The Villain of CRISPR is the Bayh–Dole Act.
The Villain of CRISPR
81–90 of 106 posts
Re: The Villain of CRISPR
#82I have never seen a paper on CRISPR that can distinguish between selecting pre-existing mutants and actually modifying genes. I have read probably a dozen or so at this point, and it is amazing that they always fail to address this either in citations or actual data. At first I thought it was an honest mistake, but now it would not surprise me if some of the main players know that their experiments with CRISPR have b…
This is a baseless critique. No one has to address alternative hypotheses that don't make any sense. Are you unaware that Sanger Sequencing exists, and the actual lesions can be read? Or that heterologous genes are being introduced with CRISPR methods? Neither of these common results can be explained by the spontaneous insertion of hundreds of nucleotides that happen to precisely match the sequence of the construct b…
Here is another. At first you may think they show successful insertion of GFP, but it turns out no! Instead all that needed to happen was mutation of an early stop codon:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3712628/
That is why I am asking others to provide their own references. The papers I have read do not seem capable of distinguishing between modification vs selection after careful inspection.
Re: The Villain of CRISPR
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
The papers I've looked at sequence and measure the on-target mutation rate, and don't have any steps in them that would select for mutants (because that would ruin the measurement). Where do you propose the selection for mutants would be happening? Unless I'm misunderstanding something about how the experiments are done, your theory would require many groups to be independently committing scientific fraud, which is v…
No fraud is necessary, just sloppy interpretation of data. Staying with Schuman et al (2015) linked in this thread, they start with 2.5 x 10^5 cells and end up with 5 x 10^4 to 2 x 10^5 three to four days later. Why are there fewer cells even without accounting for any division? Because the treatment is toxic. This is reported in many papers. I don't know what the proliferation rate is like for the cells in the condi…
If you're right and CRISPR doesn't actually work, then none of the papers published so far are replicable and you'll be vindicated in mere months. If that doesn't happen, then there's a flaw in the style of reasoning and research that led you to conclude the existing papers were flawed. I recommend jotting down a few notes about how you came to this conclusion, and making a calendar reminder to check how it turned out next year.
Re: The Villain of CRISPR
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
No fraud is necessary, just sloppy interpretation of data. Staying with Schuman et al (2015) linked in this thread, they start with 2.5 x 10^5 cells and end up with 5 x 10^4 to 2 x 10^5 three to four days later. Why are there fewer cells even without accounting for any division? Because the treatment is toxic. This is reported in many papers. I don't know what the proliferation rate is like for the cells in the condi…
If you're right and CRISPR doesn't actually work, then none of the papers published so far are replicable and you'll be vindicated in mere months. If that doesn't happen, then there's a flaw in the style of reasoning and research that led you to conclude the existing papers were flawed. I recommend jotting down a few notes about how you came to this conclusion, and making a calendar reminder to check how it turned ou…
>"If you're right and CRISPR doesn't actually work, then none of the papers published so far are replicable and you'll be vindicated in mere months."
Not at all. I'm not sure you understand what I am saying.
It appears to me the data can be interpreted in multiple ways. Two different "theories" can explain the same results. This is a much more insidious problem than mere non-replication (I haven't seen any direct replications regarding CRISPR either though). People can continue on the wrong path for a long time by interpreting good, reliable data incorrectly.
Re: The Villain of CRISPR
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
IP is just another form of applause, and with it or without it wouldn't matter or change the behavior. People who want the prestige will rise to the occasion and treat the world as a zero sum game.
With "intellectual property" (patents in this case) it is a zero sum game.
They would do it anyway, it just makes it more news worthy given the patents. Although, I'm not sure its zero sum depending on how it shakes out.
Re: The Villain of CRISPR
#86I hate the fact that breakthroughs like this are patentable. People need to follow Alexander Flemings lead: The pharmacist Sir Alexander Fleming is revered not just because of his discovery of penicillin – the antibiotic that has saved millions of lives – but also due to his efforts to ensure that it was freely available to as much of the world’s population as possible. Fleming could have become a hugely wealthy man…
I think the notion that one can own facts will one day be viewed as archaic as the notion that one can own people.
They don't own any facts. They own the ability to exclude others from selling, as well as importing/exporting, certain materials.
Re: The Villain of CRISPR
#87I have never seen a paper on CRISPR that can distinguish between selecting pre-existing mutants and actually modifying genes. I have read probably a dozen or so at this point, and it is amazing that they always fail to address this either in citations or actual data. At first I thought it was an honest mistake, but now it would not surprise me if some of the main players know that their experiments with CRISPR have b…
My sister was sent by Brazil's government to MIT so she can bring back CRISPR technology to Brazil public universities to speed a research here about using gene editing to control stem cell expression. I've seen plenty of people and papers where dna was edited in across entirely different organism realms, bacteria dna in animals, animal dna in plants, and so on... I honestly don't understand how the technique ins't a…
>"EDIT: I asked my sister to give me links to some papers, I will post them after she replies."
Thanks, I appreciate it. This has been bugging me for awhile now.
Re: The Villain of CRISPR
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the notion that one can own facts will one day be viewed as archaic as the notion that one can own people.
They don't own any facts. They own the ability to exclude others from selling, as well as importing/exporting, certain materials.
Which is going to break down quickly when anyone can replicate those materials at little cost on their workbench.
Re: The Villain of CRISPR
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a baseless critique. No one has to address alternative hypotheses that don't make any sense. Are you unaware that Sanger Sequencing exists, and the actual lesions can be read? Or that heterologous genes are being introduced with CRISPR methods? Neither of these common results can be explained by the spontaneous insertion of hundreds of nucleotides that happen to precisely match the sequence of the construct b…
>"Are you unaware that Sanger Sequencing exists, and the actual lesions can be read? Or that heterologous genes are being introduced with CRISPR methods? Neither of these common results can be explained by the spontaneous insertion of hundreds of nucleotides that happen to precisely match the sequence of the construct being inserted." The first is just as consistent with the selection mechanism, because low levels of…
What do you mean by the primers can just well be amplifying the template? How does that explain knock-ins without an actual insertion? And there are plenty of knock-in CRISPR papers out there. Just literally search for "CRISPR knock-in".
Re: The Villain of CRISPR
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"Are you unaware that Sanger Sequencing exists, and the actual lesions can be read? Or that heterologous genes are being introduced with CRISPR methods? Neither of these common results can be explained by the spontaneous insertion of hundreds of nucleotides that happen to precisely match the sequence of the construct being inserted." The first is just as consistent with the selection mechanism, because low levels of…
What do you mean by the primers can just well be amplifying the template? How does that explain knock-ins without an actual insertion? And there are plenty of knock-in CRISPR papers out there. Just literally search for "CRISPR knock-in".
Ok, I did that search and here is the first paper I found: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep14253
EDIT: Let me look again at this paper later.