Response to Comments by Timpson et al. and Yu et al.

Response to Sadek et al. and Kotlikoff et al.

Ditte Caroline Andersen,1,2,* Charlotte Harken Jensen,1 and Søren Paludan Sheikh1,3 1Laboratory of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology, Department of Clinical Biochemistry and Pharmacology, Odense University Hospital, 5000 Odense C, Denmark 2Clinical Institute/University of Southern Denmark, 5000 Odense C, Denmark 3Institute of Molecular Medicine/University of Southern Denmark, 5000 Odense C, Den...

In Response to Fakruddin et al. and Apostolou et al

In Response to Fakruddin et al. dicted to result in substitutions of amino acids at the and Apostolou et al. corresponding positions in the protein sequence. In each of these cases, individual tumor DNA samples possessed the same sequence as that of the corresponding cell line. We agree with many of the above findings, including To determine if the divergent sequences represented the frequency ...

In Response to Murphy et al., Löwer et al., and Lan et al

Methodological comments: McFarlane et al.

Does the McFarlane et al study provide a model for practical trials? Unfortunately, not. The methodological problems are here reviewed and used as a springboard to set out methodological criteria that might define such a model.

Response by Caplan et al.

W e would like to thank Dr. Wong for the response to our article “No time to waste—the ethical challenges created by CRISPR”. Dr. Wong’s letter addresses a question about the relationship between biology and society: that “prevailing papers” on CRISPR-Cas9 rarely emphasize understanding the microbiological processes that make CRISPR-Cas9 an effective defensive mechanism. Instead, scientists and...