>"current ex vivo therapies are unaffected since we can screen cells after editing." If this is so easy then why is it not standard practice? From the paper:

>"current ex vivo therapies are unaffected since we can screen cells after editing." If this is so easy then why is it not standard practice? From the paper: >"Results reported here also illustrate a need to thoroughly examine the genome when editing is conducted ex vivo. As genetic damage is frequent, extensive and undetectable by the short-range PCR assays that are commonly used, comprehensive genomic analysis is warranted to identify cells with normal genomes before patient administration." https://www.nature.com/articles/Nbt.4192 https://www.nature.com/articles/Nbt.4192 How much more expensive and time consuming will this procedure become if you require "comprehensive genomic analysis"? The merit of crispr/cas9 over other techniques was supposed to be how cheap and quick it was.