"Magic gene" term.

How much are we bound by the term "Magic gene"? Judging by the notices at the top of the page, not that much - I should be able to rewrite the page around a better term, and move it to a new name. But, since I don't really know how much freedom I have, I'd imagine I'd better ask first. MinorStoop 18:45, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

This is everything (so far) that makes specific mention of genes:
  1. "magic is a dominant and resilient gene"
  2. "The gene re-surfaces in some unexpected places."
  3. "any latent wizarding genes would never survive contact with Uncle Vernon’s DNA"
The article title was based off the first reference, but "Wizarding gene" may be a viable alternative. - Nick O'Demus 19:05, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
Nick, I think you've solved the problem for me. MinorStoop 19:19, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
The real problem is the diction "Magic gene" in the singular - an ability as complex as controlling magic simply cannot be under the control of only one gene. Many of them must be expressed both contemporarily and in succession to let a wizard to be able to perform a spell. The only detail known is that there is one, perhaps two, main switches that activate the ability in wizards. MinorStoop 19:31, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

Genetic Engineering by Muggles?

(Sort of a joke) Has J.K. Rowling (or anyone else via fan-fiction) said anything about the possiblity of enterprising-Muggle-billionaires who had somehow witnessed magic trying to capture someone and start doing experiments?  (Perhaps "Volde-muggle" :) ) Jswitte (talk) 18:16, July 1, 2015 (UTC)