Talk:Model organism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Model organism is part of WikiProject Animal rights, a project to create and improve articles related to animal rights. If you would like to help, please consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
Mid rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale

Contents

[edit] Uncategorized early comments

I think it might be useful to restructure the list of model organisms into two redundant lists--one grouped by classification (bacteria, plant, animal, etc.), as it is now, and the other grouped by the field which makes use of it (genetics, cell biology, neurobiology, developmental biology, agriculture, etc.) IlliniWikipedian 17:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I was looking for "zebrafish", and was a little bit confused by "zebra danio". According to my experience and a quick search of the literature, "zebrafish" and "Danio rerio" are by far the most common words used by scientists to discuss the creature that this page refers to as "zebra danio" and "Brachydanio rerio".

Interestingly, it seems that researchers either use "zebrafish" AND "Danio rerio" or they use "zebra danio" AND "Brachydanio rerio". A BIOSIS search for "zebrafish" turned up 4427 articles, while a search for "zebra danio" turned up only 34 articles.

-adam

Hm. If you have better refs and think it is wrong then by all means change it. Fish names are hard to pin down and seem to change with each passing generation of researchers. Common names are a mess too. --mav

I don't agree with the opening sentence. Researchers do consider potential economic benefits when choosing their model systems. This is necessary because funding agencies often take this into consideration and the researcher does need to get grants. I propose that the defining characteristic of a model organism is that it is studied as an example of a larger set of organisms. Economic benefit is one of many considerations that a researcher takes into account when choosing an organism. AdamRetchless 01:24, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

One thing that we need to express is that there are many model organisms, and that different ones are used in different fields and differnt time periods. Listing every model organism ever used would not be worthwhile, so we need to prioritize. One obvious means of prioritizing would be to list the most common model organisms. However, I think that will tend to bias the list towards molecular biology (as the list currently is). Perhaps we could list organisms by field (Microbiology, Development, Neuroscience, Ecology, Genetics) AdamRetchless 01:24, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think the goldfish may be a common model organism but I am not sure.--βjweþþ (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the part where humans are listed under model organisms!

[edit] embryology

would sympathtic editors consider a positive vote here? [1]Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Proposal

  • Support Addhoc 12:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Against. A model organism is a well-known, widely used organism in research, like the worm, the fly, the zebrafish and so on. An animal model, on the other hand, is a condition studied in an animal, for example MPTP-induced parkinsonism, metrazol-induced epilepsy, and many others. Dr Zak 19:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Against - (per Dr. Zak and Ragesoss). I like Dr Zak's distinction! I also see a fair amount of interchangeable usage between each term (Animal Model and Model Organism). (Of course, this doesn't mean the world is using the terms properly or consistently.) For instance, this link [2] appears to use the term Animal Model the way WP's Model Organism is currently written. Also, Google quickly tells us that Animal Model is the name of a specific USDA procedure ... something I don't see mentioned on WP's Animal Model article. (Please see [3] --Keesiewonder 03:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC) (Moved vote from moderately against to against. Keesiewonder 14:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC))
  • Against; Dr. Zak puts it well. But animal model should be coordinated more closely with this article, and should note the partial overlap between the two concepts.--ragesoss 21:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Against. Yes, Dr. Zak does put it well. However, I believe that there is a difference as Model organism has a more biological side to it, whereas Animal model focuses more on the psychological and sociological side.--reverandspaniel 12:52, 5 January 2007 (GMT)
  • Against as per above, not to mention that the material on animal models would be drowned out by all the non-animal model organisms. Bendž|Ť 10:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Against for reasons stated above. I think we can safely remove the merger proposal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chodges (talk • contribs) 18:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed?

"This strategy is made possible by the common descent of all living organisms, and the conservation of metabolic and developmental pathways and genetic material over the course of evolution.[citation needed]" (Opening paragraph)

Does this really need a citaion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.82.145 (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2007
  • I don't think it needs a citation, as it is in the lead section, isn't even slightly controversial, and can be understood by going to the linked pages. I'm removing the fact tag now. If anyone really wants a citation, please explain what you'd want the citation to say. I can see using sources for the fact of common descent, the similarity of metabolism, the conservation of developmental pathways, and the conservation of the genetic code throughout evolution, but that would be FOUR inline citations for one sentence in a lead section, and I simply can't see that doing any readers any good Enuja 02:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned it's uncontroversial, but that's far from the case in some parts of the world. I'm not reinstating the tag, but if somebody requests a citation, it should be given. As with many "obvious" statements, surely there's a review article or book that could be refered to instead of four separate citations. Bendž|Ť 10:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I spent a few hours looking for review articles, and I found only technical ones about HOW useful models are, not general ones that give the very basic justification for the generalizability of biological research. So I went to the library and got Michael Allen Fox's book The Case for Animal Experimention: An Evolutionary and Ethical Perspective, skimmed it last night, and used it as a reference today. I'm not convinced that it's the best reference, as the relevant information is mostly on a few pages in Ch 2 but is honestly spread throughout the book, and most of the book is not relevant to this statement. If anyone can find a better reference, by all means substitute it, but this statement simply can't sit around with a fact tag on it. When people who know nothing about the subject see a fact tag, they think that the fact is in dispute, and this fact is simply so basic that it's really hard to find a concise reference for it. Enuja 19:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Virus as organism?

I'm about to amend the reference to one of the model viruses as an organism. Strictly speaking viruses aren't organisms. If fact, a virus particle can't really be described as 'living'. i.e. it has no independent life. However, as a shorthand I do see the value in referring to an organism for simplicity - its just that inaccuracy in terminology bugs me! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.211.95.178 (talk) 15:09, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

What alternative terminology do you suggest? I know evolutionary biologists who work on viruses, and think of their model systems as organisms. Honestly, most biologists don't worry about what is defined as an "organism" or not; we just study them. I recently came across a philosophy of biology paper that claimed to defend why biologists aren't worried that we really don't have a good definition of organism, but I didn't read the paper. Enuja 17:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cleanup?

I cant see reason for the tag clenup from November. Could'nt anyone provide some objections, regarding the style of the article, which could be followed to reach desired standard? If not I will remove the tag after several days, I do not realize any violation of manual of style here.

In fact I thought that this tag is given usually to the articles, which are messed up in style more seriously and do not reach any grade in the quality assessment. This one was evaluated as B class. So it does not fit to me together. Reo ON | +++ 18:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed Reo ON | +++ 20:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)