The paper doesn't seem to acknowledge existence of TRNG's, let alone compare results to them. Compared to pseudo-random generators, this is an improvement, but

The paper doesn't seem to acknowledge existence of TRNG's, let alone compare results to them. Compared to pseudo-random generators, this is an improvement, but compared to existing hardware random number generator chips -- which are available on the market for tens of cents -- is this cheaper? Higher entropy? Faster? Easier to implement? It's great to do research like this as that is how we get advancements and breakthroughs, but it's another thing to completely ignore an entire sub-field of the area you're researching in order to misrepresent what you're doing as being an amazing breakthrough. All it would have taken is a simple statement like "We acknowledge there are existing non-pseudo-random solutions to this problem that use thermal noise, radioactive decay, etc, but wanted to try a biological process because ____________".