Talk:Ian Wilmut
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Warwickshire, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Warwickshire. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page. |
| Start | This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This page has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead. |
On that point since March 2006 the British newspapers have wriiten many things about Wilmut which he may not like. I wonder has he sued any of them? Once reports are in the public domain anybody can refer to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.164.6 (talk) 11:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The article seems to be a record of the press that Wilmut is getting rather than the fact of the matter concerning the scientific breakthrough that made cloning possible. Whatever is reported in the last 5 minutes does not alter what wilmut said in court about his "non-trivial" but supervisory role in cloning.
Surely "abandon" is the wrong word to use in discussing Wilmut's relationship to cloning? "Abandon" does have the meaning of having something and then making a decision to let it go. It is not the same as never having done something in the first place. According to the Daily Telegraph report of March 2006 he never did, or played a scientific role in, cloning.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1512377/I-didn%27t-clone-Dolly-the-sheep%2C-says-prof.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3285475.ece
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=400407&c=1
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/openhouse/2008/02/arise-sir-keith.html
Steen Willadsen, at Cambridge, England, was the first to clone a mammal from differentiated cells, from sheep embryos, in 1984.
http://library.thinkquest.org/24355/data/details/1984.html
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=RDv17n2_PA.pdf
I know that the article needs a "clean-up" but sometimes there are inconvenient truths and it won't all fit into a glass slipper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.137.57 (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
There is the issue of Roger Highfield's compromised reporting. He has written a book with Wilmut and is the reporter in reference 5 who has not read what his own newspaper has written in reference 4.
Daily Telegraph science editor states Keith Campbell brains behind Dolly the sheep.
From: Roger Highfield Date: Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 10:23 AM Subject: wilmut
Dear Vladimir,
The one thing I know after more than two decades in science reporting is that newspaper and web reports are not a very reliable source of information. If you read the literature, or even After Dolly, coauthored by myself and Wilmut, you would see that Willadsen is giving due credit along with Campbell and many others, though note that the Roslin team was the first to clone a sheep from an adult cell, not Willadsen. Half the problem was caused by Wilmut being the head of a big team and labelled by the media in the year of her birth as the "father of Dolly" without making clear that around 20 people were involved at the Roslin, Campbell was the brains behind the feat, and that much great work had been done before by many teams around the world in the decades running up to the birth of Dolly. Willadsen was an important player but only one of many. Why do you feel a need to point this out now? All the best, Roger
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1783810 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.137.57 (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Gina Kolata, a reporter at the New York Times, states that Wilmut did not do any of the experiments.
Re:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/science/22stem.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=wilmut&st=nyt&oref=slogin
From: readerservice@nytimes.com Sent 01.04.2008 23:12
From Gina Kolata:
Sorry you think I'm a fibber. It was journalistic shorthand because Wilmut was the group leader. Since I also wrote that he has a tremor and can't do those delicate experiments it's pretty clear I was not deliberately trying to lie.
In reply to:
Gina,
You are an old fibber, who cannot remember what she has written.
In
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/science/22stem.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=wilmut&st=nyt&oref=slogin
You wrote:
"Dr. Wilmut had slipped an udder cell - a cell that normally would never be anything but an udder cell - into an egg whose genetic material had been removed".
The journalese shorthand you use is very corrosive and is simply not true. You have written to me yourself that he didn't do any of the experiments.
For verification Gina Kolata can be contacted at this page:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/gina_kolata/index.html?8qa&scp=1-spot&sq=gina+kolata&st=nyt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.96.84.2 (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Living people do dishonest things. There's no way around that. Are we only to report on the lives of saints? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.137.57 (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The sources are well known British newspapers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.239.57 (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Bill Ritchie one of the technicians who did most of the work is reoprted to have said; "He [Wilmut] is saying he did a third and Keith did two-thirds. But I don't think I appear in there at all, to be honest" http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1728628,00.html
One source (http://library.thinkquest.org/24355/data/light/details/1995.html) claims that the sheep Megan and Morag were cloned in July 1995, not "early 1996" as it is stated in the article. Anyone know what is correct?
ToK 17:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed this as it is point of view: I couldn't see how to rewrite it so it wasn't so I took it out.
"It seems odd that Wilmut thinks that writing books, which received less publicity than the original "Dollymania", 10 years after the event, is rightful compensation for his claiming credit, which Wilmut himself has now said (under oath), belongs primarily to somebody else. "
I moved the photo of him and Woo-Suk Hwang to the relevant section. It seems unfair to have this as the top photo.
On the revert, text copied from here --nixie 11:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Korean's name in the photo with Wilmut is Woo-Suk Hwang.
This article seems very biased, however true these accusations may be. The photo of him with Woo-Suk Hwang also seems unreasonably designed to taint him by association.
The picture with Woo-suk Hwang was on the site before the news of Hwang's fraud broke and while the latter was still famous. Therefore I do not see how the photo was designed to taint anybody.
Contents |
[edit] NPOV editing
I have tried to make this article in line with Wikipedia policy, but it seems that one editor in particular (209.77.137.57) is dedicated to have her way. I think the controversy paragraph is (at best) to long and not very neutral. But I'm not entering an 'edit war', and the invitations to discuss the subject on the talk pages has not been fruitful so far. Any second opinions about this?
Somebody really hates this guy. It hardly does any justice to someone on the web looking to learn about Ian Wilmut, the details of his experiment, early life, work, inspirations, academic credentials. God. Looks like a pro-Life Stem Cell person wrote this. --பராசக்தி 05:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Why does the science have to be related to geo-politics?
One of the main sources for the information is the The Center for Genetics and Society. "A nonprofit information and public affairs organization working to encourage responsible uses and effective societal governance of the new human genetic and reproductive technologies". It is aligned with liberal/left of the U.S. Democratic party, hardly a pro-Life group.
http://www.genetics-and-society.org/
[edit] BBC profile
Editors can take information from this BBC article. Ekantik talk 22:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
George Orwell's 1984 was written from his experience working at the BBC.
The BBC article lacks any references at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.96.84.2 (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Stray section moved here
This section of text does not have any place in the article, but enough information can be gleaned from the references to include more information. So I am removing the text from the article and placing it here until such time as proper editing of this text can take place:
==The idea that made cloning possible== "The idea of freezing cells for use in cloning had been devised by Dr Campbell and the vital experiments had been carried out by a fellow scientist, Bill Ritchie." [1] "Some scientists, who spoke to the Guardian under condition of anonymity, believe the group would still be trying to clone an animal were it not for Prof Campbell, who worked out that each egg and cell used in a cloning attempt had to be carefully coordinated for the embryo to have any chance of surviving." [2] "Idea of freezing" (i.e. freezing in the cycle, not freezing cold as you might think, and "each egg and cell used in a cloning attempt had to be carefully coordinated for the embryo to have any chance of surviving" are referring to the same thing. The disturbing thing is that most people are continuing to act as if nothing happened, oblivious to the uniform requirements for authorship submitted to biomedical journals: http://www.icmje.org/ Please see: section II Authorship and Contributorship A.1. Byline authors. "Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group, alone, does not justify authorship." A supervisory role does NOT merit authorship. Most scientists would say that the work consists of having a testable hypothesis and then testing it. Wilmut, it seems, did not contribute to either part. The question is: what is Wilmut's scientific contribution?
Ekantik talk 23:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Father's blindness
I see that a citation has been requested in repect of Leonard Wilmut's diabetes and blindness. I don't see how this can be provided from any published or online source since it's very unlikely it has ever been mentioned there. If it's any good, I can personally vouch for the accuracy of this - Leonard Wilmut was my uncle, I knew him personally and indeed he contracted diabetes in the 1930s and went blind around the 1960s as a direct result. He had been a Maths teacher and after going blind became a computer programmer (in the days when that meant punched cards). I haven't amended the article: I leave that to others to decide whether this is sufficient authority. RFWilmut (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
