4 ms·

> I guess to be rewarded in science you have to be a master in your field and intensely concerned with IP deadlines. Dr. Zhang and MIT proved that the Crispr t

> I guess to be rewarded in science you have to be a master in your field and intensely concerned with IP deadlines. Dr. Zhang and MIT proved that the Crispr technique would work in plant, animal and human cells. The value of the patents is in that research, not Doudna's in vitro proof.

kneel 10y ago
Doudna took Cripsr from an odd genomic pattern to proof of Cripr/Cas9 being a bacterial immunity complex complete with proof of mechanism. Transferring that body of work over to in-vivo is trivial in comparison to what she did. Transferring genes from one organism to another is run of the mill molecular biology.
- onewaystreet 10y ago
  > Transferring that body of work over to in-vivo is trivial in comparison to what she did. If this was the case then she would have won the patent fight. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board thought otherwise. Did you read their 51-page decision?
  - johncolanduoni 10y ago
    Just world fallacy much? Did you read the decision?
- libeclipse 10y ago
  What are your credentials?
  - kneel 10y ago
    I work in the field. Very familiar with Crispr/Cas9
- Q6T46nT668w6i3m 10y ago
  Transferring that body of work over to in-vivo is trivial in comparison to what she did. Transferring genes from one organism to another is run of the mill molecular biology. Nobody, including Doudna, would agree with this.
  - kneel 10y ago
    Absolutely false. This tech has been around for years. Monsanto wouldn't exist without molecular biology. We'd still be extracting insulin out of farm animals if molecular biology hadn't allowed scientists to grow it in yeast.
    - estsauver 10y ago
      You're mistaking traditional cell bio libraries with CRISPR, crispr takes a two year process and makes it two weeks. It's really quite a significant change. The tech is really not the same, it's the difference between hand braided core-ram and re programmable memory. It's a huge difference.
      - shirakawasuna 10y ago
        The process of putting the CRISPR genes in a cell and making them target a given gene is trivially simple and undergraduates around the world are doing it every hour (if not more). The Broad group did a little more than that, but it's nothing compared to UC's group's pioneering effort, and amounts mostly to breaking a certain part of the functionality and doing some very standard tests. The tool is extremely effective, as you say, and was primarily "designed" via natural selection. The researchers (1) discovered it, teased out its mechanism of action, and its programmability, and (2) did standard molecular bio techniques to show that it works across several oragnisms. This ruling is based on the fact that the original inventors didn't throw the genes into cells, publish, and (most importantly) apply for patents before the Broad group did. Whether it would work in those other cells was a crapshoot and doesn't represent any significant creative work, and a minor work of science. The importance is the result - we know it works in those cells. Source: I also work in this field. This ruling is absurd.

kneel 10y ago

Doudna took Cripsr from an odd genomic pattern to proof of Cripr/Cas9 being a bacterial immunity complex complete with proof of mechanism. Transferring that body of work over to in-vivo is trivial in comparison to what she did. Transferring genes from one organism to another is run of the mill molecular biology.

onewaystreet 10y ago
> Transferring that body of work over to in-vivo is trivial in comparison to what she did. If this was the case then she would have won the patent fight. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board thought otherwise. Did you read their 51-page decision?
- johncolanduoni 10y ago
  Just world fallacy much? Did you read the decision?
libeclipse 10y ago
What are your credentials?
- kneel 10y ago
  I work in the field. Very familiar with Crispr/Cas9
Q6T46nT668w6i3m 10y ago
Transferring that body of work over to in-vivo is trivial in comparison to what she did. Transferring genes from one organism to another is run of the mill molecular biology. Nobody, including Doudna, would agree with this.
- kneel 10y ago
  Absolutely false. This tech has been around for years. Monsanto wouldn't exist without molecular biology. We'd still be extracting insulin out of farm animals if molecular biology hadn't allowed scientists to grow it in yeast.
  - estsauver 10y ago
    You're mistaking traditional cell bio libraries with CRISPR, crispr takes a two year process and makes it two weeks. It's really quite a significant change. The tech is really not the same, it's the difference between hand braided core-ram and re programmable memory. It's a huge difference.
    - shirakawasuna 10y ago
      The process of putting the CRISPR genes in a cell and making them target a given gene is trivially simple and undergraduates around the world are doing it every hour (if not more). The Broad group did a little more than that, but it's nothing compared to UC's group's pioneering effort, and amounts mostly to breaking a certain part of the functionality and doing some very standard tests. The tool is extremely effective, as you say, and was primarily "designed" via natural selection. The researchers (1) discovered it, teased out its mechanism of action, and its programmability, and (2) did standard molecular bio techniques to show that it works across several oragnisms. This ruling is based on the fact that the original inventors didn't throw the genes into cells, publish, and (most importantly) apply for patents before the Broad group did. Whether it would work in those other cells was a crapshoot and doesn't represent any significant creative work, and a minor work of science. The importance is the result - we know it works in those cells. Source: I also work in this field. This ruling is absurd.