Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!
So perhaps the peer review was done elsewhere, and the editor at Protein and Cell took the previous review as acceptable? I read the thing, but not super carefully. I can't point to any immediate flaw, because I'm not an expert in CRISPR/Cas9 by any stretch, but there's something fishy about it. Maybe it's just the flexible ethics that bother me. I don't have a good answer, but I find myself wanting this headline grabbing piece to fail under scrutiny.