User contributions for Drexelbiologist
A user with 23 edits. Account created on 27 November 2019.
10 February 2020
- 18:2718:27, 10 February 2020 diff hist −1,214 m New eugenics Undid revision 938743824 by PiotruśW (talk). This is incorrect. Go to the talk page and make your case their. You are literally deleting experts in bioethics and replacing them with confusing language that is ideologically biased. Tag: Undo
1 February 2020
- 18:1118:11, 1 February 2020 diff hist −1,054 m New eugenics →History: deleted the Edwin Black reference for two very important reasons: 1) Black is a journalist, not a historian or a bioethicists, 2) Black is describing the worst excesses of older and more coercive eugenics programs, not liberal eugenics. It biases the page to add Black's critique as if it is authoritative (it's not) or relevant to new eugenics (it's not)
- 18:0918:09, 1 February 2020 diff hist +285 m New eugenics →Ethics: added citations and clarified arguments for and against
- 17:5017:50, 1 February 2020 diff hist −445 m New eugenics See talk page. Including definitions by a figure who had nothing to do with "liberal" eugenics is not accurate. The term comes from Agar, not Galton, and it is both false and slanderous to attribute to Agar the view that we should stop those deemed "lesser" or "inferior" from reproducing. He never says this, nor do any of the main advocates of liberal eugenics. See talk page on DEFINITIONS Tag: Undo
- 17:4717:47, 1 February 2020 diff hist +703 m Talk:New eugenics →Definitions
13 January 2020
- 16:3616:36, 13 January 2020 diff hist +122 Talk:Eugenics →First section of entry is not neutral
- 16:3616:36, 13 January 2020 diff hist +1,590 Talk:Eugenics →First section of entry is not neutral: new section
- 16:2116:21, 13 January 2020 diff hist +618 m Talk:Eugenics →Split?: reply
- 15:0015:00, 13 January 2020 diff hist +1,272 m Talk:Eugenics →Split?: Yes, the articles should be split (they already are), and no, even classical eugenics is not necessarily racist. Classical eugenicists disagreed with one another.
- 14:4914:49, 13 January 2020 diff hist +952 m Talk:Eugenics →CRISPR: Chiming in on an empirical question: Is CRISPR eugenics? Answer: yes, by definition, if the point is to improve welfare.
10 January 2020
- 23:4823:48, 10 January 2020 diff hist +2,335 m Eugenics Undid revision 935163737 by Grayfell (talk) The previous discussion was entirely one-sided, offering objections but no replies to worries about issues like genetic diversity. I cited top-ranked bioethicists from places like Harvard, Duke, and Arizona who write in mainstream journals like Bioethics and The Journal of Political Philosophy who debate these subjects. Greyfell undid them. This is vandalism on his part. Tag: Undo
- 23:4523:45, 10 January 2020 diff hist −211 m Eugenics Undid revision 935163646 by Grayfell (talk) Greyfell is trying to control the narrative in one biased direction. I've added much more mainstream authors who wrote influential books. Greyfell is deleting them because he disagrees with their perspective. But surely we should include all mainstream perspectives on this subject, not just left wing activists. Tag: Undo
- 18:4818:48, 10 January 2020 diff hist +482 m Influenza →Other animals
- 18:4018:40, 10 January 2020 diff hist +147 m Eugenics added additional detail to citations
- 18:3318:33, 10 January 2020 diff hist +1,467 m Eugenics minor edits to contemporary bioethics debate about losing genetic diversity
- 15:2615:26, 10 January 2020 diff hist +835 m Synthetic biology →Bibliography
- 15:1715:17, 10 January 2020 diff hist +633 m Synthetic biology →Bibliography
- 15:0815:08, 10 January 2020 diff hist +31 m New eugenics →Further reading
- 15:0715:07, 10 January 2020 diff hist −409 m New eugenics →Further reading
9 January 2020
- 21:3721:37, 9 January 2020 diff hist +373 m Gene therapy →Human genetic engineering
- 21:2621:26, 9 January 2020 diff hist −44 m Antibiotic use in livestock Fixed citation for previous edit
- 21:2221:22, 9 January 2020 diff hist +700 m Antibiotic use in livestock Added two citations to first paragraph on sources of the problem, and legislative solutions
27 November 2019
- 18:4818:48, 27 November 2019 diff hist −57 m Eugenics Slightly altered the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph to contrast early 20th century eugenics, which is often tied to racism, with later versions, which are not. Also cited the most influential book ever written on the subject: In the Name of Eugenics, by a Harvard historian
