). "Scientists Create First Synthetic Cell". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved April 13, 2012.

28.Craig Venter Institute. "FAQ". Retrieved 2011-04-24.

30."NOVA: Artificial life". Retrieved 2007-01-19.

31.Next-Generation Digital Information Storage in DNA

32."Huge amounts of data can be stored in DNA". Sky News. 23 January 2013. Retrieved 24 January 2013.

33.Pollack, Andrew (May 7, 2014). "Researchers Report Breakthrough in Creating Artificial Genetic Code". New York Times. Retrieved May 7, 2014.

46.SYNBIOSAFE official site

51.COSY: Communicating Synthetic Biology

54.COSY/SYNBIOSAFE Documentary

55.Report of IASB "Technical solutions for biosecurity in synthetic biology", Munich, 2008.

57.Parens E., Johnston J., Moses J. Ethical Issues in Synthetic Biology. 2009.

58.NAS Symposium official site

59.Presidential Commission for the study of Bioethical Issues, December 2010 FAQ

61.Katherine Xue for Harvard Magazine. September-October 2014 Synthetic Biology’s New Menagerie

62.Yojana Sharma for Scidev.net March 15, 2012. NGOs call for international regulation of synthetic biology

63.The New Synthetic Biology: Who Gains? (2014-05-08), Richard C. Lewontin, New York Review of Books

My best guide to thinking through sourcing on all matters biological is WP:MEDRS. If you read through that (including the section on "popular media") I think you will find some helpful guidance. The material on ethics for example is fine to source from non-biomedical journal articles (but reaching for the best ones we can find from institutions that check facts and have a reputation for high quality - NY Times and the like, not blogs). Jytdog (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidelines. If those guidelines are taken to heart, virtually all of the 24 refs I listed above should be replaced. The exceptions were refs 16 and 31: they were legitimate but incorrectly cited, so I fixed those citations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.96.147.89 (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

many, yes. writing high quality encylopedia articles takes work! it is easy to grab crappy sources and slap something together but that is not what we aspire to. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Section: Synthetic life

Following creative feedback, I replaced and edited the section Synthetic biology#Synthetic life. The section now emphasise that researchers are "trying" to create synthetic life. Craig Venter's amazing work is synthetic genomics, and I think that the previous version had Venter's work hijacking the scope of the subject because he often claims it is "synthetic life" in his public communications. It may well be an intermediary step. Please feel free to comment and edit the section at will. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of CRISPR

There have recently been a number of articles about CRISPR - both opportunities and ethical concerns - in some major news outlets, such as the Washington Post, New York Times and The New Yorker. It was hailed as "the most important innovation in the synthetic biology space in nearly 30 years" by the Washington Post.

The article should include a discussion about such gene editing techniques and also the associated ethical concerns.Aberdeen40 (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is a mess

I have been working on a magazine article on this subject and naturally came here for background and facts.

What I found is puzzling. It seems to have been written by experts with little understanding of the wider world's interpretation of synthetic biology. All science and no context. And much of the science is arcane insider stuff that really needs to fit into the bigger picture.

In particular, the structure is strange.

What are these "Perspectives"?

A particularly surprising aspect is the absence of any background on the development of research into the subject. Where is there any mention of the major report from the Royal Academy of Engineering in the UK in 2009? How about a mention of the World Economic Forum listing synthetic biology as number 2, after ICT, in the top 10 "Emerging technologies" in 2011-2012? What about its appearance as one of the ‘Eight Great Technology’ areas as identified by the UK Chancellor George Osborne?

How about DARPA's investment of $30 million in Living Foundries?

Other notable mentions:

"Meeting 21st-Century Challenges with Science, Technology and Innovation" from the OECD.

There's much more out there that could beef up this article.

Given the comments thrown at others who have tried to edit this article, it seems that intervention is unwelcome.

Can anyone suggest how best to fix what should be an important article?

MK (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Synthetic biology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140829191926/http://forms.asm.org/ASM/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000002705/znw01206000566.pdf to http://forms.asm.org/ASM/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000002705/znw01206000566.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719031805/http://www.ia-sb.eu/tasks/sites/synthetic-biology/assets/File/pdf/iasb_report_biosecurity_syntheticbiology.pdf to http://www.ia-sb.eu/tasks/sites/synthetic-biology/assets/File/pdf/iasb_report_biosecurity_syntheticbiology.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080310224707/http://www.kurzweilai.net:80/articles/art0134.html to http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html

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

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) 04:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I am making several edits to this page: more on space exploration, outlining ethical recommendations and technology applications from the 2010 report by the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethics Issues, an outline of the synthetic biology chapter in a book published by the Hastings Center, discussing synthetic biology's role in conservation, intellectual property, and issues surrounding the release of synthetic organisms into the environment.Priyankasanghavi (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding more to History section

Hi everyone,

I noticed some missing history in this article and plan to add some pieces as I read more about the ethics and history of synthetic biology.

I just added Venter's 2010 study: "In 2010, a group of researchers revealed the first self-replicating synthetic bacterial cell, called M. mycoides JCVI-syn1.0. Researchers were able to synthesize a new genome, using DNA sequences from two laboratory strains of Mycoplasma myciodes, and perform successful transplantation into a host Mycoplasma capricolum cell. The new bacterium behaved much like its counterparts and was able to self-replicate freely. [21]"

Also, while looking at citations, I noticed some duplicates. Venter's 2010 publication appears twice, #97 and #21 ??

PinguiculaRK (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)PinguiculaRK

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Western Ontario supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

INTRODUCING MYSELF

Hello,

I'm Latifa, a master's student in Molecular Biology and Genetics at Uskudar University in Istanbul, Turkiye. As part of a class assignment of the course name Recent Developments in Biotechnology, I will be contributing as a fellow Wikipedian to this Wikipedia article. The aim for this is both to learn more about the topic, Synthetic biology, and to practice Wikipedia editing.

Regards.

Regards. Latifabdulatif (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding categories of synthetic biology I added five categories of Synthetic Biology Bioengineering, synthetic genomics, protocell synthetic biology, unconventional molecular biology, and in silico techniques.

Adding to definition section

I added a section to definition and cited the reference. Latifabdulatif (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding to the definition Section

Hello,

I noticed that the first phrase of definition needed some rephrasing and had to be clear to the reader to briefly understand what Synthetic biology is from the first definition. Hence, I clarified what synthetic biology refers to in the first defining phrase, I rephrased and expanded the first line, and I cited the source. Secondly, I rephrased a few phrases in the definition part that I felt were boring to the reader since they lacked an interesting flow. Those phrases mostly began the words it is. Additionally, I put all the definitions under one topic because they were not all under the topic before. Despite the fact that the table of contents states that the first topic is a definition, phrases defining synthetic biology were placed before and after it. Hence, I added them all to the definition topic. I merged three definitions into one to give an interesting flow of the phrases. This is to make the statements clear, interesting and to avoid mess of the phrases. Or rather, to have them structured well. I further, summarized the definition part. Latifabdulatif (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding to History

To appreciate the history of this subject, I added a paragraph that states that Synthetic Biology was discovered in the fifteenth century. I also liked to also share the controversial opinions that the molecular biologists at the time had over whether SynBio was actually a new discipline or if it was previously discovered or known. Latifabdulatif (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding to Enabling Technologies

I have added the advancements of Synthetic Biology and how they have led to the development of groundbreaking technologies. I added the definition of modularity. Latifabdulatif (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding to application section

I have added on drug delivery section of the application part. I also cited the source. Latifabdulatif (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding Categories of Synthetic biology

I added and explained the five categories of Synthetic biology and added citation.

Latifabdulatif (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding four engineering Approaches of Synthetic biology

I added the four different approaches of synthetic biology: top down, parallel, orthogonal and bottom up. I explained each and added citation.

Latifabdulatif (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Added to Modeling section of Enabling technologies

I added a point on modeling section of Enabling technologies Latifabdulatif (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Added on application section

Added Biofuels, pharmaceuticals and biomaterials, CRISPR and Regulatory elements on application section Latifabdulatif (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)