Why is Brian Hanley (microbiologist) flagged with (microbiologist)? He has 5 papers in monetary economics, 4 papers in diagnostics, wrote a book on radiation effects and how to treat them, and has a chapter on terrorism in a West Point sponsored book among other things[1]. He had a 20 year career in software and industrial automation with AI as well and lists 9 patents (or applications)[2]. Most biographies don't have a categorization like this, and it seems inappropriate. We could equally say, (computer scientist) or (radiation expert) or (terrorism analyst) or (monetary economist). There are also serious issues with the MIT Technology review article which is most frequently cited. Off the top, it is obvious to anyone knowledgeable that he could not have been intending to edit his DNA because he didn't use CRISPR or TALENS or zinc fingers, and yet that is the title of this article. He has never made a claim of longer life, and specifically disclaimed it. Etcetera. The MIT Tech Review article reads like tabloid journalism. Ymandelbrot (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Brian, sorry if my change in title isn't to your liking. The reason you get to be "Brian Hanley (microbiologist)" and not just "Brian Hanley" is because Brian Hanley is already taken. Since the article starts off "Brian Hanley is an American microbiologist" and you have a PhD in microbiology it seemed like the obvious qualifier. You can start a discussion on Talk:Brian Hanley (microbiologist) if you want to make a case for changing the title again. That's probably also the best place to raise any other concerns that you have. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
