user52598: As I've been thinking about the challenge of interdisciplinary research on this site and beginning to review the closure queue, I've noticed two key areas of problematic definition, both of which are linked to the notion of "homework questions":

"You have made the effort to research the topic": This criteria focuses judgement on the relative effort expended by the question asker rather than the quality of the question.
"Addresses a basic biology concept that may seem trivial to biology professionals": Biology is an extremely broad and heterogeneous topic, and what seems trivial to a field ecologist, a computational modeler, a bench immunologist, and a biosynthesis scale-up researcher may be wildly different. Again, the focus is on a subjective opinion about the people involved, rather than the quality of the question.

Reading through some of the extensive history of discussion of "homework questions", I believe that I have come to some appreciation of how these criteria came to be. The key issue seems to be having a good way to rule several problematic classes of question out of scope, so that effort is not wasted blindly solving people's problem sets, arguing fruitlessly with creationists, collecting pointless trivia, etc.
With criteria scoped for subjective judgement of the questioner, however, it seems to me that these criteria can be applied in a highly inconsistent manner, including against well-formulated questions that have good and useful answers.  Two recent examples:

Forward or Reverse Strand: Is there a difference when encoding constructs? This question is based on a common confusion rooted in the frequent conflation of relative orientation and historical accidents in plasmid architecture by practicing biological researchers. In short: it's not ignorance at work here, but a genuine and reasonable confusion, carefully explained and well-illustrated in the question and addressed with a well-targeted answer that solved the OPs question. This question currently has two votes for closure as a homework question.
Why does UV radiation from the Sun cause skin cancer? This question begins with the common knowledge that ionizing radiation causes DNA damage, notices that UVA and UVB are not ionizing and yet cause DNA damage, then asks about the mechanism. I find the question well-reasoned and well presented, and it has drawn two well-received answers. This question currently has two votes for closure as a homework question.

Given all of this, I would like to propose that the criteria be reformulated around more objectively assessable criteria about the question, rather than subjective assessment of the questioner.

user22057: I agree that the current situation with the Homework category for closure is unsatisfactory, but there are certain things that need to be considered before making any changes.
1. Is it possible to make changes?
The impression I got last time I was involved with this discussion was that there were only a limited number of closure reasons we could choose, and it was important to retain Homework because of the large number of “help me cheat” questions. I personally would like to see options for bumping questions to SE Medical Science or Bioinformatics.
2. Does it matter that much?
In general the novice poster is not aware of the reason for close votes, and only occasionally does someone complain after closure, when it is explained that the heading is used to include lack of research before posting.
3. Is it possible to find a good portmanteau category?
Off the top of my head the sort of questions that I tend to vote to close are:

Elementary questions, answers to which can be found by reading introductory text books, Wikipedia etc.
Stupid or Guinness Book of Records type questions that have no scientific interest — ”which animal has the longest penis“ etc. (I sometimes give “stupid and boring” as custom reasons in response to this sort of question, although it tends not to endear me to people.)
Questions from non-biologists of the type “can we program the brain?”.

It seems to me that there is a feeling among members of other SE groups — especially those in the computing, mathematical or physical sciences — that biology is not a specialist discipline and anyone can come along and ask anything. I would like to see a hard line taken on

site for biology researchers, academics, and students

In particular, students should be taken to mean those studying biology formally in college (and perhaps school).
To deal with this I would go the totalitarian route of closing questions that…
“…are not at a level appropriate to this site, as explained in the Tour”
That would be wildly popular, I am sure, but it would allow those of us who sustain this site to do what is necessary to save it from the Philistines.

user27148: I created a chat room here:
https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/123054/biology-close-reasons-discussion
for further discussion on this, since it seems like some back-and-forth iteration may be necessary to come to a proposal that most people in the community can support. Anyone is welcome to participate but I ask anyone who does to keep an open mind and be respectful of all suggestions.

user52598: Note: adjusted from replacement to narrowing scope of "homework" per discussion in the comments
I having now spent some time swimming in the sea of poorly received questions on this site, and would like to propose to return the "homework" criteria to a narrow scope while adding a new close reason that better targets "lazy questions".
New close reason for "lazy questions"
I propose to add a close reason that targets how clearly the questioner is able to explain their problem, rather than how hard the questioner has worked or the "level" of the concept involved:

Needs relation to biological principles/mechanisms: The question should be updated to explain why established biological principles or mechanisms do not already provide a satisfactory solution for the questioner.

Notice that this close reason requires no judgement of the relative effort by the asker, nor the relative complexity of the principles or mechanisms involved, nor whether or not it is homework. All that it requires is that the asker be able to understand the biology well enough to explain why understanding the biology hasn't already solved the problem for them.
I believe that this close reason will help sort out good questions about basic mechanisms from questions that are lazy or unsalvageably bizarre.  Some examples of questions that can be readily closed through its application:

Can hand sanitizer kill a fertilized human egg cell? Why do you think it wouldn't?
What separates humans from other animals? Why aren't the obvious differences a sufficient answer?
How could prehistoric humans survive without trimming their hair? What leads you to believe that stone tools weren't sufficient to cut hair?
Share immunity by kissing? Why do you think sufficient antibodies should be able to be transferred this way?

At the same time, its logical converse will support the asking of questions like the forward/reverse strand and UV radiation ones I used as examples in the question. Although in both cases these questions have an answer that is "simple", they explain clearly why the OP is confused despite (or even because) of the biological information that they do have.
Homework means "coursework" not "go do more homework"
To clearly also serve the goal of not doing people's homework for them, I propose to narrow the scope of the current "homework" reason back to focusing specifically on homework. The current close reason prose is fine, if it is used for "we won't do your homework" rather than "we want you to do more homework". The help page, however, would need to be adjusted to remove the bullet saying "A question that addresses a basic biology concept that may seem trivial to biology professionals"
This new pairing would still close questions like this punnet square question since the OP is just asking somebody else to solve the problem too, while this linked genes question would remain open since the OP has shown how they applied biological principles to get an answer that differs from the correct answer, and are asking help to understand why.

52598: <p>As I've been thinking about <a href="https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4186/52598">the challenge of interdisciplinary research on this site</a> and beginning to review the closure queue, I've noticed two key areas of problematic definition, both of which are linked to the notion of <a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/help/homework">&quot;homework questions&quot;</a>:</p>
<ol>
<li><strong>&quot;You have made the effort to research the topic&quot;:</strong> This criteria focuses judgement on the relative effort expended by the question asker rather than the quality of the question.</li>
<li><strong>&quot;Addresses a basic biology concept that may seem trivial to biology professionals&quot;:</strong> Biology is an extremely broad and heterogeneous topic, and what seems trivial to a field ecologist, a computational modeler, a bench immunologist, and a biosynthesis scale-up researcher may be wildly different. Again, the focus is on a subjective opinion about the people involved, rather than the quality of the question.</li>
</ol>
<p>Reading through <a href="https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1847/52598">some of</a> <a href="https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4010/52598">the extensive history</a> <a href="https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3493/52598">of discussion</a> <a href="https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3386/52598">of &quot;homework questions&quot;</a>, I believe that I have come to some appreciation of how these criteria came to be. The key issue seems to be having a good way to rule several problematic classes of question out of scope, so that effort is not wasted blindly solving people's problem sets, arguing fruitlessly with creationists, collecting pointless trivia, etc.</p>
<p>With criteria scoped for subjective judgement of the questioner, however, it seems to me that these criteria can be applied in a highly inconsistent manner, including against well-formulated questions that have good and useful answers.  Two recent examples:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/q/100091/52598">Forward or Reverse Strand: Is there a difference when encoding constructs?</a> This question is based on a common confusion rooted in the frequent conflation of relative orientation and historical accidents in plasmid architecture <em>by practicing biological researchers</em>. In short: it's not ignorance at work here, but a genuine and reasonable confusion, carefully explained and well-illustrated in the question and addressed with a well-targeted answer that solved the OPs question. <em>This question currently has two votes for closure as a homework question</em>.</li>
<li><a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/q/100084/52598">Why does UV radiation from the Sun cause skin cancer?</a> This question begins with the common knowledge that ionizing radiation causes DNA damage, notices that UVA and UVB are not ionizing and yet cause DNA damage, then asks about the mechanism. I find the question well-reasoned and well presented, and it has drawn two well-received answers. <em>This question currently has two votes for closure as a homework question</em>.</li>
</ul>
<p>Given all of this, I would like to propose that the criteria be reformulated around more objectively assessable criteria about the question, rather than subjective assessment of the questioner.</p>
 22057: <p>I agree that the current situation with the <strong>Homework</strong> category for closure is unsatisfactory, but there are certain things that need to be considered before making any changes.</p>
<p><strong>1. Is it possible to make changes?</strong></p>
<p>The impression I got last time I was involved with this discussion was that there were only a limited number of closure reasons we could choose, and it was important to retain <em>Homework</em> because of the large number of “help me cheat” questions. I personally would like to see options for bumping questions to SE Medical Science or Bioinformatics.</p>
<p><strong>2. Does it matter that much?</strong></p>
<p>In general the novice poster is not aware of the reason for close votes, and only occasionally does someone complain after closure, when it is explained that the heading is used to include lack of research before posting.</p>
<p><strong>3. Is it possible to find a good portmanteau category?</strong></p>
<p>Off the top of my head the sort of questions that I tend to vote to close are:</p>
<ul>
<li>Elementary questions, answers to which can be found by reading introductory text books, Wikipedia etc.</li>
<li>Stupid or Guinness Book of Records type questions that have no scientific interest — ”which animal has the longest penis“ etc. (I sometimes give “stupid and boring” as custom reasons in response to this sort of question, although it tends not to endear me to people.)</li>
<li>Questions from non-biologists of the type “can we program the brain?”.</li>
</ul>
<p>It seems to me that there is a feeling among members of other SE groups — especially those in the computing, mathematical or physical sciences — that biology is not a specialist discipline and anyone can come along and ask anything. I would like to see a hard line taken on</p>
<blockquote>
<p>site for biology researchers, academics, and students</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In particular, <em>students</em> should be taken to mean those studying biology formally in college (and perhaps school).</p>
<p>To deal with this I would go the totalitarian route of closing questions that…</p>
<p><strong>“…are not at a level appropriate to this site, as explained in the Tour”</strong></p>
<p>That would be wildly popular, I am sure, but it would allow those of us who sustain this site to do what is necessary to save it from the Philistines.</p>
 27148: <p>I created a chat room here:</p>
<p><a href="https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/123054/biology-close-reasons-discussion">https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/123054/biology-close-reasons-discussion</a></p>
<p>for further discussion on this, since it seems like some back-and-forth iteration may be necessary to come to a proposal that most people in the community can support. Anyone is welcome to participate but I ask anyone who does to keep an open mind and be respectful of all suggestions.</p>
 52598: <p><em>Note: adjusted from replacement to narrowing scope of &quot;homework&quot; per discussion in the comments</em></p>
<p>I having now spent some time swimming in the sea of poorly received questions on this site, and would like to propose to return the &quot;homework&quot; criteria to a narrow scope while adding a new close reason that better targets &quot;lazy questions&quot;.</p>
<h2>New close reason for &quot;lazy questions&quot;</h2>
<p>I propose to add a close reason that targets how clearly the questioner is able to explain their problem, rather than how hard the questioner has worked or the &quot;level&quot; of the concept involved:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Needs relation to biological principles/mechanisms:</strong> The question should be updated to explain why established biological principles or mechanisms do not already provide a satisfactory solution for the questioner.</li>
</ul>
<p>Notice that this close reason requires no judgement of the relative effort by the asker, nor the relative complexity of the principles or mechanisms involved, nor whether or not it is homework. All that it requires is that the asker be able to understand the biology well enough to explain why understanding the biology hasn't already solved the problem for them.</p>
<p>I believe that this close reason will help sort out good questions about basic mechanisms from questions that are lazy or unsalvageably bizarre.  Some examples of questions that can be readily closed through its application:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/q/94075/52598">Can hand sanitizer kill a fertilized human egg cell?</a> <em>Why do you think it wouldn't?</em></li>
<li><a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/q/85903/52598">What separates humans from other animals?</a> <em>Why aren't the obvious differences a sufficient answer?</em></li>
<li><a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/q/98918/52598">How could prehistoric humans survive without trimming their hair?</a> <em>What leads you to believe that stone tools weren't sufficient to cut hair?</em></li>
<li><a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/q/89216/52598">Share immunity by kissing?</a> <em>Why do you think sufficient antibodies should be able to be transferred this way?</em></li>
</ul>
<p>At the same time, its logical converse will support the asking of questions like the <a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/q/100091/52598">forward/reverse strand</a> and <a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/q/100084/52598">UV radiation</a> ones I used as examples in the question. Although in both cases these questions have an answer that is &quot;simple&quot;, they explain clearly why the OP is confused despite (or even because) of the biological information that they do have.</p>
<h2>Homework means &quot;coursework&quot; not &quot;go do more homework&quot;</h2>
<p>To clearly also serve the goal of not doing people's homework for them, I propose to narrow the scope of the current &quot;homework&quot; reason back to focusing specifically on homework. The current close reason prose is fine, if it is used for &quot;we won't do your homework&quot; rather than &quot;we want you to do more homework&quot;. The help page, however, would need to be adjusted to remove the bullet saying &quot;A question that addresses a basic biology concept that may seem trivial to biology professionals&quot;</p>
<p>This new pairing would still close questions like <a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/30670/blood-type-punnett-square">this punnet square question</a> since the OP is just asking somebody else to solve the problem too, while <a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/q/98490/52598">this linked genes question</a> would remain open since the OP has shown how they applied biological principles to get an answer that differs from the correct answer, and are asking help to understand why.</p>
