Beneath the technical and legal jargon…filed in the battle over CRISPR patents is a simple argument that…comes down to this:
Any idiot could have turned the rudimentary CRISPR genome-editing technology described by scientists at the University of California in 2012 into the powerful technique that has revolutionized biology. No, going from DNA floating around in a test tube, the UC experiment, to precisely editing genes in humans took the kind of skill wielded only by a scientist in the running for a Nobel Prize — say, the Broad Institute’s Feng Zhang.
The gloves are off.
…
In one of the more incendiary claims[,]…UC quotes an email by a former member of Zhang’s lab…[who stated that t]he technique “did not work,”…adding that Lin has lab notebooks and other documentation “of the lab’s failure process.”
…
Related on the SLP
The Broad immediately pushed back on the Lin email…[stating w]hatever claims Lin made,…there is no “evidence to support them.”
…
“[All this] leads me to believe this will be much harder to resolve than I thought,” [intellectual property expert Jacob] Sherkow said.
The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. Read full, original post: Lies, damn lies, and CRISPR: the legal battle escalates
