I'm not interested in causing Tony Yeung further embarassment but the
thinking revealed in his letter deserves comment. This concern over
potential conflict of interest is carried too far and I suspect it is quite
commonplace among scientists. Do we always assume because someone has a
financial stake in a chemical method or product that that renders them
incapable of assessing a competing method or product without bias??
I'm pretty sure the original phosphoramidite methodology was patented
before it was offered commercially. It wasn't clear at the time it would
become the universal standard chemistry for oligonucleotide synthesis it
has become. I doubt anyone then or now would suggest Professor Caruthers
or S.L. Beaucage excuse themselves from reviewing grants or manuscripts due
to possible conflict of interest.
Anyone who has synthesized RNA using the older 2'-O-t-butyldimethylsilyl
monomers recognized the need for improvement if RNA synthesis was to become
as convenient and efficient as DNA synthesis. Stephen Scaringe is probably
in a better position than most to make such judgements. Certainly, this
should have no bearing on his ability to contribute to NARG.
M.F. Moore