Sort:  

That's not why its controversial. The CRISPR-Cas editing idea as far as in eukaryotic cells was not developed by Jennifer Doudna et al. They did show that it would be possible for gene editing, but in bacterial cells IIRC. There is a huge patent dispute over Cas9 as a whole, and quite a bit of controversy.

Personally, I believe Doudna is in the right. However that doesn't diminish the controversy.

For more information pertaining to what I am talking about see the link below:

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/06/05/crispr-clash-dna-technology/id=69650/

Note that this is just the first result that showed up in a google search for it, so I can't guarantee that it is the most informative. However it does discuss the dispute between Doudna and the Broad Institute.

yes, I also read that there is a controversy around it because someone else has claimed the patent just a few months after the original paper was being published ..

but anyway, whoever came first and whoever is in the right here, it's still a revolutionary technology and has the potential to transform the way we live!

We will see, I have some concerns with a few of the limitations of Cas9. However there are a number of other promising candidates with similar, but slightly different functions. Time will tell. We can, and likely will do a lot with Cas9.

As an aside, the technology revolves around CRISPR-Cas9 however the Clustered regularly interspaced short palendromic repeats part has absolutely nothing to do with the applications of the nuclease. Other than part of the sequence of the Guide RNA is derived from the repeating element of that locus. I personally wish the media would change discussions of this technology to read: Cas9 and The Gene Editing Method That Will (maybe) Change Our Lives Forever!