Slashdot Mirror
UK Scientists Create a Three-Parent Embryo
Troll-Under-D'Bridge writes "The BBC reports that British scientists have manufactured embryos containing genetic material from a man and two women. Under the procedure developed by scientists from Newcastle University, the nuclei from a father's sperm and a mother's egg are transferred into a second woman's egg 'from which the nucleus had been removed, but which retained its mitochondria.' The research, which may 'help mothers with rare genetic disorders have healthy children,' used embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization treatment."
So Heather REALLY HAS two mommies!
Scientists have found a way to ruin the meaning of "threesome". Is this the true cost of progress?
One of the 'mothers' only contributes mitochondrial DNA, which does not affect any characteristics to the offspring.
Technoli
The research, which may 'help mothers with rare genetic disorders have healthy children...'
I'd say that's a pretty good reason for this research.
The biological desire to procreate is ingrained in nearly every human being to ever live, and I am not talking about simple sexual gratification. It's an innate desire that we (nearly) all have. To deny it is akin to denying one's desire for safety and freedom. Sure, we CAN, but should we? I don't have an answer, and I'm not even sure what my own opinion is.
I'd say not at all better than the people with rare genetic disorders being responsible and adopting if they insist on having kids. Insurance premiums will go up to cover the costs of this treatment so that people can have vanity kids instead of adopting one ready-made and otherwise unwanted.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
RTFA They're getting the mitochondrial DNA from the host egg.
Not so. Mitochondrial DNA is not contained in the nucleus, but is rather contained in the hosting cell. In a normal fertilization, this is always the mother's mitochondiral DNA, but in this case, it is the egg donor's DNA. Any mitochondrial problems the donor might have had could be expressed by the child even if the two nuclear DNA parents don't have any such issues.
The definition of biological parentage (as opposed to adopted parentage) has always been genetic. Just because the egg cell came from a third party does not make her a parent. She supplied no DNA. I'm sure that one day scientists will mix and match DNA from three human beings, but that is not what this article is about.
but mitochondrial dna has a larger effect then you might think. Specifically metabolism can you imagine two identical twins where one was fat and the other skinny?
I have severe moral issues with people who think that morality is anything more than an arbitrary human construct largely defined by unconscious mental process shaped by evolution, thus making axiology a faux endeavor, you insensitive clod!
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
The egg donor provides mitochondrial DNA, which is not unimportant to the future health of the child. Many diseases are related to mitochondrial DNA problems.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
She did contribute DNA, its Mitochondrial DNA (MtDNA). Mitochondrial DNA is unique from the rest of the genome and is not in the nucleus. It is found in the mitochondria.
All MtDNA in humans is transmitted from the mother because it is her mitochondria in the egg that will propagate into each cell as cells divide in development.
So she has contributed genes.
MtDNA from egg donor.
Maternal chromosomal DNA is from the nuclear DNA donor.
Paternal chromosomal DNA is from the sperm.
A very scientific, high tech, in vitro ménage à trois.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Did you mean to say "I don't like this." ?
One problem with your theory - biology.
Human reproduction is an instinct that drives human beings to pass on their own genetic material... not someone else's.
'course, one could balance that against the human instinct to protect other children in a communal group, but I suspect the drive to have one's own baby is primary. Would make for an interesting philosophical discussion, but...
I do agree with you - we're allegedly a rational species that can (not does, "can") place ourselves above base instincts and drives. Unfortunately, it's not just biology. Consider the fact that a full adoption is more often than not a years-long process (waiting lists, background checks, etc), requires a lot more effort to complete, and often costs more than whatever this particular treatment will cost? I'm thinking that most folks in that situation will just talk to the doctor and start asking female friends to act as egg donors.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Or you could just adopt. Wouldn't be much different would it? You're not having the baby yourself, and you're getting it out of another man's sperm and another woman's egg. The only difference is your mitochondria is present. All I can see it doing is allowing for there to be a relation between the parent and the child genetically, but how much is this going to change things? On top of that, I'm going to guess that this process will be really expensive, so who would want to pay for that sort of thing? I just can't see the point.
I do agree with you - we're allegedly a rational species that can (not does, "can") place ourselves above base instincts and drives. Unfortunately, it's not just biology
One could reasonably argue that manufacturing a child via syringe is literally a part of biology but it has nothing to do with instinct.
One problem with your theory - biology.
Human reproduction is an instinct that drives human beings to pass on their own genetic material... not someone else's.
It's a new era and a brave new world. Just think of this as "genetic spoofing". If it's good enough for spammers it's good enough for future spam recipients.
There's a common moral squeamishness about deciding, for the greater financial good, who gets to precreate. It's a squeamishness I happen to share. If you're going to refuse to pay for their vanity kids, why pay for those of infertile couples? Why pay for a guy to store a sperm sample when he has a vascectomy? I guess it would take something like the US healthcare system to turn a free-market economy into a cold-war totalitarian nightmare.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
As a parent who has gone through 7 years of infertility, I can say that I find religious objections to new fertility treatments unconscionable. The Church's belief that people who suffer from infertility should "accept the will of god" to be disgusting and akin to telling a cancer patient that they should do the same. The grief suffered by a couple with infertility diseases is as great of that of someone dying of a terminal illness. Imagine if someone stormed into your house, kidnapped your children, and you are powerless to do anything about it. Infertility evokes the same kind of emotions. Forbidding treatment on religious grounds adds insult to injury. In the end, we resolved our infertility by adopting.
There may be no "I" in team, but there's also no "F" in way.
Like it or not, there is a strong (instinctually enforced) tendency to want to pass on your own genes to the next generation. We are basically built at a basic level to want to live, eat, and reproduce. For many people that means having kids that are genetically their own.
There's also the desire to have a kid that recognizes you as their parent. That can happen just fine with adopted children, but typically only if they're very, very young when adopted. Competition for adopting babies is pretty fierce.
Also, adopting requires a LOT of justification and the like. There's a ton of paperwork determining whether or not you financially qualify, whether or not you're an appropriate match (ie, some people with certain health problems aren't allowed to adopt), or other factors (such as if the person is single. A single woman has a hell of a time adopting a child. A single man can pretty much forget about it). Having your own biological children simplifies this, as it takes a mountain of good cause and paperwork to remove a child from their parent. Pretty much the exact opposite of adoption.
All in all, while a noble goal, the reality is that adoption simply isn't for everyone.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Rates will only go up if Insurance companies are forced to cover this in their basic packages, I guess you're right rates will go up.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Mitochondrial DNA is also child's DNA...
And since it greatly affects methabolism, it's one of the most important traits of an organism. Certainly can affect one of the traits you list, height.
One that hath name thou can not otter
Sure, if I replace the word "identical" with "very different".
Kids with spam for genetic material?
I'm sure Hormel has that patented. :)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Last time they tried that I was a wiseguy and submitted a turing machine which would halt iff the collatz conjecture was true. Next thing you know, Slashdot went down trying to verify whether the thing halted. I don't think my post ever made it either.
can you imagine two identical twins where one was fat and the other skinny?
Yes I know a pair. Both are attractive, but one is single and jogs, the other is married, doesn't exercise, and eats a lot. It's not all in the genes.
And then one could then argue that you have the right to sell what you manufacture.
This kind of science has been known before and has been dealt with before.
so god is black? hmm...
Well, many Rastafarians think Haile Selassie I was an incarnation of god, and they're no less likely to be right than any of the others....
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
There's a common moral squeamishness about deciding, for the greater financial good, who gets to precreate.
Sure, but it is just the next step after making people pay to raise other people's kids.
If I have to pay for the care of somebody who is sick, or whatever, now suddenly I have a voice (like it or not) in whether such a person should be born in the first place. The only alternative is to give people a voice in whether to care for said kids after they are born, which is clearly less desirable as now the poor kid is suffering in neglect through no action of his own.
There is a shortage of families willing to adopt black children.
It seems that people express at least to some degree a preference for children of their own colour. Now I'm not going to argue whether or not it would be beneficial for us to catch a mild case of the Williams syndrome with regards to our affinities to different strangers, but isn't the percentage of black children among all children more or less proportional to the percentage of all black people among all people? If that is the case, I would expect the number of childless black families willing to adopt a black child to be roughly the same (i.e., families per each kid).
Ezekiel 23:20
It happens. Look up "epigenetics." Time Magazine had an article on the subject in January ("Why your DNA is not your destiny", or something like that), and there was a Discovery Channel program on the subject I saw a year or two ago. IIRC from the DC program, there is a breed of hamster or guinea pig or something that has a disorder that causes certain individuals to not metabolize food correctly. These individuals are always hungry, always eating and consequently much larger than average. Genetically identical twins do not always display the same trait, however. What researchers found is that DNA alone does not determine your characteristics. Without the presence of certain chemical receptors in the body, your DNA sequences can't be activated -- the DNA mode code for specific proteins to be produced, but if your body doesn't have the right chemical factories to build those proteins, they *won't* be produced (that's the really dumbed-down executive summary because IANA molecular biologist and it's been a while since I saw the program).
Okay, people are neither hamsters nor guinea pigs, but similar things happen in homo sapiens, too. Again, IIRC from the DC program mentioned above, researches found a genetic sequence that is always present in autism. However, not everyone who has the DNA sequence has autism. However, everyone that they tested who has the DNA sequence and a certain sequence of chemical receptors for that DNA sequence does, and no one they tested who has the DNA sequence for autism but a different chemical receptor sequence displayed symptoms of autism. Interesting stuff...
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
I applaud any science achievement, for whatever reason. However every-time I read a story like this, and octomom, etc the first thing that comes to mind is adoption. Yea I was adopted so that contributes to my feelings on the subject, but the whole "Need" to have YOUR kid, well it just seems ridiculous to me
That's not deciding who gets to procreate, that's deciding who should pay for it. I'm not sure there's a good argument that I should be paying for *anyone* to procreate. While it's up to insurers to decide what they want to subsidize, that gets a little murkier with the coming changes in the US healthcare system.
The inability to differentiate between necessary and desireable medical treatments is a lot of where the healcare issue is rooted. It's a tough problem, but I don't believe real progress will be made until that tough issue is addressed.
The real winners are the writers of Law & Order who have a great 3-way custody episode to create.
Raisinettes are my raison d'etre