Talk:CH391L/S14/Jorge's First assignment
Wiki Feedback Worksheet Nuts and bolts:
There are some citations missing (see below) but most of the document has enough citations to appropriate literature. The sources seem to be correctly referenced. Figures neither seem relevant to the topic nor help conveying better the intended message. They actually give a sense of lack of seriousness. There are a few of sentences mentioned below that did not make sense probably due to grammar errors.
Bigger picture: What about the wiki was well done and what revisions are needed? What was well explained? What sections or topics were confusing or seemed incomplete? Are there interesting sections that could potentially be expanded? Are there related methods or research that should be mentioned?
I found the wiki too short in content as it did not cover extensively such a controversial and interesting topic. I would have liked to see some more about Greenpeace and similar organizations stances. In general the wiki did not convey a sense of being a serious publication. It fundamentally failed to give a broad idea of what ethics are in SynBio. I would have included specific discoveries as representative challenging examples of ethical issues in SynBio and how the community have addressed them.
Worksheet: This should take you about 20 to 30 minutes to complete, including reading the wiki. Use whatever space you need. [ask for the word file, if you do not have it]
Overall Format and structure: The format looks fine in general. The structure failed to give cohesion to the different sections. I found some sections to be irrelevant to the topic at hand (e.g. Astrobiology). In general, it is an incomplete document.
Introduction and background material: No citation for Richard Feynman. Examples of entire planet vs. personal don’t seem to convey correctly the message intended or the grammar is incorrect. It seems to me that the impact of such examples would be in either way planet-wide. It lacks citation to the source of the PCSBI report. Last paragraph seems unlinked to the section.
Methods and main body/concepts:
Religious… section:
I liked a lot this section and would have enjoyed it more if expanded.
The sentence “Such concerns…” seems ambiguous and confusing.
The assertion made at the end about destruction wrought by multinationals seems unsupported (no reference to respectable sources that could support such assertion).
Biosafety:
What are other countries doing? Is there any international initiative?
Astrobiology:
This section seems totally unrelated.
Relation to iGEM and future directions: Did mention in the intro but not sure it was the best place.
Figures, Figure legends, and citations:
Pandora’s bug: seems unrelated and difficult to understand for other people with different cultural background. Lacks a good legend.
Don’t see any connection of the figure with the article since it does not help the main message of the text. It helps illustrate the consequences of “unethical” behavior in SynBio but not really the issue of the ethical discussion in SynBio. Is there real threats in the area? Lacks a good legend.
