Talk:Teratology

message: The detrimental effects of prenatal alcohol exposure have been alluded to for
centuries; however, not until the late 20th century was a conclusive causal relationship
between alcohol exposure and birth abnormalities established (Jones & Smith, 1973). As
early as 1900, Nicloux illustrated (using an animal model) that alcohol passes directly
through the placenta, affecting the embryo, yet many physicians during that time
continued to believe the placenta was an inclusive barrier against all agents (Nicloux,
1900 as cited in Randall, 2001). It wasn’t until 1968 when Lemoine found a reoccurring
pattern of birth defects in children born to alcoholic mothers in France that alcohol began
to be considered a teratogen (Lemoine, 1968 as cited in Randall, 2001). Niubrad 20:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The discovery of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome

message: UB.  Merged the articles since both are integral for understanding.  Demantos 13:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've standardized the references using http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/templates.  Everything looks better.  Now time to do some cleanup.  Demantos 13:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged teratogenesis

message: As interesting as I found the comment about the derivation of the word "monster", I am not sure that this is relevant here at all.
"Monster is a pejorative term for a grossly deformed individual, although it is interesting to note that, etymologically, this word is related to demonstration, and used to simply mean something worth looking at, for being unusual, without necessarily being pejorative." Jimjamjak (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Monster" 

message: Why not include photos of the conditions mentioned?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.36.206.52 (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures of common conditions 

message: In the first paragraph of the section labeled "Teratogenesis" the first and third sentences seem contradictory. If birth defects occur in "3-5% of all newborns" (the linked cite actually says "about 120,000 babies (1 in 33) in the United States", not "3-5%), why would "extensive medical care to diagnose or treat a birth defect" be required in 7-10% of all children? 64.42.110.163 (talk) 05:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this should have been that 7-10% of children with a birth defect require extensive medical care; i.e. about 3 per thousand live births. Davy p (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How common are birth defects? 

message: Some recent edits by an IP editor messed up some of the source references (for instance , and added a bunch of material that needs to be wikified.  Since the editor did not indicate where the material came from it might also be well to check it (are the sources the right ones for the citations).  Out of time right now to tackle this.  Zodon (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup needed after recent addition 

message: The subsection Teratogenesis under Animalia includes a bunch of bracketed numbers that look a lot like footnote markers. Since they aren't small, blue, and links, they make me suspect plagiarism. I downloaded the paper Enviromental Tertrogens, the first reference provided for the section, and it has not been plagiarized, but I don't have a way to check the second source. If the section is not plagiarism, those numbers should really be removed. --Kitsunegami (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Copying from that IP editor has been detected in multiple points to the copyrighted book Principles and Methods of Toxicology. I have reverted to the last edit prior to the influx of this content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible plagiarism 

message: A mergeing proposal was anonymously made on Developmental toxicity.  It was not associated with an entry on the Talk page there, however, as Viinamakelainen states there, it is Developmental toxicity that is the wider term.  It follows that if a merge is to be made then it is Teratology that should be merged into Developmental toxicity not vice versa.  IMO the optimum solution would be for this article to simply be "renamed" Developmental toxicity and for the current Developmental toxicity article to form the introduction of that. LookingGlass (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose, since Teratology also covers teratogenic effects of infections, which can not themselves be called toxic substances. Thus, neither Teratology nor Developmental toxicology can be called "wider", but are rather two largely overlapping articles with some unique features compared to the other. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, I support the merge. Let's continue this discussion at Talk:Developmental toxicity#Merge from Teratology where it has already started. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: On third thought, I again oppose a merge. Still, the actual discussion is at: Talk:Developmental toxicity#Merge from Teratology. Mikael Häggström (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: I recommend that a separate article, "Teratogen", be split off from this article. "Teratology is the study of abnormalities of physiological development", while a teratogen is a substance (less commonly an infection, such as rubella; or another factor) that causes such abnormalities.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: With so many related articles (Toxicity, Pollution, Developmental toxicity, Teratology, Congenital disorder, Congenital abnormality and Environmental toxins and fetal development, Drugs in pregnancy) we need more merging, not more splitting. The difference between the effect and the agent can be explained in the article. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teratogen article 

message: I moved the following section to here, because these are already mentioned in Congenital abnormality with better organizing and references. Before any reinsertion, it needs:
*Better referencing
:::The section below the list does have references, but its claims are very vague, basically telling that the substances are "subject to debate". Before any reinsertion, it needs to tell something more substantial.
*Being more clear whether it's about toxicity as described in humans or animals.
Mikael Häggström (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Agents

message: The whole of this paragraph must be deleted. None of the sentences there have any citation. It is clearly some editor's personal view and we have no reason to care about it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.42.11.58 (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vaccinating while pregnant 

message: — Assignment last updated by Arbiddy (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Comparative Developmental Biology

message: — Assignment last updated by Epb02 (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Comparative Developmental Biology

message: — Assignment last updated by Hailey Mix (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Developmental and Molecular Biology Spring 2024