Hey, as quoted in the article, i.e. ""Three groups of researchers have successfully restored some sight to more than a dozen people with a rare disease called Leber's congenital amaurosis, which leads to complete loss of vision in early adulthood. "" I would question, that, 3 researcher groups have successfully restored some sight to more that a dozen people /rare disease etc.... etc.... . I would tend to believe that it's a fault statement, since they haven't done Clinical Trials yet. Unless, they referring to approx 12 ACT's patients. OR, unless they are injecting stem cells as ACT does and unless, they have violated ACT patent technology. In short, it sound like the same injection procedure but they are calling it engineered virus instead of stem cells.
These aren't even related. In this study, they were delivering functional versions of genes lost in a specific type of disorder to primates. Why would they be injecting stem cells? It's delivery of a virus components, not of cells.
It's not the same injection procedure, it's not stem cells, and it's not really related to anything with ACTC.