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)
**Yes: we should try a reduced threshold of 3 votes**

In the last moderator election, one of the questions was about moderator use of the unilateral close vote. I think the general consensus has been that it's best to let the community handle whatever is possible for the community to handle, and yet sometimes the moderators have to step in to prevent an accumulation of questions that linger in the queue without a full 5 votes and either time out or attract poor answers.

It seems to me like changing the threshold would help a lot here - I would certainly drastically reduce my own use of the close-vote if the threshold were changed.

(see also [New moderators, please be more reserved with your close hammer](https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3930/new-moderators-please-be-more-reserved-with-your-close-hammer) and especially AliceD's speculation about discouragement among voters in the community)