This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
MaryGaulke (
talk·contribs) has been paid by Porter Novelli on behalf of Editas Medicine. Disclosures made below and on userpage.
COI edit requests
This
edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
Add some parameters to the infobox (date and location of founding, president/CEO and Chairman under “Key people”, financial figures and employee headcount from most recent 10-K) and adding to “Industry” parameter:
The company has stated that “It will be many years, if ever, before we have a product candidate ready for commercialization.”[4] Further, the company's valuation depends on a few patents, some of which are in
dispute as of early 2018, presenting a major risk to the company's continued viability.[5][4]
to
In its IPO filing, the company stated that "It will be many years, if ever, before we have a product candidate ready for commercialization."[4][6]
(Updated to provide more context on timing. Also, the PatentDocs source doesn’t mention Editas, and the
Atlas Business Journal source link is broken. Digging up
an archive link leads me to believe that atlasbusinessjournal.org moved to nextgenpolitics.org, making
this the updated, correct link for that source. I’m not certain that Next Generation Politics is a
WP:RS, so I added a second source for the first sentence and deleted the second, which wasn’t corroborated by the source regardless.)
In “History,” adding 2015 funding with ref:
In August 2015, the company raised $120 million in
Series B funding from
Bill Gates and 13 other investors.[7][8]
Editas pledged $125 million in research funding to the
Broad Institute in 2018.[10] CEO Katrine Bosley stepped down in 2019 and was replaced by board member Cynthia Collins.[11] Also in 2019, the company was building a new facility in
Boulder, Colorado.[12]
Adding to beginning of “Research” (ref name already in use in article):
In “Research”, add after discussion of Juno partnership: (Juno was later acquired by
Celgene,[15] which was in turn acquired by
Bristol Myers Squibb.[16])
Editas announced in 2019 that it had found early success in research on EDIT-301, an experimental cell medicine, as a potential treatment for
sickle cell disease and
beta-thalassemia.[18][19]
In March 2020, Editas, in partnership with
Allergan, was the first to use CRISPR to try to edit DNA inside a person's body (in vivo). As part of the clinical trial, a patient who was nearly blind as a result of Leber's congenital amaurosis received a microscopic injection in the eyeball containing a harmless virus carrying CRISPR gene-editing instructions.[20][21] Five months later, Editas reworked its deal with Allergan's owner
AbbVie and regained full rights to their range of eye disease treatment therapies, including EDIT-101 for the treatment of LCA10.[22]
@
MaryGaulke: - This is a really well crafted COI edit request. I'm super busy this weekend, but I will turn my full attention to it early next week if no one gets to it before me.
NickCT (
talk)
05:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)reply
@MaryGaulke - Ok. I've taken a first pass. I'll probably be back to comb through it again. Couple notes;
1) SEC filings probably aren't great sources, but we can likley use them for the info box.
2) Having trouble finding a good source for the company building in Boulder. I can find references saying they have facilities in Boulder. Can we just say the latter?
3) I think EDIT-301 is just for sickle-cell disease. Not thalassemia.
4) It's a little hard to figure out what is "History" here and what is "Research". I suggest the "research" section be a simple overview of drugs in the pipeline.
Anyways, hope you're happy with this as a first pass. Let me know know if there are questions/comments/concerns, or if I've missed anything.
NickCT (
talk)
15:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)reply
@
NickCT: Thank you for your kind words and your help!
1) I believe SEC filings are considered OK just for straightforward figures and the like. Per
WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." I can also show precedent from other articles (including GAs) if it's helpful.
2) The
Motley Fool source states, "Editas is also building a Good Manufacturing Practice facility in Boulder, Colorado, to supply guide RNA and ribunucleoprotein in support of EDIT-301. The facility should be commissioned in 2020." Not sure if that's sufficient. I think your wording works too.
3) Per the
Drug Target Review source: "Editas Medicine, the company who led the research, has initiated IND-enabling activities for EDIT-301. This is an experimental CRISPR medicine designed to durably treat sickle cell disease and beta-thalassemia by editing the beta-globin locus."
BioCentury indicates the same.
4) This works! In my opinion, it also makes sense to move the information about the company's founding out of the lead and into "History."
@
NickCT and
Ferkijel: Thanks both! It looks like the end of "History" could use some basic copy editing – Mullen's rise to CEO is now mentioned twice, and there are some simple wording and punctuation errors. Would one of you be willing to give it a second look? Or if preferred, I can make the edits (only cosmetic) and invite your review.
Mary Gaulke (
talk)
20:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I’m focusing on clearing the Edit Requests backlog (which until last week had reached over 250), so I am not looking at copy editing. I may get to that eventually. But if you have a specific proposal for the copy editing, I suggest you type it here, and someone will get to it. For what it’s worth, non-CEO staff are rarely mentioned unless it adds signficant value to the article, which in my opinion is not the case here. A copy editor is likely to remove the sentences about the CIO and the CFO. Cheers !
Ferkijel (
talk)
21:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)reply