The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
So now you go back to the genome sequence that was came out in 2010 and all of a sudden you can go on the internet, pick a place in the genome that you're interested in studying, order a piece of RNA, make your your targeted crisper molecule and make a cut at a particular site and then in a very tangible way read out the consequences. you're going into the source code of DNA inside of a cell and you can when you make that change you can say what what happens to the cell.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.