![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization: |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Synthetic life was copied or moved into Synthetic biology with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | The contents of the Synthetic life page were merged into Synthetic biology on 9 July 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Synthetic life: See old talk-page here
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)
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)
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
18 months later, i just remvoved a load more individual projects. Yobmod ( talk) 16:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I kicked off the key enabling technologies section. But it still needs quite a bit of work. Rpshetty 20:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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.)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
…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 citation needed was added to the line:
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 citation needed tag was added:
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
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)
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
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)
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.
I added a section to definition and cited the reference. Latifabdulatif ( talk) 19:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I have added on drug delivery section of the application part. I also cited the source. Latifabdulatif ( talk) 13:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I added and explained the five categories of Synthetic biology and added citation.
Latifabdulatif ( talk) 20:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
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)
I added a point on modeling section of Enabling technologies Latifabdulatif ( talk) 19:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Added Biofuels, pharmaceuticals and biomaterials, CRISPR and Regulatory elements on application section Latifabdulatif ( talk) 20:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization: |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Synthetic life was copied or moved into Synthetic biology with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | The contents of the Synthetic life page were merged into Synthetic biology on 9 July 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Synthetic life: See old talk-page here
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)
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)
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
18 months later, i just remvoved a load more individual projects. Yobmod ( talk) 16:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I kicked off the key enabling technologies section. But it still needs quite a bit of work. Rpshetty 20:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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.)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
…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 citation needed was added to the line:
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 citation needed tag was added:
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
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)
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
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)
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.
I added a section to definition and cited the reference. Latifabdulatif ( talk) 19:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I have added on drug delivery section of the application part. I also cited the source. Latifabdulatif ( talk) 13:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I added and explained the five categories of Synthetic biology and added citation.
Latifabdulatif ( talk) 20:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
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)
I added a point on modeling section of Enabling technologies Latifabdulatif ( talk) 19:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Added Biofuels, pharmaceuticals and biomaterials, CRISPR and Regulatory elements on application section Latifabdulatif ( talk) 20:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)