Talk:genetic modification

genetic modification
I have some doubts regarding current definition: "the commercial application of genetic engineering to the production of novel foodstuffs, etc.".
 * 1) The word "commercial": is genetic modification done for scientific research called something else?
 * 2) The word "engineering": is genetic modification through natural means, i.e. by chance, cosmic radiation etc. excluded from this term?
 * 3) The word "application": if "genetic modification" includes natural modification, there's no application involved
 * 4) The word "production": ditto
 * 5) The word "foodstuff": is genetic modification of bacteria for production of drugs excluded?
 * 6) The word "novel": is genetic modification aimed at increasing crops in production of traditional foodstuffs excluded?

In summary, I agree with this part: the of genetic to the of. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You don't really seem to have phrased this as an RFV; more like an RFC. I don't think naturally occuring genetic changes are usually described as genetic modification - some kind of human intervention is implied by the phrase.  I also think that modifications for purely scientific research is still often called genetic engineering.  That is easily shown with the gbooks search string engineering Dolly.  The cloning of Dolly the sheep was not for any direct commercial purpose.  I agree with you on "commercial" and "production" however, scientific research is not excluded. Spinning Spark  10:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would have been better in RFC, because I did not intend to deny the existence of this term. Anyway, if human involvement is required, but there's no need for it to be for any specific purpose, the definition would be modified to this: "Application of genetic engineering". Are we happy with that? --Hekaheka (talk) 10:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't this an RFD? Seems like you're questioning everything in the definition, so that you're left with "any modification that is genetic in nature". Mglovesfun (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * For me, it wasn't an RFD-case in the beginning. I thought that the term is real but that the definition is far too narrow, and I just wanted to find out what the definition really is. So far, I think, it has become clear that in order to be called "genetic modification" an operation needs to be performed by man, but it does not need to be commercial nor does it need to be connected with production of anything. From the original definition, this leaves us "application of genetic engineering". If that is all, and if we feel it is SOP, then it should be brought to RFD. But I would prefer to agree on the definition first. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I checked with the Lemmings. Collins, MacMillan, Cambridge, dictionary.com list both "Genetic modification" and "Genetic engineering". Collins says modification is alteration of DNA for improvement or correction of defects and engineering is alteration of DNA for research. Cambridge is on similar lines saying that modification is process of changing the structure of the genes of a living thing and that engineering is the science of it. Dictionary. com basically agrees, just with more words. Macmillan and Wikipedia believe that modification and engineering are the same thing. A search of BGC reveals that usage of "genetic modification" predates "genetic engineering" by about 40 years. As a summary, I propose that we move our current definition of genetic engineering to genetic modification and add the science aspect to genetic engineering, like this:

genetic modification
 * 1) deliberate modification of the genetic structure of an organism

genetic engineering
 * 1) practice or science of genetic modification
 * 2) genetic modification

If there are no protests, I'll proceed to make these changes within a week or so. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)face va
 * I take back the comment on outdating. It was based on taking the etymology section of genetic engineering at face value. Actually the two terms appear in the publications at about the same time in early 1900's. Based on the samples available in BGC it's also hard to know whether they are used consistently or whether they were understood the same way as today - probably not, as the science has developed enormously since then.--Hekaheka (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed changes done.--Hekaheka (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)