Difference between revisions of "Talk:CHE391L/S14/Ethics"

From SynBioCyc
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 2: Line 2:
 
*--[[User:Dst465|drewtack]] ([[User talk:Dst465|talk]]) 15:50, 21 April 2014 (CDT)Also, the very first thing I notice is that there are no images, which essentially just makes this a giant blob of text.  Also, you have a good variety of examples, but could you divide this up into different classes of ethical issues?
 
*--[[User:Dst465|drewtack]] ([[User talk:Dst465|talk]]) 15:50, 21 April 2014 (CDT)Also, the very first thing I notice is that there are no images, which essentially just makes this a giant blob of text.  Also, you have a good variety of examples, but could you divide this up into different classes of ethical issues?
 
*--[[User:Mdf889|Mindy]] ([[User talk:Mdf889|talk]]) 12:45, 24 April 2014 (CDT)I agree with the figure comment- even though its ethics and it's mostly examples, figures that illustrate the examples or give more detail might help make it a bit more manageable to read. Also, is there anything that could be traced back to iGEM? Maybe they have a list of ethical standards they have to operate under, or perhaps there's been an issue in the past? Other than that, very thorough and understandable- good job.
 
*--[[User:Mdf889|Mindy]] ([[User talk:Mdf889|talk]]) 12:45, 24 April 2014 (CDT)I agree with the figure comment- even though its ethics and it's mostly examples, figures that illustrate the examples or give more detail might help make it a bit more manageable to read. Also, is there anything that could be traced back to iGEM? Maybe they have a list of ethical standards they have to operate under, or perhaps there's been an issue in the past? Other than that, very thorough and understandable- good job.
 +
*--[[User:Eg25529|Liz]] ([[User talk:Eg25529|talk]]) 07:18, 25 April 2014 (CDT)Good article! Just thoughts as I read through- When/why was the Belmont Report published? The GMO sentence in the intro seems out of place- maybe reserve as intro sentence for golden rice section. Reword on ''By introducing non-viral RNA that corresponds to a gene found in the cell is introduced, however, the cell is essentially tricked into committing suicide''. what mouse diet = the mouse diet? The RNAi sections could be condensed by directly summarizing papers and in-line citing. Don't need to say things are interesting or important- that's implied by you including them. (and there are other examples of subjective/editorial adjectives/phrases throughout I would go through and remove- but this is personal tone preference I think). I think you raise some important points in the conclusion, though I think mentioning evolution is a little distracting - I feel like that's more an issue of rejecting evidence than outright not understanding. Although we see something similar re GMOs/synthetic biology- like in the NYT article we read. Maybe somehow you could tie that group/opinion back to ethics/communication more explicitly. Overall clear well written good examples.  I third the request for figures- I'm sure some diagram somewhere has been made to highlight ethical areas :)

Revision as of 12:18, 25 April 2014

  • --drewtack (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2014 (CDT)First!!
  • --drewtack (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2014 (CDT)Also, the very first thing I notice is that there are no images, which essentially just makes this a giant blob of text. Also, you have a good variety of examples, but could you divide this up into different classes of ethical issues?
  • --Mindy (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2014 (CDT)I agree with the figure comment- even though its ethics and it's mostly examples, figures that illustrate the examples or give more detail might help make it a bit more manageable to read. Also, is there anything that could be traced back to iGEM? Maybe they have a list of ethical standards they have to operate under, or perhaps there's been an issue in the past? Other than that, very thorough and understandable- good job.
  • --Liz (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2014 (CDT)Good article! Just thoughts as I read through- When/why was the Belmont Report published? The GMO sentence in the intro seems out of place- maybe reserve as intro sentence for golden rice section. Reword on By introducing non-viral RNA that corresponds to a gene found in the cell is introduced, however, the cell is essentially tricked into committing suicide. what mouse diet = the mouse diet? The RNAi sections could be condensed by directly summarizing papers and in-line citing. Don't need to say things are interesting or important- that's implied by you including them. (and there are other examples of subjective/editorial adjectives/phrases throughout I would go through and remove- but this is personal tone preference I think). I think you raise some important points in the conclusion, though I think mentioning evolution is a little distracting - I feel like that's more an issue of rejecting evidence than outright not understanding. Although we see something similar re GMOs/synthetic biology- like in the NYT article we read. Maybe somehow you could tie that group/opinion back to ethics/communication more explicitly. Overall clear well written good examples. I third the request for figures- I'm sure some diagram somewhere has been made to highlight ethical areas :)