https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-battle-lines-over-crispr-were-drawn 读读这个？ By the end of 2013, Charpentier, Novak, Foy, and Cowan had joined forces in CRISPR Therapeutics. Zhang, Church, and Doudna helped co-found Editas Medicine, which was born out of Broad. Sontheimer, Marraffini (now at The Rockefeller University in New York City), Rossi, and Barrangou are all co-founders of Intellia Therapeutics. Other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies soon jumped in, paying steep licensing and collaboration fees to the CRISPR startups, as well as to Broad. These companies stress that they have distinct development "pipelines" and business strategies. But there''s a great deal of overlap: For example, CRISPR Therapeutics and Editas have both made sickle cell disease and Duchenne muscular dystrophy a priority, and Intellia and Editas both have programs targeting the liver disease α-1 antitrypsin deficiency and collaborations that focus on engineering T cells to fight cancer. "At the 10,000-foot level they''re all similar," Doudna says. Yet she is unconcerned about duplication. "There''s plenty of space in the gene-editing world for multiple entities." Charpentier notes that some redundancy is a good thing to solve tough biomedical problems. "How many pharmaceutical industries and biotechs are working on the same thing?" she asks. The developing patent battle has led to further rifts. Doudna, Charpentier, and collaborators—who collectively are represented by UC—first filed a patent application in May 2012, whereas the Broad group did not file a patent claim until that December. But Broad, which soon filed 11 more patents to support its central claim that Zhang''s team had invented the first CRISPR system to edit human cells, paid USPTO to fast-track the review of its applications. To the surprise of many in the field, USPTO began issuing CRISPR patents to Broad in April 2014 before deciding on the UC Regents'' earlier patent application.Church says he had serious misgivings about Broad''s patent position and the legal wrangling, which Editas bankrolled. "I almost quit," Church says. Broad''s first patent application was rejected, he says, and Broad''s response to USPTO—in particular, a declaration from Zhang—"was quite unfriendly and it questioned Jennifer''s veracity and authenticity." The declaration noted that Doudna acknowledged Church''s help in her January 2013 publication about making CRISPR work in human cells. "I just thought she was being nice, and holding that against her like she got vital information from me is odd." (Broad, Editas, and the other parties in the patent dispute refused to discuss the details.) Doudna left Editas a few weeks after the patent was granted. She says she had family commitments at home in Berkeley and was tired of traveling to Cambridge but adds, "You''re welcome to draw your own conclusions." A year later, she became a "cofounder" of Intellia—based in Cambridge. And at UC''s behest, USPTO declared a patent "interference" on 11 January 2016, which triggered an expensive, contentious fight that the companies are financing. The track record of earlier gene-editing approaches suggests that the CRISPR companies pursuing medical therapies have a long road ahead. In 2009, for example, Sangamo Therapeutics in Richmond, California, began using zinc finger nucleases to modify genes in immune cells from HIV-infected people, hoping to make the cells resistant to the virus. Yet the company still doesn''t have an approved therapy. Similarly, cancer immunotherapies designed with TALENs by Cellectis, headquartered in Paris, have been tested in people since 2015, but they''ve only been given to two patients so far.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-battle-lines-over-crispr-were-drawn 读读这个？ By the end of 2013, Charpentier, Novak, Foy, and Cowan had joined forces in CRISPR Therapeutics. Zhang, Church, and Doudna helped co-found Editas Medicine, which was born out of Broad. Sontheimer, Marraffini (now at The Rockefeller University in New York City), Rossi, and Barrangou are all co-founders of Intellia Therapeutics. Other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies soon jumped in, paying steep licensing and collaboration fees to the CRISPR startups, as well as to Broad. These companies stress that they have distinct development "pipelines" and business strategies. But there''''s a great deal of overlap: For example, CRISPR Therapeutics and Editas have both made sickle cell disease and Duchenne muscular dystrophy a priority, and Intellia and Editas both have programs targeting the liver disease α-1 antitrypsin deficiency and collaborations that focus on engineering T cells to fight cancer. "At the 10,000-foot level they''''re all similar," Doudna says. Yet she is unconcerned about duplication. "There''''s plenty of space in the gene-editing world for multiple entities." Charpentier notes that some redundancy is a good thing to solve tough biomedical problems. "How many pharmaceutical industries and biotechs are working on the same thing?" she asks. The developing patent battle has led to further rifts. Doudna, Charpentier, and collaborators—who collectively are represented by UC—first filed a patent application in May 2012, whereas the Broad group did not file a patent claim until that December. But Broad, which soon filed 11 more patents to support its central claim that Zhang''''s team had invented the first CRISPR system to edit human cells, paid USPTO to fast-track the review of its applications. To the surprise of many in the field, USPTO began issuing CRISPR patents to Broad in April 2014 before deciding on the UC Regents'''' earlier patent application.Church says he had serious misgivings about Broad''''s patent position and the legal wrangling, which Editas bankrolled. "I almost quit," Church says. Broad''''s first patent application was rejected, he says, and Broad''''s response to USPTO—in particular, a declaration from Zhang—"was quite unfriendly and it questioned Jennifer''''s veracity and authenticity." The declaration noted that Doudna acknowledged Church''''s help in her January 2013 publication about making CRISPR work in human cells. "I just thought she was being nice, and holding that against her like she got vital information from me is odd." (Broad, Editas, and the other parties in the patent dispute refused to discuss the details.) Doudna left Editas a few weeks after the patent was granted. She says she had family commitments at home in Berkeley and was tired of traveling to Cambridge but adds, "You''''re welcome to draw your own conclusions." A year later, she became a "cofounder" of Intellia—based in Cambridge. And at UC''''s behest, USPTO declared a patent "interference" on 11 January 2016, which triggered an expensive, contentious fight that the companies are financing. The track record of earlier gene-editing approaches suggests that the CRISPR companies pursuing medical therapies have a long road ahead. In 2009, for example, Sangamo Therapeutics in Richmond, California, began using zinc finger nucleases to modify genes in immune cells from HIV-infected people, hoping to make the cells resistant to the virus. Yet the company still doesn''''t have an approved therapy. Similarly, cancer immunotherapies designed with TALENs by Cellectis, headquartered in Paris, have been tested in people since 2015, but they''''ve only been given to two patients so far. liviab 发表于 2020-10-07 08:32
STOCKHOLM/BERLIN (Reuters) - Two women scientists won the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry on Wednesday for creating genetic ‘scissors’ that can rewrite the code of life, contributing to new cancer therapies and holding out the prospect of curing hereditary diseases.
你这说法不对！这两人的文章里面明确说明了用于编辑真核细胞的想法。
那是在张锋的文章有了之后，之前采访都说不知道能不能用于真核，听说了张锋的文章才加班加点赶文章
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-battle-lines-over-crispr-were-drawn
读读这个？
By the end of 2013, Charpentier, Novak, Foy, and Cowan had joined forces in CRISPR Therapeutics. Zhang, Church, and Doudna helped co-found Editas Medicine, which was born out of Broad. Sontheimer, Marraffini (now at The Rockefeller University in New York City), Rossi, and Barrangou are all co-founders of Intellia Therapeutics. Other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies soon jumped in, paying steep licensing and collaboration fees to the CRISPR startups, as well as to Broad.
These companies stress that they have distinct development "pipelines" and business strategies. But there''s a great deal of overlap: For example, CRISPR Therapeutics and Editas have both made sickle cell disease and Duchenne muscular dystrophy a priority, and Intellia and Editas both have programs targeting the liver disease α-1 antitrypsin deficiency and collaborations that focus on engineering T cells to fight cancer. "At the 10,000-foot level they''re all similar," Doudna says. Yet she is unconcerned about duplication. "There''s plenty of space in the gene-editing world for multiple entities." Charpentier notes that some redundancy is a good thing to solve tough biomedical problems. "How many pharmaceutical industries and biotechs are working on the same thing?" she asks.
The developing patent battle has led to further rifts. Doudna, Charpentier, and collaborators—who collectively are represented by UC—first filed a patent application in May 2012, whereas the Broad group did not file a patent claim until that December. But Broad, which soon filed 11 more patents to support its central claim that Zhang''s team had invented the first CRISPR system to edit human cells, paid USPTO to fast-track the review of its applications. To the surprise of many in the field, USPTO began issuing CRISPR patents to Broad in April 2014 before deciding on the UC Regents'' earlier patent application.Church says he had serious misgivings about Broad''s patent position and the legal wrangling, which Editas bankrolled. "I almost quit," Church says. Broad''s first patent application was rejected, he says, and Broad''s response to USPTO—in particular, a declaration from Zhang—"was quite unfriendly and it questioned Jennifer''s veracity and authenticity." The declaration noted that Doudna acknowledged Church''s help in her January 2013 publication about making CRISPR work in human cells. "I just thought she was being nice, and holding that against her like she got vital information from me is odd." (Broad, Editas, and the other parties in the patent dispute refused to discuss the details.)
Doudna left Editas a few weeks after the patent was granted. She says she had family commitments at home in Berkeley and was tired of traveling to Cambridge but adds, "You''re welcome to draw your own conclusions." A year later, she became a "cofounder" of Intellia—based in Cambridge. And at UC''s behest, USPTO declared a patent "interference" on 11 January 2016, which triggered an expensive, contentious fight that the companies are financing.
The track record of earlier gene-editing approaches suggests that the CRISPR companies pursuing medical therapies have a long road ahead. In 2009, for example, Sangamo Therapeutics in Richmond, California, began using zinc finger nucleases to modify genes in immune cells from HIV-infected people, hoping to make the cells resistant to the virus. Yet the company still doesn''t have an approved therapy. Similarly, cancer immunotherapies designed with TALENs by Cellectis, headquartered in Paris, have been tested in people since 2015, but they''ve only been given to two patients so far.
胡说八道！ Doudna她们的文章2012年夏天发表online，文章里明确提了此技术在真核基因编辑的前景，张峰的文章2013年初才发表。
对方辩友列出了文献证据， 暂时领先
没有张锋，几个月之后也有汪峰发表真核编辑。 没有两位女士，不知道要等几年。 科研圈对关键性突破看得很清楚。 专利官司以后，诺贝尔奖委员会对如何发这个奖更是谨慎。
张峰的专利在2012年就申请了。张峰的文章一投稿，Doudna就开始做起来了
在专利审核的文献引用里列出来，Doudna受采访发表的文章里，Doudna说不知道基因编辑能不能用于真核细胞，这是张峰在美国赢得专利的一个因素。我查过那篇访谈，确实是那样写的。 欧洲比较政治化，所以张峰输了，
既然记者都能问到这个问题， 她会没有考虑到这个问题？ 她说“不知道”， 可以理解为她还没有确切的实验证据， 这和她早已经猜想可以用于真核生物不矛盾。
不知道到底能不能应用，是指还没有得到最终在真核成功的数据。
但是诺贝尔奖是表彰最初原创性想法和发现的，好么？
en en ..官司是他赢了。不过很多人有异议。这次诺奖把张撇开，也很好玩·
哈哈。。。。汪峰一杠