This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vesicular monoamine transporter 2 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Impairment and Disfunction" seems mistitled; Immunoreactivity is also reduced (with partial effects still observable 24 hrs later) from Amphetamine administration. See "New Insights into the Mechanism of Action of Amphetamines", Fleckenstein et al., Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2007. 47:681-98, doi: 10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.47.120505.105140-- 143.44.71.255 ( talk) 18:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I reinserted the "God gene section" section since it is both notable (has received wide attention in the press) and takes a neutral point of view (discusses the case for and against the hypothesis). Boghog ( talk) 17:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Discussion of the God Gene is not found in any textbook that discusses VMAT2. There is no scientific basis for this and it undermines the credibility of Wikipedia to include it in a scientific context, especially with its own heading. The standard for inclusion into wikipedia should be based on peer reviewed journals not popular press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.2.252.248 ( talk) 00:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
It should definitely be included, so I will restore the material under a popular culture heading. I think that's fair since it has been published in a mass-market book rather than in a scientific venue. Also, I have no clue about genetics and biology, so I find it very confusing that this article says VMAT2 is a protein coded by the SLC18A2 gene, but the protein is itself referred to as a gene? Is it a common convention that the gene and the protein it codes are used interchangeably? Vesal ( talk) 09:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Another point to consider: Silveira LA (2008). "Experimenting with spirituality: analyzing The God Gene in a nonmajors laboratory course". CBE Life Sci Educ. 7 (1): 132–45. doi: 10.1187/cbe.07-05-0029. PMC 2262126. PMID 18316816. In this free full-text article, the authors discuss the scientific evaluation of the God Gene concept (as it relates to VMAT2) within a college-level course. It's a unique WP:RS and can easily be cited to support statements such as "Hamer's claim that the VMAT2 gene contributes to spirituality is controversial". — Scien tizzle 13:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, all, I don't want to resurrect the old thread. But it seems, that according to the conversation here, adding a wikilink in this article to God gene sounds like a minimum consensus that we can reach. I understand that it still remains to be a controversial since it lack a lot of scientific basis. I agreed that maybe making a Subtitle related to God Genes might reduce its scientific merits. So how about we add a wikilink in this article to God gene. I found it is very hard to find VMAT2 to be not associated with god gene in popular media. Adeuss ( talk) 10:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I've contacted WT:MCB to garner further input on whether or not to cover this topic in the article. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 19:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
many mainstream articles do not link to articles about fringe theories. This is the principle of one-way linking for fringe theories."). Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 23:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 19:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)"In his book, Hamer contends that one's predisposition toward spirituality is influenced by genetic factors. More controversially, he proposes that the VMAT2 gene is one of many potential genes that impinge on spirituality. Hamer identifies one particular variation, a change from an A to a C, present in 28% of the alleles in his data set, as a marker for the more “spiritual” version of this gene. This work has not been published in a scientific journal. ... In addition to its high profile, The God Gene was likely to provoke discussion because it touches on an area of personal interest for many of the students and had substantial gray areas—the work had not been subjected to rigorous peer review, Hamer's observed correlation of a particular VMAT2 allele with spirituality had not been reproduced in another population, and, as Hamer notes, VMAT2 is at best a small player in influencing spirituality."
I'm not supportive of covering the god gene theory in this article. I'm simply indifferent as to whether we cover it or not because we now have a reliable academic source that provides an accurate description of it as a fringe theory. I strongly disagree that covering this topic enhances the credibility of this article; I don't think that mentioning this topic, or any other popular culture topic in a science article, helps a reader understand what the topic is about, since the content that ends up going into popular culture sections is basically just a collection of "fun facts" or trivia. In a nutshell, all we're really saying about the god gene hypothesis in this article is "some guy said something stupid about this gene and people took notice."
If you really want to cover it here, then I'm fine with ignoring
WP:ONEWAY as long as the sourcing is okay and the theory is accurately portrayed as a fringe theory, which it now is.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢) 20:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
References
Hi, I propose that
God gene be merged into
VMAT2.
VMAT2 is about the gene itself,
God gene is about the claim that the same gene predisposes humans towards spiritual or mystic experiences.
I consider this duplicate/overlap.
The claim in the
God gene article can be better explained in the context of the gene itself.
I suggest to not merge all the content of the article but only a selection, see
WP:FRINGE.
VeniVidiVicipedia (
talk) 20:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vesicular monoamine transporter 2 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Impairment and Disfunction" seems mistitled; Immunoreactivity is also reduced (with partial effects still observable 24 hrs later) from Amphetamine administration. See "New Insights into the Mechanism of Action of Amphetamines", Fleckenstein et al., Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2007. 47:681-98, doi: 10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.47.120505.105140-- 143.44.71.255 ( talk) 18:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I reinserted the "God gene section" section since it is both notable (has received wide attention in the press) and takes a neutral point of view (discusses the case for and against the hypothesis). Boghog ( talk) 17:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Discussion of the God Gene is not found in any textbook that discusses VMAT2. There is no scientific basis for this and it undermines the credibility of Wikipedia to include it in a scientific context, especially with its own heading. The standard for inclusion into wikipedia should be based on peer reviewed journals not popular press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.2.252.248 ( talk) 00:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
It should definitely be included, so I will restore the material under a popular culture heading. I think that's fair since it has been published in a mass-market book rather than in a scientific venue. Also, I have no clue about genetics and biology, so I find it very confusing that this article says VMAT2 is a protein coded by the SLC18A2 gene, but the protein is itself referred to as a gene? Is it a common convention that the gene and the protein it codes are used interchangeably? Vesal ( talk) 09:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Another point to consider: Silveira LA (2008). "Experimenting with spirituality: analyzing The God Gene in a nonmajors laboratory course". CBE Life Sci Educ. 7 (1): 132–45. doi: 10.1187/cbe.07-05-0029. PMC 2262126. PMID 18316816. In this free full-text article, the authors discuss the scientific evaluation of the God Gene concept (as it relates to VMAT2) within a college-level course. It's a unique WP:RS and can easily be cited to support statements such as "Hamer's claim that the VMAT2 gene contributes to spirituality is controversial". — Scien tizzle 13:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, all, I don't want to resurrect the old thread. But it seems, that according to the conversation here, adding a wikilink in this article to God gene sounds like a minimum consensus that we can reach. I understand that it still remains to be a controversial since it lack a lot of scientific basis. I agreed that maybe making a Subtitle related to God Genes might reduce its scientific merits. So how about we add a wikilink in this article to God gene. I found it is very hard to find VMAT2 to be not associated with god gene in popular media. Adeuss ( talk) 10:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I've contacted WT:MCB to garner further input on whether or not to cover this topic in the article. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 19:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
many mainstream articles do not link to articles about fringe theories. This is the principle of one-way linking for fringe theories."). Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 23:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 19:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)"In his book, Hamer contends that one's predisposition toward spirituality is influenced by genetic factors. More controversially, he proposes that the VMAT2 gene is one of many potential genes that impinge on spirituality. Hamer identifies one particular variation, a change from an A to a C, present in 28% of the alleles in his data set, as a marker for the more “spiritual” version of this gene. This work has not been published in a scientific journal. ... In addition to its high profile, The God Gene was likely to provoke discussion because it touches on an area of personal interest for many of the students and had substantial gray areas—the work had not been subjected to rigorous peer review, Hamer's observed correlation of a particular VMAT2 allele with spirituality had not been reproduced in another population, and, as Hamer notes, VMAT2 is at best a small player in influencing spirituality."
I'm not supportive of covering the god gene theory in this article. I'm simply indifferent as to whether we cover it or not because we now have a reliable academic source that provides an accurate description of it as a fringe theory. I strongly disagree that covering this topic enhances the credibility of this article; I don't think that mentioning this topic, or any other popular culture topic in a science article, helps a reader understand what the topic is about, since the content that ends up going into popular culture sections is basically just a collection of "fun facts" or trivia. In a nutshell, all we're really saying about the god gene hypothesis in this article is "some guy said something stupid about this gene and people took notice."
If you really want to cover it here, then I'm fine with ignoring
WP:ONEWAY as long as the sourcing is okay and the theory is accurately portrayed as a fringe theory, which it now is.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢) 20:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
References
Hi, I propose that
God gene be merged into
VMAT2.
VMAT2 is about the gene itself,
God gene is about the claim that the same gene predisposes humans towards spiritual or mystic experiences.
I consider this duplicate/overlap.
The claim in the
God gene article can be better explained in the context of the gene itself.
I suggest to not merge all the content of the article but only a selection, see
WP:FRINGE.
VeniVidiVicipedia (
talk) 20:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)