Talk:Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA

message: This article is not complete without some mention of Donald S. Fredrickson, the head of the NIH. JFW | T@lk 23:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don Fredrickson 

message: Is there any reason why Conference and Recombinant are capitalized? If not, it should be moved. -- Y not? 12:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of article title 

message: This article typifies a sort of apologism/permissivism in regards to biotechnology which I find rather dangerous. Really this comes as no surprise: the Barinaga citation makes it all seem rather appropriate; indeed, Barinaga tends to gloss over the controversiality of biotechnology, herself. In particular, the author cites a number of sources erroneously, in effect diminishing the controversial (and potentially deleterious) nature of much of the research discussed at Asilomar. Reading the article I was stunned to discover a litany of references to Susan Wright; though her work is indeed essential to any historical treatment of biotechnology, the way in which the author cited her was highly misleading. Indeed, after studying under Wright I am certain that her views of Asilomar (and the surrounding events) are much more critical than the author presents. Interestingly, the author cites her lesser-read published essays rather than her book on the subject, 'Molecular Politics.' Such an approach seems vulnerable to claims of tendentious article-writing. Additionally, the fleeting reference to the "biotechnology industry" further glosses over the immense debate (and reprobation) surrounding such subjects. Sheldon Krimsky (who is conspicuously absent from this article, though he's written a good deal on the subject) deserves serious consideration in analyzing the controversy and ethicality of Asilomar and biotechnology in general. 
Another notable omission from this article is Michael Rogers's primary source account of the conference, titled 'The Pandora's Box Congress.' Perhaps the author dismisses Roger's account simply because it was published in Rolling Stone magazine. This is a serious misjudgment. In fact, Rogers's account was so important (particularly given the exclusion of media at the Asilomar conference) that James Watson (yes, that same James Watson...) included a reprint of the article in his compendium of biotechnology's history, 'The DNA Story'. 
In short, the article evinces the same sort of scientific hagiography which Barinaga is prone to without discussing much (if any!) of the dubious facets of the topic. 
:It's likely that no one will complain if you address your concerns and edit the article. David D. (Talk) 19:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor Scholarship 

message: Would it be possible to list the speakers? I know only Harold Green that spoke there. It would be interesting for historical reason to list as many speakers as possible, after all this was a historic event, and there were many topics. (Green talked about liability and law suits due to biological damage and this negatively impacted the conference)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.103.172 (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participants 

message: (PDF) Remember Asilomar? Reexamining Science's Ethical and Social Responsibility
Limits of Responsibility: Genome Editing, Asilomar, and the Politics of Deliberation - Hurlbut - 2015 - Hastings Center Report - Wiley Online Library
They show a side to this topic which is missing from the article, and BasilSeal above gave more avenues to research. I'll be leaving this page on my todo list just in case I hypothetically come back and do it myself, but in the meanwhile I'll just be leaving these here. Mignof (talk | contribs) 21:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dropping a couple sources