Talk:Protein & Cell

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

notes on CRISPR content[edit]

note - the research done in china was basic research on non-viable embryos. the proposed moratorium was on clinical research: "The biologists writing in Science support continuing laboratory research with the technique, and few if any scientists believe it is ready for clinical use. Any such use is tightly regulated in the United States and Europe. American scientists, for instance, would have to present a plan to treat genetic diseases in the human germline to the Food and Drug Administration."... "Though highly efficient, the technique occasionally cuts the genome at unintended sites. The issue of how much mistargeting could be tolerated in a clinical setting is one that Dr. Doudna’s group wants to see thoroughly explored before any human genome is edited." from here with emphasis added. Jytdog (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

basic, not clinical[edit]

additional point: Randykitty reverted my addition of "basic research (not clinical research)", which is supported by the sources. First, that is exactly what the investigators say in their paper - they used triploid embryos on purpose, so there could be no clinical application. additionally the NYT source says "The Chinese researchers did not plan to produce a baby — they used defective human embryos" . This is probably the #1 source of confusion in all the reporting about this. can we restore it? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do the researchers say in their paper "this was not clinical research" and/or "this was basic research"? If not, then this is interpretation (SYNTH). Apart from this, I am concerned that ll this attention on a single paper is undue. The controversy, techniques, reactions, etc. are about that particular study, but not about this particular journal. This issue needs to be addressed. Perhaps this whole issue should be moved to gene therapy, with only 1 or two brief sentences here (and a wikilink to that article, of course). --Randykitty (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so you didn't read the paper but you are editing about it. ok then. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of a "rhetorical question"? Anyway, thanks for moving this to the CRISPR article. I have restored a small part, because I do not think it is undue to mention that an article has caused controversy (just undue to describe that whole controversy in detail, that indeed belongs elsewhere). --Randykitty (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

which reminds me, what do you get when you cross a joke and a rhetorical question? ........

in any case, seems like we are good here. thx Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - restoring the edit in part seems *entirely* ok with me as well - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]