4 ms·

Comments on PubPeer are very negative about the undisclosed conflict of interest of OP's author: https://pubpeer.com/publications/D400145518C0A557E9A79F7BB2029

Comments on PubPeer are very negative about the undisclosed conflict of interest of OP's author: https://pubpeer.com/publications/D400145518C0A557E9A79F7BB20294#fb44022 https://pubpeer.com/publications/D400145518C0A557E9A79F7BB20...

geyang 11y ago
Thanks for this reference!
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
skosuri 11y ago
According to cell, he did disclose it and they chose not to use it because he didn't have a personal financial stake [1]. As a note, Doudna's review also had no conflict of interest despite her personal stake. 1. https://twitter.com/stephenfloor/status/688466159021064192 https://twitter.com/stephenfloor/status/688466159021064192
- Gatsky 11y ago
  Doudna's article is a typical scientific review written by someone intimately involved in the research. She doesn't try to teach 'important lessons', or outline the history of CRISPR, nor does she draw on unquoted 'personal interviews and other materials'. Everything is referenced, you can go and read each paper she cites. You can also compare her review to countless others written by her colleagues and patent opponents. Scientific reviews are invariably invited by the journal, with authors chosen based on their research interests and scientific output. Lander's article is a completely different beast. I highly doubt Cell cold called Eric Lander and asked him to write a campfire history of CRISPR. It is clear the Cell has a liberal COI policy in any case. I can't find COI mentioned anywhere, even to say that there aren't any.
  - skosuri 11y ago
    But reviews at Cell are academic papers; they are peer reviewed. Doudna has direct financial conflicts, it should have been disclosed. The viewpoints are usually solicited and not peer reviewed (at least ones I've been involved with), and are often meant to have an individual's biased and perhaps provocative viewpoint. Regardless, I think most of the COI argument is a little silly. None of these folks are particularly motivated by the money.
nsns 11y ago
Actually, for a layman, it's really nice to see a survey of the field accompanied, as it is here, by its underlying real-life politics, economics and other human factors; not something easily accessible normally.

geyang 11y ago

Thanks for this reference!

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

skosuri 11y ago

According to cell, he did disclose it and they chose not to use it because he didn't have a personal financial stake [1]. As a note, Doudna's review also had no conflict of interest despite her personal stake. 1. https://twitter.com/stephenfloor/status/688466159021064192 https://twitter.com/stephenfloor/status/688466159021064192

Gatsky 11y ago
Doudna's article is a typical scientific review written by someone intimately involved in the research. She doesn't try to teach 'important lessons', or outline the history of CRISPR, nor does she draw on unquoted 'personal interviews and other materials'. Everything is referenced, you can go and read each paper she cites. You can also compare her review to countless others written by her colleagues and patent opponents. Scientific reviews are invariably invited by the journal, with authors chosen based on their research interests and scientific output. Lander's article is a completely different beast. I highly doubt Cell cold called Eric Lander and asked him to write a campfire history of CRISPR. It is clear the Cell has a liberal COI policy in any case. I can't find COI mentioned anywhere, even to say that there aren't any.
- skosuri 11y ago
  But reviews at Cell are academic papers; they are peer reviewed. Doudna has direct financial conflicts, it should have been disclosed. The viewpoints are usually solicited and not peer reviewed (at least ones I've been involved with), and are often meant to have an individual's biased and perhaps provocative viewpoint. Regardless, I think most of the COI argument is a little silly. None of these folks are particularly motivated by the money.

nsns 11y ago

Actually, for a layman, it's really nice to see a survey of the field accompanied, as it is here, by its underlying real-life politics, economics and other human factors; not something easily accessible normally.