I'm amused that you're unable to see the difference between peer-reviewed published material in major journals, opinion establishing how the field is received, and the respective uses to which these might be put.  The piece in Nature India is an excellent source for the fact that CF is a pariah field in the US, and to support the fact that a few individuals are nonetheless pursuing the field, but it completely fails to establish any kind of resurgence of CF research, since it's a news piece not a published paper. Guy ()