There is debate over who should receive the CRISPR fanfare because the publication timeline for the tool’s invention is complicated. Siksnys submitted a paper to PNAS in May 2012 reporting how Cas9, the molecular scissors of CRISPR, is guided to make specific cuts in DNA with the help of a complementary RNA strand. Charpentier and Doudna submitted a similar manuscript to Science in June that went a step further to engineer a guide RNA, which is essential for easily directing the CRISPR complex to almost any site in the genome. Their paper was reviewed, accepted, and published in just three weeks, appearing online on June 28, 2012. Siksnys’s paper didn’t appear online until September.

Siksnys filed his CRISPR patent about six weeks before Charpentier and Doudna did, although it wasn’t public knowledge at the time. Now that Siksnys’s patent has been accepted, Charpentier’s and Doudna’s patent must be proven sufficiently different from Siksnys’s.

maziau verkit. svarbiausia yra praktinis pritaikomumas. kazko negirdejau kad pradetu masiskai ir pigiai redaguot tuos genus eilines laboratorijos lygyje. tikrai nusipelnes zmogus atradimuose tik tas - kuris gali savo technologija idiegt bet kur nuo nulio - jei ji kas nors prafinansuotu net ir is pasalies. o ne gaves kokia nors premija ar parases kazkur kazkoki straipsni.

Nobelio premijos pagrinde skiriamos už grynojo mokslo atradimus, o ne už jų pritaikymą technologijoms, tam turbūt yra skirta visokių kitokių apdovanojimų. Ir todėl Edisonas, ar Tesla niekada nebūtų nominuoti Nobeliui fizikos srityje. Mokslininkai gavę Nobelius už florescencinio baltymo, ar LCD sukūrimą laboratorijoje irgi nesukūrė LCD televioriaus ,ar kokio kito komercinio produkto ekrano.