This should be a lesson to all who think science is pure and noble. Science is mostly funded for profit and war and as such has little tolerance for criticism. In some cases where potential profit is concerned it can be as corrupt as politics. This should have been investigated in greater depth before going to human trials. Hopefully, the problems can be worked out. We are still pretty ignorant about the role of different genes and how they react.

Instead of arguing about whether or not the study is valid, I would think it would behoove the 'scientists' from the massive number of colleges and companies to immediately do their own study. If CRISPR is actually causing a large number of unaccounted mutations then the sooner we learn the truth the better. If this is just a quack paper with no substance then this is a great opportunity to prove the safety of CRISPR. This is not a technology that we ignore possible problems with.

Another example of vested interest having potentially dangerous consequences. The almighty dollar will triumph once again, and those victimized will be shuffled to a 4th page margin paragraph. Haven't we learned our lesson with big pharma already?

The MIC is rushing into this because they really can without caring to ask if they really should.

Count me in the skeptical bleachers with regard to the safety of CRISPR. Genetic scientists haven't yet begun to unravel the mysteries of standard genes, let alone recessive genes. With the science still in the "the world is flat" stage, I liken scientific gene editing to a precocious 5 year old boy stumbling into a weapons bunker full of grenades, detonators, C4 charges, and mines thinking "I wonder what this does." and pulling the pin, switching on detonators, and pressing buttons to find out. And that's the _ethical_ scientists. What has Big Pharma flushed down the drain into the waters we humans clean to drink? We can't filter out the pharmacopeia (which flushes out of our systems) at the water plant. And don't get me started on scientists wanting to break the blood-brain barrier. AFAIC, Man isn't mature enough yet to handle this tech.

I work at a uni, and while I'm not in the field, I know for a fact there are a lot of eye's on this. I'm pretty sure if there is something dodgy about it, it'd be a lot bigger that one outlier study.

I've had only 1 paper "peer reviewed", but my observation of that process is that it's terrible. The "reviewers" criticize things like spelling and grammar and question irrelevant factors and numerous other things (nb: reviewers are anonymous and we cannot answer their questions!).
In my case, they did not understand my highly-technical work at all, and appeared unwilling to look past a few typos and comprehend the subject matter!
Peer review needs major repair: reviewers should be forced to publish their names and all their opinions, so their reputation is placed on the line, to help them behave appropriately (or at the very least, for observers to point out the duds who can be removed from the process!)

More and more corrupt science...which is way dangerous than corrupt politics or economics.

Seems like the author and editorial board have already made up their minds that the study is invalid, but pretending to take a balanced position. Maybe it just me. I love science. But we've wreaked havoc and irreversible destruction on our planet and it's inhabitants with our "understanding" on nature and it's ways, almost always for profit. While the many benefits of gene editing should be a goal, safety and not proceeding too quickly should be the paramount concern. This to me is akin to tickling the dragon, with potential worldwide horrific repercussions.

A consensus is being pursued to ensure all skepticism to CRISPR is rebutted and no future studies and/or articles will be funded/published which will impede/damage our CRISPR studies both now and in the future...