Talk:Synthetic biology

message: The twin studies in Nature are mistakenly both attributed to Elowitz et al. Only the repressilator is relevant to this attribution. The toggle switch should be attributed to Gardner et al. This is a significant oversight considering these studies are widely considered the birth of modern synthetic biology.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlsthn (talk • contribs) 04:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Twin studies misattribution

message: Removed this section, because it (1) reflects personal opinion, (2) restates information from the previous section (Challenges), and (3) provides no meaningful insight into the discussion on bioethical considerations of synthetic biology. 2607:F470:8:2022:6974:9D2B:4489:E37D (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Risks Amidst Advances

message: *Removed links to individual labs and only left links to multi-institution endeavors and departments in synthetic biology.  Rpshetty 13:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: I kicked off the key enabling technologies section.  But it still needs quite a bit of work. Rpshetty 20:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Enabling technologies

message: I posted this in the bioengineering talk page too, but isn't Synthetic Biology a part of Bioengineering? The two pages aren't even linked and never mention each other. As a person ignorant on the topic, I don't know, but there is certainly overlap and I think the differences or classification of synthbio with bioengineering should be clarified. I'd help, but I know nothing on either topic. Just thought I'd mention this apparent discrepancy.
Djdoobwah (talk) 09:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PROBLEM Biotechnology currently does not mention synthetic biology. --Squidonius (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of these articles mention each other, nor is an explicit contrast made. While one would eventually conclude they are quite different after their own search, the fact they are not directly linked is rather disconcerting. Other Wikipedia articles have had asides along the lines of "This is not to be confused with X, which is the study of Y rather than Z." This could be added somewhere early on, or perhaps inserted into "See also" section. Maybe there's even a professional article out there drawing out the differences. ThePatman42 (talk) 06:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Bioengineering

message: The article states "In 1974, the Polish geneticist Waclaw Szybalski introduced the term "synthetic biology"". I must dispute this. In a book entitled The Mechanism of Life by Stéphane Leduc, first translated into English in 1911, the author uses the term 'synthetic biology' several times. Indeed, in the introduction he explicitly states "In a subsequent chapter I have dealt with the rise of Synthetic Biology, whose history and methods I have described. It is only of late that the progress of physico-chemical science has enabled us to enter into this field of research, the final one in the evolution of biological science." The book also contains a chapter entitled "Synthetic Biology". Whether Leduc coined this term or whether it preëxisted, I am not sure. --Oldak Quill 23:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. It might be the case that the modern concept of synthetic biology from Szybalski is different to Leduc's concept. I do not know enough about either to comment. --Oldak Quill 23:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of term 

message: The article references to the team at Craig Venter as it was in 2006. In 2010 they made news headlines over the world for the creation of the world's first synthetic organism.  This needs an update.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.112.78 (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Craig Venter 

message: National Public Radio broadcast from the BBC reported on 03/38/2012 that the Gates foundation is funding synthetic biology research.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.93.34 (talk) 07:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gates foundation funding synthetic biology research 

message: The long-time merge proposal of Synthetic life into this article is overdue and seems uncontested. I will do a selective paste merger (WP:SMERGE) now and I hope that I will get all the technical merge aspects of it OK.  Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: Previously, xenobiology was a redirect to astrobiology. I've updated it to be a disambig page that also links to synthetic biology. However, this article doesn't make any mention of nucleic acid analogues such as xeno nucleic acid, which are the primary motivations for disambiguating "xenobiology" in the first place. It would probably be good to expand the article to discuss the creation of new biological building blocks, in addition to the novel manipulation of existing building blocks. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 13:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xenobiology 

message: Would anyone mind if I added s short section on standards in synthetic biology, for example a mention of SBOL (sbolstandard.org)? A168 192 1 1 (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systems Biology Open Language 

message: I believe this is a valid category for works such as Blade Runner Megaman X and Alien.  User:Ryulong is reverting all of my additions. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:ANI#CensoredScribe's categories on discussion on how CensoredScribe is inappropriately making dozens of categories of questionable quality. CensoredScribe, this is not the page to make this sort of discussion, either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Synthetic biology in fiction 

message: …tags were added to the beginning of article, and to some lines and sections.
First, this citation was removed, as a faux citation (no citation at all, just a wikilink with some wrapping text (and the wikilink already appears in the text).  Sentence was left in, and  was added to the line:
* Engineers view biology as a technology – the systems biotechnology or systems biological engineering.
:*REF: Zeng BJ., On the concept of systems biological engineering, The Communications on Transgenic Animals, CAS, Nov. 1994.  (no verifiable citation here)
Second, these bare URLs are also not appropriate citations. Statements need to be supported by independent sources, and professor's webpages are not such sources. (They are promotional; we use them to attract graduate students, show off a little bit about our research to our competing colleagues, etc. They are not reliable sites of scholarly information.) If it is on a faculty web page, and reliable, it is someplace else as well, and it is that "some place else" source that we want. Hence, this sentence stayed in, but the sources came out, and another  tag was added:
* In the same tradition, some aspects of synthetic biology can be viewed as an extension and application of synthetic chemistry to biology, and include work ranging from the creation of useful new biochemicals to studying the origins of life.
:* REFEric Kool's group at Stanford, the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, Carlos Bustamante's group at Berkeley, Jack Szostak's group at Harvard
Third, to a degree I cannot map out this evening, the citations used indicate a relatively low regard for proper scientific sourcing. A quick skim indicated about a third of the 60 sources being news reports (NYT, WSJ, Sky online, etc.), and another third of the citations being primary sources of varying quality (see following). Of the remaining (~20 or so), less than half were decent secondary sources and book citations (though the books were mostly without page numbers, and relying on URLs). The remaining citations, about 20% of all, were URL-only citations, blog posts, and other miscellaneous weak sourcing. Looking just at the last 10 references as of this date and time, there is a single substantial source, a few weak primary sources (mostly philosophical, talking about talking… about Synthetic Biology), and the rest—more than half of this sample, were useless, unverifiable nonsense:
* 56  Report of IASB "Technical solutions for biosecurity in synthetic biology", Munich, 2008.
:* BARE URL; UNPUBLISHED WORKSHOP REPORT
* 57  Marliere P (2009). "The farther, the safer: a manifesto for securely navigating synthetic species away from the old living world" (PDF). Systems and Synthetic Biology 3 (1–4): 77–84. doi:10.1007/s11693-009-9040-9. PMC 2759432. .
:* PRIMARY SOURCE; PHILOSOPHICAL ESSAY/EDITORIAL ("...A MANIFESTO…")
* 58  Schmidt M (2008). "Diffusion of synthetic biology: a challenge to biosafety". Systems and Synthetic Biology 2 (1–2): 1–6. doi:10.1007/s11693-008-9018-z. PMC 2671588. .
:* PRIMARY SOURCE; PHILOSOPHICAL ESSAY/EDITORIAL (" BIOSAFETY CHALLENGE")
* 59  Organisation for International Dialogue and Conflict Management (IDC) Biosafety Working Group
:* BARE URL, DEAD LINK; NO RELATED CONTENT ON PAGE
* 60  WWCIS 2009 Ethical Issues in Synthetic Biology. An Overview of the Debates
:* SOLID CITATION, 2ND TIER; FNDN PUBLICATION
* 61  Parens E., Johnston J., Moses J. Ethical Issues in Synthetic Biology. 2009.
:* BARE URL, NEWS STORY, MISLABELED; REALLY ABOUT SLOAN FNDN FUNDING OF WWCIS
* 62  Kronberger, N; Holtz, P; Kerbe, W; Strasser, E; Wagner, W (2009). "Communicating Synthetic Biology: from the lab via the media to the broader public" (PDF). Systems and Synthetic Biology 3 (1–4): 19–26. doi:10.1007/s11693-009-9031-x. PMC 2759424. .
:* MORE SUBSTANTIAL THAN MOST, BUT STILL ONLY A STUDY OF JOURNALISTS WRITING PRESS RELEASES ABOUT SYNTH BIOL
* 63  Cserer A, Seiringer A (2009). "Pictures of Synthetic Biology: A reflective discussion of the representation of Synthetic Biology (SB) in the German-language media and by SB experts" (PDF). Systems and Synthetic Biology 3 (1–4): 27–35. doi:10.1007/s11693-009-9038-3. PMC 2759430. .
:* PRIMARY SOURCE, AGAIN WEAK; ARTICLE TALKS ABOUT TALKING ABOUT SYNTH BIOL
* 64  New Directions The Ethics of Synthetic Biology and Emerging Technologies Retrieved 2012-04-14.
:* BARE URL, DEAD LINK
* 65  The Ethics of Synthetic Biology: Reinventing the Wheel? Retrieved 2012-04-14.
:* BLOG POSTING, ANONYMOUS, UNAFFILIATED WITH MAJOR NEWS, ACADEMIC, OR OTHER REPUTABLE ORGANIZATION
* 66"Presidential Commission on Bioethics Calls for Enhanced Federal Oversight in Emerging Field of Synthetic Biology". Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. December 16, 2010. Retrieved August 29, 2011.
:* BARE URL, DEAD LINK
Fourth, the key citations in a number of locations are primary literature reports, and these lack the necessary perspective to be able to draw sound conclusions about the importance, and indeed success of the studies reported. This is why WP:V promotes secondary sources for scientific articles. That one group reports something does not mean either that it is reproducible, or that it has longstanding importance. Encyclopedias report things of longstanding importance, and not science news. This is why it is all the more troubling that in paragraphs relying on primary sources, there is also a parallel reliance on news reports to establish scientific details. News reports about science are good to substantiate that the science being reported was newsworthy; science reporting is not to be used to figure out what was done, and how. (See also next point).
Finally, and critically, the tone of the Synthetic Life subsection and some other points in the article, and their sourcing, are clearly problematic from a scientific POV perspective. The Wall Street Journal is not a place that you go to get details of a key scientific experiment that was performed. The WSJ story began with a press release or similar, from Ventner et al (the study authors), which was fleshed out with interviews and a little research. The only thing this reporting is good for, is to establish newsworthiness of the publication, and for quotes regarding the scientists' opinions of their work. Notably, there is a sentence suggesting not all were as enamored with the Venter accomplishment as Venter et al (and the WSJ) were, themselves. However, there is not a single citation to any source where the notability of this primary source is discussed. At the same time, the WSJ article was used repeatedly (5 inline citations) to discern what was done in this reported seminal experiment (!), and how important it was. Bottom line, this is not objective, balanced encyclopedic writing, and so a POV tag was added, both above this section, and at the head of the article, until this and related areas of content step back from being promotional, and becomes balanced (with balanced sourcing).
Result of all of this were addition of two source-related tags to the head of the page, and two comparable specific section tags (as well as adding some inline citations to mark sentences needing attention, the removing of the dead or improper citations given above.
All for now.  Bottom line, this, like many of its sources, is a news story or essay, and promotional, and not ready for prime time.  Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your review. This is an important subject (article), and it has to be re-written. The task requires more time that I am willing to volunteer, but with guidance like this I could work a bit every now and then until it comes into shape. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: After a review of the citations made clear a number of problems

message: Undo is really simple. So the editor has to justify to every concerned watchperson. Thats the way it works. Great, thanks. I think these banners (or tags or whatever) are fugly. Why not add 10 more annoying banners? Concerning this article : so sad to read in the first sentences that synbio is reduced to machine metaphors. I was happy to level up the granularity of this article and now I have to write in this talk page and debate worthiness and conventions with strangers. Life is short, no? Either way - you got what you want, I'm not angry anymore but had to get out of bed (here it's night) and restart my laptop bc the tablet rejected my changes, too. So everythings superduper and maxed to the max. I still hope for Wikipedia in general that the reductionists blow out every metashit. Sorry :/ :)  
-Truyopx  (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: YES you are accountable to a bunch of strangers.  This is Wikipedia where WP:CONSENSUS is what we are all about. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Editors are accountable, but edits should be constructive, and "undo" is a last-resort not a first option (WP:REVERT). All edits should be in good-faith, and no article should be held hostage by a single editor. See WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. Blacksun1942 (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to say 

message: As far as I can see, it appears that this article is the victim of  drive-by tagging; the tags appear to be a straightforward example of "warning the readers against the content of an article" (see WP:TC and WP:NODISCLAIMERS). Per WP:DETAG, I am removing them. For example, the  NPOV and  personal reflection/opinion tags seem obviously unreasonable, and are completely unsupported by any section here in the talk page; unless I am mistaken, the person who tagged this article apparently didn't bother to create new sections explaining why here. The introduction is now only three sentences, is clearly not overly long, and in fact, likely needs to be rewritten (and perhaps even expanded) in accord with guidelines (see WP:LEAD). There are, as of today, 67 references, the page ranges for these references appear to be no more than a couple of pages (see WP:REF). I acknowledge the section above regarding citations, though I note that this does not appear to characterize the current list of references (which, as of now, seems similar to  featured articles on scientific subjects). I personally encourage taggers to adhere to best practices per WP:TC, to explain the reasons for tagging here so that they may be discussed, to first consider tagging individual sections rather than the entire article, and to consider consolidating tags using the  multiple issues template (which points out [ this example] of what to avoid). Blacksun1942 (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was quite terrible and deserved every almost every tag that was on it.  Your review above is very high level and doesn't appear to be based on actually reading the article and seeing the vast amount of unsourced text and editor opinion that was in there.  I went through and deleted most of the offending matter that was unsourced, essay-like.  Either the tags would stay and we would continue to allow that material to remain, or the tags and the material both go. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I resent your ultimatum and  personal attack on me by stating that I haven't read the article. Besides, your statement is inexplicable given that we're obviously talking about the article as it is *now*. I don't see the "vast amount of unsourced text and editor opinion" to which you refer. I definitely don't agree that the article is "quite terrible." Can you point out the "terrible" content? Which sections? You're saying the material *still* needs to be improved, yes? If you have time to write here, then surely you have time to make those improvements rather than merely tag the article? What's the issue? Blacksun1942 (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you're now in the process of deleting vast amounts of content, giving "in the absence of tags..." as a reason. In fact, I don't necessarily disagree with the removal of this specific content per se, but the way you're doing it obviously goes against best practices regarding editing. Why can't you use inline tags, section tags, or  multiple issues, and then simply explain your opinions here in the talk page so that they may be discussed and  consensus reached? To be clear, the problem isn't the tags (though  multiple issues should be used instead of cluttering the top of the article with tags per [ this example], see WP:OVERTAGGING); the problem is that no explanation was given regarding the tags in the talk page; this is  drive-by tagging, and WP:DETAG means that they can be removed. Blacksun1942 (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

text: For the record, while I personally don't disagree with the way the article is now after your edits, it's clear that you've violated the  three-revert rule, which, despite WP:IAR really is an important rule that should be followed in all but the most unambiguous cases (i.e. reverting vandalism); in this case, you've reverted good-faith edits. I want no part in any  edit war, but I'd certainly agree with any editor who thinks you've acted in bad faith. Blacksun1942 (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: when editing, it is a terrible idea to take out huge swaths of text at once.  i made a series of edits so that any one of them could be reverted if any one disagreed with it.  I did not act in bad faith at all. (oh and your initial note above was at 13:39, 11 September 2014 and you removed the tags at 13:41, 11 September 2014‎.   I started removing bad content an hour later, starting at 14:45, 11 September 2014‎  and finishing at 15:14, 11 September 2014‎. So when you detagged and left the note above, all that bad content was indeed still there.) best regards, Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

text:  I am sorry you took what I wrote as an "ultimatum" - not what I meant at all. I really do have the best interests of WP at heart.  An article full of WP:OR and lacking sources should have tags, or the offending material removed. I don't see how you can justify having a bunch of OR crap in an article without tags. How can you? (btw  some of that content had been there unsourced for several years, and to me it is just not OK for it to remain and be untagged. I don't see how even an inclusionist can justify that.  I really don't.  But in any case please don't personalize this.)  But please do explain your perspective on essay-like, unsourced content.  I am interested to hear.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just an FYI; I've reported your edits via WP:AN3. I've done this because I think that this is technically the right thing to do. I appreciate that you think your edits are in the best interest of the article. Blacksun1942 (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: blech. shall we discuss substance? Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: For a long time I've wanted to remove the unsourced assay-like material from this article. I am glad user Jytdog took the initiative when nobody else did in years, and if I was an administrator, I would dismiss the 3R complaint. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing "Drive-By Tagging" 

message: Following creative feedback, I replaced and edited the section Synthetic biology#Synthetic life. The section now emphasise that researchers are "trying" to create synthetic life. Craig Venter's amazing work is synthetic genomics, and I think that the previous version had Venter's work hijacking the scope of the subject because he often claims it is "synthetic life" in his public communications. It may well be an intermediary step. Please feel free to comment and edit the section at will. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section: Synthetic life 

message: There have recently been a number of articles about CRISPR - both opportunities and ethical concerns - in some major news outlets, such as the Washington Post, New York Times and The New Yorker. It was hailed as "the most important innovation in the synthetic biology space in nearly 30 years" by the Washington Post.
The article should include a discussion about such gene editing techniques and also the associated ethical concerns.Aberdeen40 (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of CRISPR 

message: I have been working on a magazine article on this subject and naturally came here for background and facts.
What I found is puzzling. It seems to have been written by experts with little understanding of the wider world's interpretation of synthetic biology. All science and no context. And much of the science is arcane insider stuff that really needs to fit into the bigger picture.
In particular, the structure is strange. 
What are these "Perspectives"?
A particularly surprising aspect is the absence of any background on the development of research into the subject. Where is there any mention of the major report from the Royal Academy of Engineering in the UK in 2009? How about a mention of the World Economic Forum listing synthetic biology as number 2, after ICT, in the top 10 "Emerging technologies" in 2011-2012? What about its appearance as one of the ‘Eight Great Technology’ areas as identified by the UK Chancellor George Osborne?
How about DARPA's investment of $30 million in Living Foundries?
Other notable mentions:
"Meeting 21st-Century Challenges with Science, Technology and Innovation" from the OECD.
There's much more out there that could beef up this article.
Given the comments thrown at others who have tried to edit this article, it seems that intervention is unwelcome. 
Can anyone suggest how best to fix what should be an important article?
MK (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a mess 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Synthetic biology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140829191926/http://forms.asm.org/ASM/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000002705/znw01206000566.pdf to http://forms.asm.org/ASM/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000002705/znw01206000566.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719031805/http://www.ia-sb.eu/tasks/sites/synthetic-biology/assets/File/pdf/iasb_report_biosecurity_syntheticbiology.pdf to http://www.ia-sb.eu/tasks/sites/synthetic-biology/assets/File/pdf/iasb_report_biosecurity_syntheticbiology.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080310224707/http://www.kurzweilai.net:80/articles/art0134.html to http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi everyone, 
I noticed some missing history in this article and plan to add some pieces as I read more about the ethics and history of synthetic biology.
I just added Venter's 2010 study: 
"In 2010, a group of researchers revealed the first self-replicating synthetic bacterial cell, called M. mycoides JCVI-syn1.0. Researchers were able to synthesize a new genome, using DNA sequences from two laboratory strains of Mycoplasma myciodes, and perform successful transplantation into a host Mycoplasma capricolum cell. The new bacterium behaved much like its counterparts and was able to self-replicate freely. [21]" 
Also, while looking at citations, I noticed some duplicates. Venter's 2010 publication appears twice, #97 and #21 ?? 
PinguiculaRK (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding more to History section  

message: Hello,
I'm Latifa, a master's student in Molecular Biology and Genetics at Uskudar University in Istanbul, Turkiye. As part of a class assignment of the course name Recent Developments in Biotechnology, I will be contributing as a fellow Wikipedian to this Wikipedia article. The aim for this is both to learn more about the topic, Synthetic biology, and to practice Wikipedia editing. 
Regards.
Regards. Latifabdulatif (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  INTRODUCING MYSELF 

message: I added a section to definition and cited the reference. Latifabdulatif (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding to definition section 

message: Hello,
I noticed that the first phrase of definition needed some rephrasing and had to be clear to the reader to briefly understand what Synthetic biology is from the first definition. Hence, I clarified what synthetic biology refers to in the first defining phrase, I rephrased and expanded the first line, and I cited the source. Secondly, I rephrased a few phrases in the definition part that I felt were boring to the reader since they lacked an interesting flow. Those phrases mostly began the words it is. Additionally, I put all the definitions under one topic because they were not all under the topic before. Despite the fact that the table of contents states that the first topic is a definition, phrases defining synthetic biology were placed before and after it. Hence, I added them all  to the definition topic. 
I merged three definitions into one to give an interesting flow of the phrases. This is to make the statements clear, interesting and to avoid mess of the phrases. Or rather, to have them structured well. I further, summarized the definition part.
Latifabdulatif (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding to the definition Section 

message: To appreciate the history of this subject, I added a paragraph that states that Synthetic Biology was discovered in the fifteenth century. I also liked to also share the controversial opinions that the molecular biologists at the time had over whether SynBio was actually a new discipline or if it was previously discovered or known. Latifabdulatif (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding to History  

message: I have added the advancements of Synthetic Biology and how they have led to the development of groundbreaking technologies. I added the definition of modularity. Latifabdulatif (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding to Enabling Technologies 

message: I have added on drug delivery section of the application part. I also cited the source. Latifabdulatif (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding to application section 

message: I added and explained the five categories of Synthetic biology and added citation.
 Latifabdulatif (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Categories of Synthetic biology  

message: I added the four different approaches of synthetic biology: top down, parallel, orthogonal and bottom up. I explained each and added citation.
 Latifabdulatif (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding four engineering Approaches of Synthetic biology   

message: I added a point on modeling section of Enabling technologies Latifabdulatif (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:   Added to Modeling section of Enabling technologies 

message: Added Biofuels, pharmaceuticals and biomaterials, CRISPR and Regulatory elements on application section Latifabdulatif (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added on application section