user11654: I plan to ask about how to restore some defunct human genes. The GULO pseudo gene is the first one I am going to ask about. Should the question maybe be split into several question? The intended question is as follows.
A lot of base pairs in the defunct GULO pseudo gene in humans are missing to make a functional enzyme. 
Should we take a whole gene from a close relative like a strepsirrhine, or maybe just fill in what is missing based on what? 
Which cells should be transfected/infected and how? 
Where should the working gene be put in the genome? Should the defunct gene be kept or replaced?
Transcription levels for the GULO pseudo gene are too low to make enough enzymes to increase ascorbate levels above levels achievable by consumption. How can that be increased?
I am not asking if this is beneficial or not nor about regulatory or ethical questions. Such questions are also meaningful but should be discussed in other questions.

user27148: I'm worried that many aspects of your question would reduce to something opinion-based. We don't typically support questions about what should be done.
It might be better to ask related questions about how gene therapies have been designed (ideally choosing a specific one) - that's a non-opinion question that can likely be answered by citing some relevant literature.
For other parts of your question, the specific gene seems to be relevant, but you are still asking about an opinion ("should"). You could, for example, change

Which cells should be transfected/infected and how?

to something related like

Which cells express GULO in the mouse?


user24613: Just adding to Bryan Krause's very true answer...
As it reads now, it really feels like there's not much careful research done.  It kind of feels like it's a conglomeration of questions which just kinda hit you as you looked at the project in broad sweeping strokes.  In other words, it feels like you haven't really started working on the project yet; you're just asking about preliminary broad brush-strokes.
Of course, some of that is due to the fact that this isn't the real question that you're going to ask - I get that.  But really, if you ask the question as is, there's a lot of separate replies that could be "okay" with no particularly "right" or "wrong" answer. Each of the questions you are asking could be divided into a lot of different directions.
Before asking the quesiton, I would personally encourage you to do a bit more preliminary research.  Get a good handle on the big picture.  You may end up answering your own questions.  You may come up with other questions.  Or you may keep coming back to one of your questions.
Whatever the case, you'll be able to formulate a much better researched question, and a question with a particular problem / comprehension issue.  And really, that's the kind of question that we are able to address.  When you ask questions like "Where should the working gene be put in the genome?", we really can't come up with a concrete answer.  What are you trying to achieve?  What are the particular goals of your project?  Etc.
Anyhow, I'm starting to ramble, but seriously, step #1 would be doing the broad brushstrokes yourself: it will help you know what direction you're going, enhance the overall background info in the question, and improve clarity.
And it will also make it much easier for us to answer the question.

11654: <p>I plan to ask about how to restore some defunct human genes. The GULO pseudo gene is the first one I am going to ask about. Should the question maybe be split into several question? The intended question is as follows.</p>

<p>A lot of base pairs in the defunct GULO pseudo gene in humans are missing to make a functional enzyme. </p>

<p>Should we take a whole gene from a close relative like a strepsirrhine, or maybe just fill in what is missing based on what? </p>

<p>Which cells should be transfected/infected and how? </p>

<p>Where should the working gene be put in the genome? Should the defunct gene be kept or replaced?</p>

<p>Transcription levels for the GULO pseudo gene are too low to make enough enzymes to increase ascorbate levels above levels achievable by consumption. How can that be increased?</p>

<p>I am not asking if this is beneficial or not nor about regulatory or ethical questions. Such questions are also meaningful but should be discussed in other questions.</p>
 27148: <p>I'm worried that many aspects of your question would reduce to something opinion-based. We don't typically support questions about what <em>should</em> be done.</p>

<p>It might be better to ask related questions about how gene therapies <em>have</em> been designed (ideally choosing a specific one) - that's a non-opinion question that can likely be answered by citing some relevant literature.</p>

<p>For other parts of your question, the specific gene seems to be relevant, but you are still asking about an opinion ("should"). You could, for example, change</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Which cells should be transfected/infected and how?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>to something related like</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Which cells express GULO in the mouse?</p>
</blockquote>
 24613: <p>Just adding to Bryan Krause's very true answer...</p>

<p>As it reads now, it really feels like there's not much careful research done.  It kind of feels like it's a conglomeration of questions which just kinda hit you as you looked at the project in broad sweeping strokes.  In other words, it feels like you haven't really started working on the project yet; you're just asking about preliminary broad brush-strokes.</p>

<p>Of course, some of that is due to the fact that this isn't the real question that you're going to ask - I get that.  But really, if you ask the question as is, there's a lot of separate replies that could be "okay" with no particularly "right" or "wrong" answer. Each of the questions you are asking could be divided into a lot of different directions.</p>

<p>Before asking the quesiton, I would personally encourage you to do a bit more <em>preliminary research</em>.  Get a good handle on the big picture.  You may end up answering your own questions.  You may come up with other questions.  Or you may keep coming back to one of your questions.</p>

<p>Whatever the case, you'll be able to formulate a much better researched question, and a question with a particular problem / comprehension issue.  And really, that's the kind of question that we are able to address.  When you ask questions like "Where should the working gene be put in the genome?", we really can't come up with a concrete answer.  What are you trying to achieve?  What are the particular goals of your project?  Etc.</p>

<p>Anyhow, I'm starting to ramble, but seriously, step #1 would be doing the broad brushstrokes yourself: it will help you know what direction you're going, enhance the overall background info in the question, and improve clarity.</p>

<p>And it will also make it much easier for us to answer the question.</p>
