3 ms·

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

• 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 The viewpoints are usually solicited and not peer reviewed (at least ones I've been involved with), and are often meant to have an individual's biased and perhaps provocative viewpoint.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.