3 ms·

Related: 'Unexpected mutations after CRISPR–Cas9 editing in vivo' http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v14/n6/full/nmeth.4293.html http://www.nature.com/nmeth/jo

Related: 'Unexpected mutations after CRISPR–Cas9 editing in vivo' http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v14/n6/full/nmeth.4293.html http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v14/n6/full/nmeth.4293.h...

corndoge 9y ago
Addressed by the article
- mbreese 9y ago
  Kind of addressed in the article. I'd still like to see more data before calling the issue "addressed". (Then again, this is a lay-press article, so I don't entirely expect a lot of detail)
  - corndoge 9y ago
    Not sure I would call MIT technology review lay press
    - mbreese 9y ago
      Good point... but how would you describe it? It's not exactly lay-press, but it's still a secondary source. It's written for an educated audience, but not necessarily in this field. What would you call them in this case? Science press? Still - not enough room in an article like this for too many details.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      It is, at least in the sense that it is written by journalists writing for a general audience. I subscribed for a while, I stopped after the number of eye rolls had gotten too high.
88e282102ae2e5b 9y ago
This paper was incredibly sloppy and has been widely dismissed by scientists in the field.
- Cozumel 9y ago
  Eh, not at all.
- djsumdog 9y ago
  Well it was refuted by people in biotech, who have a considerable stake in that field. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608073/gene-editing-companies-hit-back-at-paper-that-criticized-crispr/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608073/gene-editing-compa... I thought the original authors had a rebuttal, but I can't seem to find it.
  - 88e282102ae2e5b 9y ago
    I don't think there's any need for a cui bono line of thinking. There are biologists who have nothing to gain who thought this paper was lousy. For example, every single biologist in my department that I spoke to, and every biologist I've found online who had something to say on the matter. Perhaps that's too much of a selection bias for you, so I'll offer this critique: if you wanted to measure the off target effects of Cas9 in an organism, you would probably sequence the organism before you edited it, and then sequence it again after you edited it. But that's not what they did.
  - tstactplsignore 9y ago
    Also refuted by a team from Harvard medical school: http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/07/05/159707 http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/07/05/159707

Related: 'Unexpected mutations after CRISPR–Cas9 editing in vivo' http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v14/n6/full/nmeth.4293.html http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v14/n6/full/nmeth.4293.h...

corndoge 9y ago

Addressed by the article

mbreese 9y ago
Kind of addressed in the article. I'd still like to see more data before calling the issue "addressed". (Then again, this is a lay-press article, so I don't entirely expect a lot of detail)
- corndoge 9y ago
  Not sure I would call MIT technology review lay press
  - mbreese 9y ago
    Good point... but how would you describe it? It's not exactly lay-press, but it's still a secondary source. It's written for an educated audience, but not necessarily in this field. What would you call them in this case? Science press? Still - not enough room in an article like this for too many details.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    It is, at least in the sense that it is written by journalists writing for a general audience. I subscribed for a while, I stopped after the number of eye rolls had gotten too high.

88e282102ae2e5b 9y ago

This paper was incredibly sloppy and has been widely dismissed by scientists in the field.

Cozumel 9y ago
Eh, not at all.
djsumdog 9y ago
Well it was refuted by people in biotech, who have a considerable stake in that field. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608073/gene-editing-companies-hit-back-at-paper-that-criticized-crispr/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608073/gene-editing-compa... I thought the original authors had a rebuttal, but I can't seem to find it.
- 88e282102ae2e5b 9y ago
  I don't think there's any need for a cui bono line of thinking. There are biologists who have nothing to gain who thought this paper was lousy. For example, every single biologist in my department that I spoke to, and every biologist I've found online who had something to say on the matter. Perhaps that's too much of a selection bias for you, so I'll offer this critique: if you wanted to measure the off target effects of Cas9 in an organism, you would probably sequence the organism before you edited it, and then sequence it again after you edited it. But that's not what they did.
- tstactplsignore 9y ago
  Also refuted by a team from Harvard medical school: http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/07/05/159707 http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/07/05/159707