I know Jennifer well and an thrilled that her work is getting such positive attention. I also stand to benefit professionally if the patents are awarded to Berkeley, as my department will get a portion of what are likely to be significant proceeds (I have no personal stake in any 6 evil geniuses of essay writing crispr-related patents or companies). But I if I had my way, there would be no winner in either of these fights. . The way prizes like the Nobel give disproportionate credit to a handful of individuals is an injustice to the way science really works.When accolades are given exclusively to only a few of the people who participated in an important discovery, it by necessity denies credit to countless other people who also deserve. . We should celebrate the long series of discoveries and inventions that brought crispr to the forefront of science, and all the people who participated in them, rather than trying to decide which three were the most important. And, as I have long argued, I believe that neither Berkeley nor MIT should have patents on crispr, since it is a disservice to science and the public for academic scientists to ever claim intellectual property in their work. Nonetheless, these fights are underway.
Interestingly, the prizes for crispr have largely gone to Doudna and Charpentier, while, for now at least, the important patents are held by Zhang and the Broad. But this could all soon change.There has writing a great essay been extensive speculation that essay writing skills online crispr gene editing will earn Doudna and Charpentier a Nobel Prize, but there has been considerable lobbying for Zhang to join them (Nobel Prizes are, unfortunately, doled out to a maximum of three people). . On the flip side, the Broads claim to the patent is under dispute, and is the subject a legal battle that could turn into one of the biggest and most important in biotechnology history. I am, of course, not a disinterested party.
Interest in crispr spiked in 2012 when a paper from colleagues of mine at Berkeley and their collaborators in Europe described a simple way to repurpose components of the crispr system of the bacterium. Streptococcus pyogenes to cut DNA in a easily programmable manner.Such capability had been long sought by biologists, as targeted DNA cleavage is the first step in gene editing the ability to replace one piece of DNA in an organisms genome with DNA engineered in the lab. This 2012 paper from Martin Jinek and colleagues was quickly joined by a raft of others applying the method in vivo, modifying and improving it in myriad ways, and utilizing its components for other purposes.Among the earliest was a paper from Le Cong and Fei Ann Ran working at Landers Broad Institute which described crispr-based gene editing in human and mouse cells. Now, less than four years after breaking onto the gene-editing scene, virtually all molecular biology labs are either using, or best essay writing service canada planning to use, crispr in their research.And amidst this explosion of interest, fights have erupted over who deserves the accolades that usually follow such scientific advances, and who owns the patents on the use of crispr in gene editing. The most high-profile of these battles pit Berkeley against the Broad Institute, although researchers from many other institutions made important contributions. . Jineks work was carried out in the lab of Berkeleys Jennifer Doudna, and in close collaboration with Emmanuelle Charpentier, now at the Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology in Berlin; while Cong and Ran were working under the auspices of the Broads Feng Zhang.
There is something mesmerizing about an evil genius at the height of their craft, and Eric Lander is an evil genius at the height of his craft. Landers recent essay in, cell entitled, the Heroes of crispr is his masterwork, at once so affordable paper writing services evil and yet so brilliant that I find it hard not to stand in awe even as I picture him cackling loudly in his Kendall Square lair, giant laser weapon behind him. This paper is the latest entry in Landers decades long assault on the truth.During his rise from math prodigy to economist to the de facto head of the public human genome project to member of Obamas council of science advisors to director of the powerful Broad Institute, he has shown an unfortunate tendency to treat the truth as an obstacle. And when one of the worlds most influential scientists treats sciences most elemental and valuable commodity with such disdain the damage is incalculable. Crispr, for those of you who do not know, is an anti-viral immune system found in archaea and bacteria, that until a few years ago, was all but unknown outside the small group of scientists, mostly microbiologists, who had been studying it since its discovery.