Talk:Dolly (sheep)

I am a bit unsure about my use of the term "Applied Genetics". My understanding, is that this term is beginning to be used to describe the new field of research that has arisen as a result of the completion (more or less) of the Human and Mouse Genome Projects. Specifically, what is now begining to be studied in a greater manor is the interactions between genes themselves and how genes interact with proteins. Am I right to call this "Applied Genetics"? maveric149

Bonnie

What ever happened to Bonnie? You know, Dolly's lamb. I haven't seen anything about here. Is she just a normal lamb, or is she altered in some way. And did Dolly have any other lambs?P.G.Walker 03:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, what about her family tree? Is Bonnie old enough to bear young?

Sheep vs. human

That said, most people would argue that it was better that the first clone was a sheep and not a human.

The way medical science works is that you don't start experimenting on humans before experimenting on some other animals. If it wasn't sheep it would have been a rat, mouse or something like that. Nobody would even get an idea of trying humans first. Taw 02:40, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That is because most conservatives would be outraged, saying that it was unethical. P.G.Walker 03:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

That is because most people would be outraged, doing un-confirmed experiments on living people. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 21:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyright

I have temporarily protected this page. Please use the talk page to discuss the copyright status of the included image before resorting to edit wars.—Eloquence 02:17, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

The license terms for the image are clearly incompatible with the GFDL, requiring permission and perhaps a fee for commercial use. A link to the institute's image library (which I've added) seems preferable. --Brion 02:32, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dolly the sheep is dead. We can't resurrect her to shoot a photo. So this is a classic candidate for fair use under our image use policy. I agree that the original non-commercial license was inappropriate for Wikipedia and that we cannot use it under these terms without being in possible violation of the FDL. I have therefore modified the image page accordingly and added our standard fair use notice, making the image filterable for downstream users. I have also removed one of the two photos on this page as more than one photo does not seem to be justifiable. The external link is still helpful as it points to a whole gallery of images, but our policy does recognize valid uses of copyrighted photos which we cannot reproduce by other means.

However, I would appreciate it if someone (Mav?) would contact the institute with a boilerplate request for permission; perhaps they are sympathetic to relicensing one of their photos under the FDL or putting it in the public domain.

In the future, I think that such images should undergo a kind of approval process to determine whether fair use is justifiable.—Eloquence 02:38, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

Unless you claim that Roslin Institute's permission is somehow GFDL-compatible, there's no need for a discussion. Taw 02:40, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Look at the image page you just deleted again unilaterally. I for one have had enough. I will discuss this matter with Jimbo, as I consider your behavior here clearly in violation of Wikipedia guidelines.—Eloquence

Which part of the GFDL are you alleging is being broken? Anthony DiPierro 02:53, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sections 2 and 4. To quote 2 in particular: 2. VERBATIM COPYING You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. However, you may accept compensation in exchange for copies. (emphasis added)

Compare with the license for the image: The following images may be used free of charge by education, public sector or non-profit making groups. Commercial groups should request permission to use them, and details of the associated nominal fee from roslin.design@bbsrc.ac.uk (emphasis added)

Eloquence has, to my understanding, agreed that this license is incompatible with GFDL, but claims that we may nonetheless use it under US copyright law's fair use doctrine. Whether or not true in this particular case, use of "fair use" images on Wikipedia remains a somewhat controversial issue, as it does create de facto additional obligation on redistributors, to ensure that their use will remain within the fair use guidelines, and may not apply at all to anyone outside the United States. While our servers are based in the US, many of our users are in Europe or elsewhere, and it's unclear how appropriate it is to rely on this local (for some people) distinction. --Brion 03:11, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's why we shouldn't resort to fair use when we have other alternatives. The only alternative in this case is to try to contact the institute to get FDL or public domain status for one of their images. This should be done. However, it is likely to be unsuccessful.

No side in this copyright debate is going to get exactly what they want. It is essential to strike a fair balance between all parties instead of adopting extremist positions either way. Wikipedia is about consensus and working together. The solution I have proposed acknowledges the concerns of the "purity" side while it also addresses the perspective that a proper encyclopedia requires images, especially for historical matters.

Pushing further into the "eliminate all fair use" direction will only encourage the other side to push into the "allow everything licensed to us in some way" direction; it will exacerbate the situation instead of deescalating it. The resulting emotional turmoil may drive either side to take drastic measures, such as leaving the project or starting a fork. This is evidently undesirable. Both sides need to be open to compromise and listen to each other's arguments for this situation to be resolved.—Eloquence 03:19, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

You'll notice that I haven't desysopped you and mav for filling the wiki with copyright violations. ;)

Seriously, this whole notion that we must have images seems to me to be entirely fictional. We always have the option of not having images at all, using alternative free images (such as an artist's rendering instead of a photograph), or referencing by hyperlink a separate web page which contains images under an incompatible license. --Brion 03:25, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My proposal for a comprimise, which, incidently, Jimbo has agreed with, is the following:

1. Including fair use images in a GFDL work is OK.
2. The entire article, including the images, must be licensed under the GFDL.
3. Use of fair use images in Wikipedia should be avoided whenever possible (i.e., when a replacement image is available).
4. When using fair use images, those which are usable by the widest group of reusers should be used whenever possible.
5. By permission images should not be used in Wikipedia.
6. Images released under other free licenses are acceptable. (although those which are not also fair use might be problematic, this is a point Jimbo and I disagree, he claims all images are allowed under clause 7 of the GFDL).
7. Images *should* be marked as to their status.
8. Images owned by the uploader must be released under the GFDL. (Jimbo would like to modify this to add "or another free license"). Anthony DiPierro 03:27, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia has not added any conditions whatsoever to those of the GFDL. Banning fair use would ban just about everything. We would have to remove the quote from Dr. Dai Grove-White, because he did not license that quote under the GFDL. The GFDL requires the derivative work to be licensed under the GFDL. Now that this is done (see this edit just made by Jimbo, Wikipedia is in compliance, at least with that part of the GFDL). Anthony DiPierro 03:22, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I should point out for others noticing this debate that this whole issue was triggered by public pronouncements of our benevolent dictator Jimbo Wales on the mailing lists against images licensed specifically to Wikipedia. He has also said that we should be careful about fair use, stopping short of recommending a complete end of the practice. I agree with Jimbo's concerns regarding specifically licensed images, that's why I have changed the copyright notice of the Dolly image accordingly. In any case, it is clear that the present image is in compliance with our policy, and those who do not like that should work for that policy to be changed (or acknowledge that this may be the most practical compromise to keep the peace).—Eloquence

I don't like images which are not licensed under GFDL. I would support a policy change to get rid of "fair use" material. Optim 03:42, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If they have given us permission to use it then we are clearly not breaking their copyright by using it. The article benefits from the use of images. I have got permission for a lot of images on UK politicians that we otherwise wouldn't have access to. I see no problem with them as long as they are tagged for easy removal. Secretlondon 09:18, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

No one is claiming we are breaking their copyright. We're talking about concern over the GFDL, as well as concerns of the fact that we're supposed to be a free encyclopedia. By permission images are totally unacceptable in a free encyclopedia. Anthony DiPierro 14:07, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The images add to the content, and there is no legal reason not to use them. They are acceptable on the online version of the encyclopedia, and until their content can be replaced by "more free" content (which it appears that at this point it cannot) I see no reason it should be removed. Obviously it must be removed for derivative works though — perhaps an incentive to replace non-GFDL images is in order? Giving "non-free" images some sort of "replace me please" tag. Since Wikipedia is supposed to be both free and an encyclopia, though, I find "fair use" and "permission given" content where no equivalent free content exists a fair compromise.

This is probably a bit late to mention this though —Zootm 13:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Errors ID'd by Nature, to correct

The results of what exactly Nature suggested should be corrected is out... italicize each bullet point once you make the correction. -- user:zanimum

• Somatic cell nuclear transfer involves transfer of an intact cell into an enucleated egg and subsequent fusion of the cell within a cell rather than transfer of the nucleus per se.
• Cloning ‘will not bring back to life replicas of pets’.
• Work is not progressing on cloning the mammoth or other prehistoric animals and will not be possible –shades of Jurassic Park here.
• Similarly portraying the prospects for making the ‘controversial practice of genetic engineeering of children more acceptable’ perpetuates several media myths.

SPA is now called OPA

Sheep Pulmonary Adenomatosis is now called Ovine Pulmonary Adenocarcinoma. Both diseases are known as Jaagsiekte. Please refer to this reference: http://www.mri.sari.ac.uk/Virology-reports11.asp Doctor Dendrite 23:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Telomerase

The article says that serial clones have longer telomeres "because the enzyme telomerase is active in those clones, which keeps the telomeres from shortening. However, telomerase, which is present in many bacteria, can be responsible for causing mutation through its enzymatic activity, which leads to cancer." It seems to me that this implies that the enzyme creates mutations, but the way I understand it, telomerase's role in cancerous cells is to confer the ability to divide endlessly. Thus, cells with mutations that result in uncontrolled division do not die as their telomeres unravel, but become immortal. 68.206.101.245 13:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Is there a reference to the idea that teleomerase causes mutation, rather than simply conferring immortality to cell lines, that can under some circumstances, halt the apoptosis and deletion of pre-cancerous cells, for cell lines that are not already immortal (like skin cells)? If so, I would second the idea that the article should be modified. Also, have the subsequent clones that have had teleomere lengthening lived longer than regular sheep? If so this would seem to be a severe advocation in favor of cloning as a possible method of at least some theoretical form of life extension.

Hey everybody. The quote by Sean Lamb was either copied to, or from, someone's personal website. In fact, many sites have the exact phrasing about Dr. Lamb, telomerase, etcetera. This desperately needs citation, since it is contrary to logic: telomeres degrade as cells divide, yet each succesive clone of a clone has a longer telomere strand than the last. There is a missing piece of information. If citation can be provided, the following passage can be put back

"However, Dr. Sean Lamb indicated that most cloned animals actually have telomeres of normal length and in serial clones the telomeres are actually getting longer in each successive generation. This is because the enzyme telomerase is active in those clones, which keeps the telomeres from shortening."

I have taken it out. Furthermore, the passage talks about "most cloned animals." This would have to have been a fairly recent finding, probably related to cattle. The process which makes these clones somehow better at activating their telomerase, usually only achievable by meiosis, which is the thing clones skip out on. Please do not put this back in without a cite from a reputable organization, and certainly not from a website that likely got the quote from here. 66.41.66.213 04:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Age expectancy for domestic sheep

Dolly died at the age of 5 years, which is considered young for domestic sheep. What we need is information about the average age expectancy for sheep, or at least what 5 in sheep years compare to in human years. --84.188.157.189 15:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I thought it could be useful but on the other hand saying Dolly died younger than the average sheep wouldn't mean anything.

I agree - Dolly is only one instance, so her early demise means nothing statistically. If you want to make the conclusion that clones have shortened lifespans, then you need to make a statistically significant number of cloned animals and you must look at their lifespans. Then you can compare those lifespans to those of naturally conceived sheep. 70.104.126.213 21:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I, too, want more detail on this. Do farm sheep live 5-10 years? 10-20 years? Also, do her offspring have any genetic abnormalities? If they are normal, even if Dolly "wasn't", this might be a significant boost for the procedure.

Why not just take an image of any old sheep and stick it on there as "Dolly"? It's not like the average person browsing the article will be able to say, "OMGZZZ THATS NOT DOLLY KILL KILL KILL!!!" Smith Jones

What breed?

What breed is she?? thanks, --Mitternacht90 01:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Err...

A lot, and I mean a LOT, of people think Dolly was a hoax. Shouldn't this be at least mentioned, along with evidence for or against it?

I've never even heard of this. I can't even find anything on Google on it. ??? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 02:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

BIG mistake in first line

The birth-date given (22/02/97) is almost certainly wrong. This is listed a few lines down as the date that Dolly was revealed to the public. Also it would make her 5 years old at death, not 6.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/22/newsid_4245000/4245877.stm

This article explains that her birthdate was 05/07/96. I wish I could make the change, but I'm not sure how (referencing etc) and think that with such an obvious mistake the whole article needs to be checked through! MickO'Bants 22:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)peeeeeee