This article was nominated for deletion on 9 June 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"(former head of so-and-so) after either having been fired for incompetence or resigning because of personal reasons. specify citation needed." Which of the two reasons, if any, is mentioned in a source? -- 194.145.161.227 18:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
?? Is it neutral enough now?
Ttguy 00:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. Please feel free to put any comments or questions on my talk page. Thanks. -- GDon4t0 ( talk to me...) 14:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I have never asked Ho what she believes. However, her papers quoted in the article seem to imply that she thinks she has come up with some new explaination for - as she calls it - "the engigma of living things" with respect to thermodynamics. From reading her stuff I really do believe that she thinks she has made some big discovery about how organisms work.
I would suggest that these quotes shows she does not understand how thermodynamics does not apply to living things:
"This effectively frees the organism from thermodynamic constraints " "Stored coherent energy sets the organism free from the immediate constraints of both the first and the second law of thermodynamics"
Alfonzo Green, you obviously know why living things do obey the laws of thermodynamics but nothing I have read from Ho indicates she does. Can you quote something that shows she understands this issue?
She invents this term "Stored coherent energy" as if it is some new discovery. All it is the chemical energy of cells stored in such chemicals as ATP and NADPH. Ttguy ( talk) 08:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is some more from the intro to Ho M.-W. (1997) Towards a theory of the organism Integr Physiol Behav Sci 32:343-363
Note the typical pseudoscientific attempts to use quantum theory on the macro scale!!! Note how she thinks she has discovered "stored mobilizable engergy". Ie she has discovered ATP and NADPH Ttguy ( talk) 09:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
These quantum=get-out-of-jail-free claims seem to be fairly common among pseudoscientists of her ilk. There's similar claims over on Rupert Sheldrake. Are there any reliable sources distinguishing such claims from Quantum biology, which although "speculative" appears to have at least some appearance of respectability? Alternatively, if QB is just more of this stuff, its lack of scientific merit needs to be highlighted on that article. Hrafn Talk Stalk 09:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I've always called it Quanta ex machina. Tim Vickers ( talk) 16:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
EPadmirateur says Pls look at her CV, for instance, PMID 2962903 and PMID 6808832.
I have done an extensive analysis of her CV infact. See [1] So I know quite a bit about her publications. The PMID 6808832 is not molecular genetics it is biochemistry and population genetics. PMID 2962903 is the only research paper in the field of molecular genetics (one that reports actual experimental results and is not a review or criticim of other people reasearch) that Ho has published. And this paper is the cloning and DNA sequencing of a single gene. The paper has 7 authors from 4 different instutions so it is anyones guess who actually did the cloning and DNA sequencing.
Even if Ho did the cloning and sequencing I hardly think that, in 30 years of employment, this constitutes extensive experience in molecular genetics.
The claim to Ho's experince in molecular genetics comes from the good Dr herself - eg [2]. Just because she claims it does not make it so. Her CV does not suport the claim. So it goes.
This statement in the article violates the policy on biography of living persons particularly criticism and praise in that it takes a fact that is not relevant to the subject's notability and has the effect of discrediting her. The policy states "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability..." (emphasis added). -- EPadmirateur ( talk) 03:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The way to settle the dispute about what's important, is to find a third-party reliable source that shows it's important (so we know it's not just true, but is notable). Until then, it should stay out. Also, we must reject the notion that existing bad sourcing justifies more bad sourcing. If anybody thinks one item is poorly sourced, then they should remove it, not add something else badly sourced. This whole article is horribly sourced. It needs some serious third-party sourcing, or it should be deleted. I haven't nominated the article for deletion, because I suspect a modest amount of work by an informed person, could produce the required sources. --
Rob (
talk) 05:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the reader add on, but some people may not be familiar with the British university rank system, but "accredited?" Shall we add that before Harvard, Cambridge, Cal, and Yale in every article where it mentions someone attended them? -0- Blechnic ( talk) 05:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Some coverage by third parties has recently been added:
Seeds of discontent at C4:
This was explained to every contributor, including Dr Mae-Wan Ho, a leading scientific authority with critical views on genetic modification.
Exploitation on the agenda at ethics forum:
Dr Mae-Wan Ho, a geneticist and biophysicist at the Open University, said these forums are exactly what is needed to ensure that work in the developing world was fairly carried out.
"Research must always involve scientists and local people working in equal, open partnership. A lot of scientists are arrogant because they feel ordinary people know nothing," she said.
"There's a huge amount of clinical trials going on in the world. A huge number are already known to be dangerous. It's like the MMR controversy 10-fold in the developing world."
GM genes 'jump species barrier':
Dr Mae-Wan Ho, geneticist at Open University and a critic of GM technology, has no doubts about the dangers. She said: 'These findings are very worrying and provide the first real evidence of what many have feared. Everybody is keen to exploit GM technology, but nobody is looking at the risk of horizontal gene transfer.
'We are playing about with genetic structures that existed for millions of years and the experiment is running out of control.'
One of the biggest concerns is if the anti-biotic resistant gene used in some GM crops crossed over to bacteria. 'If this happened it would leave us unable to treat major illnesses like meningitis and E coli .'
Who's listening?:
Scientific opinion appears much more favourable to the new technology to judge from submissions to the national GM review promoted by the government. But they are by no means unanimous. The review's website, www.sciencedebate.org.uk, carries evidence ranging from "Transgenic cotton a winner in India" by Professor Chris Leaver, head of plant science at Oxford, to "Chronicle of an ecological disaster foretold" by Dr Mae-Wan Ho, of Hong Kong University, and Professor Joe Cummins, of the University of Western Ontario.
None of these articles are on Mae-Wan Ho, they range from bare mention (one instance) to single sentence on her opinion (one instance), to single sentence on her opinion plus 2-3 quotes (two instances). While its a considerable improvement, I don't think it yet rises to the level of "significant coverage". I would further question whether a telejournalist is a sufficiently authoritative source for declaring Mae-Wan Ho "a leading scientific authority". Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
... with using the talk page of a living person for personally skewering them, and with removing my unrelated comments from the talk page. "Pseudoscientists of her ilk" belongs nowhere on this talk page or in this article, but, hell, if Wikipedia administrators are supporting users blatantly skewering living persons, who am I to question policy? To hell with this inviting people to use a talk page to slam someone, facilitating it, and actively engaging it. -- Blechnic ( talk) 22:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
WAS 4.250 ( talk) 19:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
This was just too odd not to put in the article. I'm actually flabbergasted that anybody could make such an obviously false argument. Tim Vickers ( talk) 01:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
One reason why all Ho's hype about horizontal gene transfer of the barnase gene is all wind is that this gene comes from a soil bacterium called Bacillus amyloliquefaciens. And bacteria are notorious for their ability to horizontal gene transfer. So if this gene was going to be dangerous in terms of horizontal gene transfer it would have already happend in a nature Ttguy ( talk) 10:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC).
On her ISIS Chronical of an Ecological Disaster Fortold (cited in the article) she mistakes the Barnase/Barstar male sterile system with the V-GURT/terminator seeds system. The former is a way to create hybrid seeds whereas the latter is a way to produce a seeds which will grow into plants whos next-generation seeds will not germinate. They are not the same thing.
Noone is promoting the male sterility system as a way of stopping gene flow. They are suggesting that the terminator seed technology can do this.
Added {{ npov}} per WP:COIN incident. -- samj in out 11:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mae-Wan Ho. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 9 June 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"(former head of so-and-so) after either having been fired for incompetence or resigning because of personal reasons. specify citation needed." Which of the two reasons, if any, is mentioned in a source? -- 194.145.161.227 18:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
?? Is it neutral enough now?
Ttguy 00:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. Please feel free to put any comments or questions on my talk page. Thanks. -- GDon4t0 ( talk to me...) 14:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I have never asked Ho what she believes. However, her papers quoted in the article seem to imply that she thinks she has come up with some new explaination for - as she calls it - "the engigma of living things" with respect to thermodynamics. From reading her stuff I really do believe that she thinks she has made some big discovery about how organisms work.
I would suggest that these quotes shows she does not understand how thermodynamics does not apply to living things:
"This effectively frees the organism from thermodynamic constraints " "Stored coherent energy sets the organism free from the immediate constraints of both the first and the second law of thermodynamics"
Alfonzo Green, you obviously know why living things do obey the laws of thermodynamics but nothing I have read from Ho indicates she does. Can you quote something that shows she understands this issue?
She invents this term "Stored coherent energy" as if it is some new discovery. All it is the chemical energy of cells stored in such chemicals as ATP and NADPH. Ttguy ( talk) 08:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is some more from the intro to Ho M.-W. (1997) Towards a theory of the organism Integr Physiol Behav Sci 32:343-363
Note the typical pseudoscientific attempts to use quantum theory on the macro scale!!! Note how she thinks she has discovered "stored mobilizable engergy". Ie she has discovered ATP and NADPH Ttguy ( talk) 09:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
These quantum=get-out-of-jail-free claims seem to be fairly common among pseudoscientists of her ilk. There's similar claims over on Rupert Sheldrake. Are there any reliable sources distinguishing such claims from Quantum biology, which although "speculative" appears to have at least some appearance of respectability? Alternatively, if QB is just more of this stuff, its lack of scientific merit needs to be highlighted on that article. Hrafn Talk Stalk 09:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I've always called it Quanta ex machina. Tim Vickers ( talk) 16:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
EPadmirateur says Pls look at her CV, for instance, PMID 2962903 and PMID 6808832.
I have done an extensive analysis of her CV infact. See [1] So I know quite a bit about her publications. The PMID 6808832 is not molecular genetics it is biochemistry and population genetics. PMID 2962903 is the only research paper in the field of molecular genetics (one that reports actual experimental results and is not a review or criticim of other people reasearch) that Ho has published. And this paper is the cloning and DNA sequencing of a single gene. The paper has 7 authors from 4 different instutions so it is anyones guess who actually did the cloning and DNA sequencing.
Even if Ho did the cloning and sequencing I hardly think that, in 30 years of employment, this constitutes extensive experience in molecular genetics.
The claim to Ho's experince in molecular genetics comes from the good Dr herself - eg [2]. Just because she claims it does not make it so. Her CV does not suport the claim. So it goes.
This statement in the article violates the policy on biography of living persons particularly criticism and praise in that it takes a fact that is not relevant to the subject's notability and has the effect of discrediting her. The policy states "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability..." (emphasis added). -- EPadmirateur ( talk) 03:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The way to settle the dispute about what's important, is to find a third-party reliable source that shows it's important (so we know it's not just true, but is notable). Until then, it should stay out. Also, we must reject the notion that existing bad sourcing justifies more bad sourcing. If anybody thinks one item is poorly sourced, then they should remove it, not add something else badly sourced. This whole article is horribly sourced. It needs some serious third-party sourcing, or it should be deleted. I haven't nominated the article for deletion, because I suspect a modest amount of work by an informed person, could produce the required sources. --
Rob (
talk) 05:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the reader add on, but some people may not be familiar with the British university rank system, but "accredited?" Shall we add that before Harvard, Cambridge, Cal, and Yale in every article where it mentions someone attended them? -0- Blechnic ( talk) 05:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Some coverage by third parties has recently been added:
Seeds of discontent at C4:
This was explained to every contributor, including Dr Mae-Wan Ho, a leading scientific authority with critical views on genetic modification.
Exploitation on the agenda at ethics forum:
Dr Mae-Wan Ho, a geneticist and biophysicist at the Open University, said these forums are exactly what is needed to ensure that work in the developing world was fairly carried out.
"Research must always involve scientists and local people working in equal, open partnership. A lot of scientists are arrogant because they feel ordinary people know nothing," she said.
"There's a huge amount of clinical trials going on in the world. A huge number are already known to be dangerous. It's like the MMR controversy 10-fold in the developing world."
GM genes 'jump species barrier':
Dr Mae-Wan Ho, geneticist at Open University and a critic of GM technology, has no doubts about the dangers. She said: 'These findings are very worrying and provide the first real evidence of what many have feared. Everybody is keen to exploit GM technology, but nobody is looking at the risk of horizontal gene transfer.
'We are playing about with genetic structures that existed for millions of years and the experiment is running out of control.'
One of the biggest concerns is if the anti-biotic resistant gene used in some GM crops crossed over to bacteria. 'If this happened it would leave us unable to treat major illnesses like meningitis and E coli .'
Who's listening?:
Scientific opinion appears much more favourable to the new technology to judge from submissions to the national GM review promoted by the government. But they are by no means unanimous. The review's website, www.sciencedebate.org.uk, carries evidence ranging from "Transgenic cotton a winner in India" by Professor Chris Leaver, head of plant science at Oxford, to "Chronicle of an ecological disaster foretold" by Dr Mae-Wan Ho, of Hong Kong University, and Professor Joe Cummins, of the University of Western Ontario.
None of these articles are on Mae-Wan Ho, they range from bare mention (one instance) to single sentence on her opinion (one instance), to single sentence on her opinion plus 2-3 quotes (two instances). While its a considerable improvement, I don't think it yet rises to the level of "significant coverage". I would further question whether a telejournalist is a sufficiently authoritative source for declaring Mae-Wan Ho "a leading scientific authority". Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
... with using the talk page of a living person for personally skewering them, and with removing my unrelated comments from the talk page. "Pseudoscientists of her ilk" belongs nowhere on this talk page or in this article, but, hell, if Wikipedia administrators are supporting users blatantly skewering living persons, who am I to question policy? To hell with this inviting people to use a talk page to slam someone, facilitating it, and actively engaging it. -- Blechnic ( talk) 22:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
WAS 4.250 ( talk) 19:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
This was just too odd not to put in the article. I'm actually flabbergasted that anybody could make such an obviously false argument. Tim Vickers ( talk) 01:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
One reason why all Ho's hype about horizontal gene transfer of the barnase gene is all wind is that this gene comes from a soil bacterium called Bacillus amyloliquefaciens. And bacteria are notorious for their ability to horizontal gene transfer. So if this gene was going to be dangerous in terms of horizontal gene transfer it would have already happend in a nature Ttguy ( talk) 10:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC).
On her ISIS Chronical of an Ecological Disaster Fortold (cited in the article) she mistakes the Barnase/Barstar male sterile system with the V-GURT/terminator seeds system. The former is a way to create hybrid seeds whereas the latter is a way to produce a seeds which will grow into plants whos next-generation seeds will not germinate. They are not the same thing.
Noone is promoting the male sterility system as a way of stopping gene flow. They are suggesting that the terminator seed technology can do this.
Added {{ npov}} per WP:COIN incident. -- samj in out 11:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mae-Wan Ho. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)