Question: 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.

Answer: 
UPDATED ANSWER -- 2 years later (May 2021):

Dropping vote-to-close thresholds has been a topic discussed across many SE sites for years. As of May 2021, there's now a formal effort to test minimizing the threshold to 3 votes across the SE network. The 45-day 3-vote test will occur on 13 sites (Not Biology) throughout May and June 2021. We'll await the results and future updates...

Here is the META post about this test:
[Testing three-vote close and reopen on 13 network sites](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/364007/309922)
This answer is in the nature of a reflection, with a suggestion that we try to accumulate more information on which to make a decision. To provide a one-liner:

**We should determine how difficult it is to find 5 votes to close an off-topic question on SE Biology, and drop the requirement to 3 votes if the barrier is too high.**

We are scientists. We are used to taking decisions based on evidence, but at the moment I think there is insufficient to do so. I wonder whether there may be, on average, too few people who have enough privilege to vote to close that actually view most questions. But I don’t know. So,

* What proportion of questions are viewed by fewer than 100 people?
* How many of the viewers of such questions have the 3000 reputation needed to vote to close?
* Of the questions that are closed, how many are done without a moderator short-circuiting the closure procedure?
* What are the numbers like if you take out the obvious personal medical and spam questions?

It strikes me the only people likely to have any of this info are the mods. Looking at the users who have increased their reputation this year (as a surrogate for activity) I would estimate that not more than 20 have enough reputation to vote to close. Given that people have interests in different biological fields — I never look at natural history questions or those on physiology — this seems quite low, and is possibly the reason that, in my opinion, a lot of poor questions do not get winnowed out.