"now that it's been demonstrated that the CRISPR-Cas9 system has use in therapeutic
development,"
This statement appears to say more than it actually says.
The only reason I can see for "development" is that (as has been noted many times here), CRISPRs are not currently acceptable for therapeutics because of the deeply inherent problem with random off target hits. But they could be used for developing therapeutics, as a cheap and quick tool for doing early work in cell culture, for example, where the effects of OTHs' could be approximated and subtracted from the numbers as appropriate to get early (and rapid and cheap) indications of potential as a therapeutic.
As has been noted many times here, CRISPRs can be highly useful for early development work where they're looking to see if the basic principle will work (even a sizable number of random OTH's won't cause a problem). CRISPRs are faster and cheaper to make than zinc fingers (or TALENs). And if the idea dosen't work out (as most don't) then less money has been lost. Once the principle has been demonstrated to work (in cell cultures or small animals) then the higher cost of a better tool can be justified.
"Use in therapeutics development' is not remotely the same as "use in therapeutics".