>Academic scientists were less dismissive of the new study, in Nature Biotechnology. One leading CRISPR developer called it “well-done and credible,” “a caution

>Academic scientists were less dismissive of the new study, in Nature Biotechnology. One leading CRISPR developer called it “well-done and credible,” “a cautionary note to the [genome-editing] community,” and consistent with other research showing that the DNA cuts that CRISPR makes, called double-stranded breaks, “can induce the types of genomic DNA rearrangements and deletions they report.” He asked not to be identified so as not to jeopardize business relationships with genome-editing companies. no. no. no. no. that is not good for scientific integrity