So much salt over the CRISPR decision.
See Scientific American links below.
If UC wanted the good stuff they should have disclosed sufficiently and backed it up with data, but they didn't. If they did, maybe their shit would have been granted by now. Worse, they told a reporter that they were uncertain if it would even work in eukarya. No shit they lost. It's a terribly HONEST message to scientists, but not a terrible message: protect your intellectual property. They let their Nobel jimmies get rustled and blabbed to the press.
It's been 350 years yet people are still surprised that they need to patent their work.
Noone in human healthcare is going to have to license a prokaryotic platform that doesn't even cover yeast, nevermind any other mammal or HeLa cells. That prokaryotic platform isn't even a patent yet lol (article 1).
Fact: EDIT actually has a granted CRISPR/cas9 patent directed toward eukarya. Engineering yeast, germ line fixes, alteration and reimplantation of stem cells ... use your imagination.
And FFS, Scientific American should fire any scientific journalist that cites a Jezebel article in support of their feelings (article 2).
Posted Feb 16, 2017, 10:53 PM UTC · edited