UK Government Proposes Rules To Allow 'Three-Parent Embryos'

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Government Proposes Rules To Allow 'Three-Parent Embryos'

Posted by Unknown on Thursday February 27, 2014 @08:39AM from the meet-my-nine-parents dept.

sciencehabit writes "The U.K. government today issued proposed regulations that would allow researchers to try a new and controversial in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedure in patients. The technique could allow women who are carriers of mitochondrial disease to have healthy, genetically related children. But it also transfers DNA from one egg or embryo into another, a form of genetic alteration that could be passed on to future generations. Altering the genes of human egg cells or embryos in IVF procedures is now forbidden in the United Kingdom."

146 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Stranger than fiction by slapout · 2014-02-27 08:44 · Score: 1

I thought the SyFy channel ran out of ideas after Sharknado. I guess not.

--
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
1. Re:Stranger than fiction by Penguinisto · 2014-02-27 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  The crazy part is... a kid with three parents may well have a hard time fitting into a legal system that assumes only two. For instance, how would the divorce issues work out (custody, support, etc)?
  Also, a few others: at what point does the result stop being a lab experiment and start being a human being with the same rights as everyone else - for instance, is the kid 'patented' and therefore owned by a corporation or other entity?
  Lots of sticky issues on that one...
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
2. Re:Stranger than fiction by JazzHarper · 2014-02-27 09:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Under the proposal, the donor of the egg would have no parental rights. That is logical, since mtDNA carries very little information, compared to nuclear DNA.
  There is no genetic modification involved so there is no "intellectual property" vested in the DNA of the offspring. From that standpoint, this is no different from conventional in-vitro fertilization.
3. Re:Stranger than fiction by bluefoxlucid · 2014-02-27 09:29 · Score: 0
  
  My parents are biological objects. The concept of family has procedural meaning to me: apparently you come out of a person, or you spend much of your life with people, I haven't figured out what it is meant to specify because I've seen people refer to these isolate and my personal experience is both.
  Family is like every other people you meet on the street. They're mostly annoying people you don't want to deal with; a few you might bother to go back and talk to. These particular annoying people won't go away.
  I find the whole thing creepy. When I walk into my parents' house, it's like a shrine to worship me. I can immediately see 43 pictures of myself from the door, framed in fancy gold and leather. If a girl I met at a bar walked into my house and saw something like that, she would probably call the police.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
4. Re:Stranger than fiction by cayenne8 · 2014-02-27 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, they GMO our food...why not GMO the consumers of said food?
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
5. Re:Stranger than fiction by datavirtue · 2014-02-27 09:48 · Score: 2
  
  and this whole time I was wishing I had parents
  
  --
  I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
6. Re:Stranger than fiction by bluefoxlucid · 2014-02-27 10:15 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  For god's sake WHY? They are a limitation. I hardly recognize that OTHER people have parents because ancestral lineage is not an immediate obvious quality in people: I understand that there is a person here, not a thing that is to be judged by other persons which were present for part of this person's life. A person to me is entirely isolate from their family, and their family is as relevant as some slant eyed oriental hottie in Japan.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
7. Re:Stranger than fiction by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2014-02-27 10:31 · Score: 2
  
  The crazy part is... a kid with three parents may well have a hard time fitting into a legal system that assumes only two.
  Tell me about it. My family tree has routing loops.
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
8. Re:Stranger than fiction by wonkey_monkey · 2014-02-27 10:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  a kid with three parents may well have a hard time fitting into a legal system that assumes only two
  A kid with three legal parents, perhaps, but that's not what's being discussed.
  
  For instance, how would the divorce issues work out (custody, support, etc)?
  Surely it would be dealt with in exactly the same way as egg donation, sperm donation, adoption, surrogacy etc. The two legal parents will be the legal parents, and no-one else gets a say.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
9. Re:Stranger than fiction by wonkey_monkey · 2014-02-27 10:51 · Score: 3
  
  For god's sake WHY?
  Because most people don't feel the way you do about family.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
10. Re:Stranger than fiction by misexistentialist · 2014-02-27 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  What if the donor was the woman initiating the procedure and/or bearing the child?
11. Re:Stranger than fiction by quenda · 2014-02-27 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  ... a kid with three parents may well have a hard time fitting into a legal system that assumes only two.
  No, the legal system has long had to deal with far more complex situations. Its not just the two biological parents who have legal standing with a child.
  You have surrogates, grandparents as primary carers, parent's (gay) partner acting as parent ... All have legal rights - ( well, here, I'm not sure about Saudi Arabia or the USA.) - you do not need to be a parent to apply for custody or access rights.
  Sperm donors do not go on the birth certificate, and donors of eggs without chromosomes would have even less reason.
  
  at what point does the result stop being a lab experiment and start being a human being with the same rights as everyone else?
  In most, countries, many such rights are acquired at the time of birth, and others at age milestones, notably 18.
  Embryos and foetuses are never legal persons, so cannot have legal rights as such. It does not mean there is not a mountain of regulations protecting them.
12. Re:Stranger than fiction by Patch86 · 2014-02-27 21:32 · Score: 1
  
  For instance, how would the divorce issues work out (custody, support, etc)?
  This may seem like stating the obvious, but- divorce issues are based on marriage law, not parental law. You can be married to someone who is not the parent of your child (crazy modern world, eh?). And while custody battles tend to favour biological parents, it is not a solid point of law- it is entirely possible for a step parent to be granted custody over a biological parent, if the court thinks a case is compelling.*
  *I have witnessed this in real life. An acquaintance of mine got custody of both children when he divorced his wife, even though one of them wasn't "his". That was because he had raised him in a father role for more than a decade since he was 3 years old, the mum was very unstable, and the bio-dad was completely off the scene. The mum contested it, but the court found that the child was better off with his step dad than his biological mum.
13. Re:Stranger than fiction by michelcolman · 2014-02-27 21:38 · Score: 1
  
  is the kid 'patented' and therefore owned by a corporation or other entity?
  Don't give them any ideas. O, well, who am I kidding, of course they will have thought of that already. I bet they'll pull a Monsanto on any grandchildren.
14. Re:Stranger than fiction by bluefoxlucid · 2014-02-28 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  That's great.
  Why would you want to be a serial murderer? Because you don't feel the way I do about killing some innocent women with your bare hands? Welp, that explains everything, yep.
  Family is nothing. It's an invented construct. There's this idea that if your parents mistreat you, they're actively harmful, they're so stupid that your life would have been better if you ran away from home when you were 6 and joined the circus, well... they're still your parents, abusive, exploitative, or incompetent as they are. Well, that's stupid, and I can only assume most people are stupid.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
15. Re:Stranger than fiction by wonkey_monkey · 2014-02-28 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Woah, easy there tiger. I'm not exactly sure why you chose here and now to explain your unusual, possibly damaging from an evolutionary point-of-view feelings on the subject of family, but no-one actually asked or needed you to.
  
  Family is nothing to me.
  FTFY. It's something to most people.
  
  It's an invented construct.
  Really? Who invented it? Because familial relations have been in existence since long before us apes. It's a biological instinct.
  Besides which, invention has little to do with relevance or usefulness. money is an invented construct. Can I have yours?
  
  There's this idea that...
  Sorry, is there? Some people may well continue to feel loyalty to abusive family members (due to the aforementioned biological instinct, largely), but so what? That doesn't mean everyone does. You act like it's some vast conspiracy that everyone sat down and signed up to. It's not. It's just the way some people are.
  Why are you so apoplectic that other people are different to you?
  
  Well, that's stupid, and I can only assume most people are stupid.
  Or you could assume that most people aren't mistreated by their parents. That would seem to be the more sensible position.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
16. Re:Stranger than fiction by nmr_andrew · 2014-02-28 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  In this particular case, that couldn't happen, although I don't necessarily trust any government rules to not be overly broad or open to misinterpretation and abuse.
  The case here is that an otherwise normal woman has a pathology linked to her mitochondria that will in all likelihood be passed on to her children. For the most part, paternal mitochondria don't get passed on, so the father isn't an issue. So a third party egg donor is screened to make sure she has "normal" mitochondria and provides some eggs, as does the woman who wants a child. The donor's eggs have their nuclei removed and replaced with those taken from the "bad" eggs. The hybrid eggs are then fertilized using the father's sperm and implanted in the original woman using normal IVF techniques and then she carries her own child.
17. Re:Stranger than fiction by bluefoxlucid · 2014-02-28 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  Let's submit random facts to round out the discussion. You claim there's some evolutionary/biological/inherent construct here.
  People form familial attachments to those who raise them. If raised with a foster family, they bond to them as family. The bonding is oxytocsin based, similar to strong frendships or long relationships.
  Incest is not rejected due to genetics; rather, sexual attraction is typically mitigated by continuous long-term contact, especially from a developmental age. That is to say: it's not that you don't want to bone her because she's your sister; it's that you've lived with her your whole life. Foster step sister does the same thing: it's okay 'cause you're not really related, but ... the urge just isn't there. Unless you're weird. But hey, without deviants there is no normal right?
  These things raise some odd implications. Family has no basis in the physical, real world, for example: it's an internalized emotional construct, and is handled differently in various cultures--Asian cultures handle family ties much more strongly, while communal cultures often have very little difference in the social bonding between family and between others of the tribe or community. Modern Western culture has begun to externalize ancestral family entirely: people move out of their parents house and get AWAY, with little day to day care about their parents.
  There have been no overt studies on the phenomena of long-term interaction killing sex drive in relation to marriage and other long-term sexual relationships. It is, however, well-studied and accepted that people have different levels of sexual need--that is, some people are highly sexual (screw daily!), others have a lower libido (once a week or a few times a month)--and that these sexual needs are critical to maintaining a relationship. Unless you can keep up, you can't have a relationship with a nymphomaniac. If you have a medium-high sex drive and your partner is medium-low, your relationship may have issues--depending on the gap. Likewise, it's well-known that relationships decay when sexual behavior tapers off; and that this often leads to extrarelational sex as either a maintenance strategy or as a precursor to ending the current relationship.
  Wall of text that comes down to: the same biological mechanism that makes incest not very attractive to most also makes long-term relationships difficult to maintain, and thus puts strain on the very concept of the nuclear family. Jealousy seems to have evolved as a mechanism to bond, not allow others to impregnate the female you've bonded to, make babies, and then... well, the cycle repeats, after this mate becomes boring and you each find a new one. The female explanation is that not allowing a man to have sex with many women eliminates the need for sperm competition, i.e. some animals shoot HUGE amounts of semen with a LOT more sperm, as this improves the chances of impregnation--and when you have 5 other males coming to get in line, the guy with a big load has a significant likelihood of being the father of anything reared from this.
  Family is a cultural thing. Westerners do not care much for extended family, and in fact we are openly hostile much of the time (mother-in-law, annoying aunts, etc.); some eastern traditions care greatly for extended family. Western culture is evolving to a point where we immediately reject our families even while still living with them, and then move out and even far away from our parents. Religious people might quote something from the bible about doing that, it's probably in there.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
18. Re:Stranger than fiction by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-28 09:46 · Score: 0
  
  Family is a cultural thing. Westerners do not care much for extended family, and in fact we are openly hostile much of the time (mother-in-law, annoying aunts, etc.); some eastern traditions care greatly for extended family. Western culture is evolving to a point where we immediately reject our families even while still living with them, and then move out and even far away from our parents. Religious people might quote something from the bible about doing that, it's probably in there.
  Boooo, you are simply nit-picking at philosophical definitions. You said it yourself, everyone has a family. It's not just constructed, it's inherent to our biological nature. There is even a drug, you mentioned it, oxytocin, to help us form these bonds. We've evolved to have families, hardly constructed.
19. Re:Stranger than fiction by midknightfalcon · 2014-03-05 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  You are a nice little sociopath now aren't you. You would make a great case study on the subject if you'd meet a friend of mine at work I am sure that he would be fascinated by you... though he may not let you leave.
20. Re:Stranger than fiction by bluefoxlucid · 2014-03-05 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  Being cognizant of the internal functions of the brain and of how society interacts and forms is not sociopathy; it's called science. Or heresy, if your 'science' tries to explain the laws of God.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
well... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 08:44 · Score: 0

what could go wrong?
1. Re:well... by ShanghaiBill · 2014-02-27 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  what could go wrong?
  Plenty of things could go wrong. And it is legitimate for a government to regulate artificial reproductive techniques to ensure the procedures are reasonably safe. But it is NOT legitimate for the government to ban or interfere with individual reproductive choices because they are "immoral" or "don't seem natural". If/when these procedures are shown to be at least as safe as traditional methods of conception and childbirth, then people should be free to use them.
2. Re:well... by Dcnjoe60 · 2014-02-27 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  what could go wrong?
  Plenty of things could go wrong. And it is legitimate for a government to regulate artificial reproductive techniques to ensure the procedures are reasonably safe. But it is NOT legitimate for the government to ban or interfere with individual reproductive choices because they are "immoral" or "don't seem natural". If/when these procedures are shown to be at least as safe as traditional methods of conception and childbirth, then people should be free to use them.
  Why is it okay for government to ban or interfere with other choices that are immoral or don't seem natural such as rape, murder, etc.? Isn't the purpose of government to ensure the common good? While one may argue that reproductive choices are moral or immoral, drawing a distinction saying those morality choices are off limits but all of the other ones are fair game seems to imply that something other than morality is involved in the discussion.
  It is a myth that society (government) can be divorced from morality. Even something as basic as a tax code is full of moral decisions. So, if reproductive choices are to be made in a moral vacuum, why not all moral choices?
3. Re:well... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 09:17 · Score: 0
  
  Yes but it is reasonable to ask for some explanation for why something is immoral that does not boil down to "because" or god... So we as a society generally ask for some demonstrable harm to be caused, before we declare something to be the sort of immoral act that we get the government involved to fix, rather than the icky feelings of "moral guardians". What harm can your demonstrate if it is known to be safe? how will this damage individuals or society?
4. Re:well... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 09:26 · Score: 0
  
  what could go wrong?
  Plenty of things could go wrong.
  Typically, when one says "Plenty of things [X]", one follows that with a list of things that [X].
5. Re:well... by gIobaljustin · 2014-02-27 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  Individual liberties be damned.
  
  --
  Thank you Dave Raggett
6. Re:well... by cayenne8 · 2014-02-27 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't the purpose of government to ensure the common good?
  
  Depends on what govt. your talking about. IN the US, the constitution basically sets up the federal govt. to have a set, small enumerated set of powers (yes, sadly we're really getting away from that)...but it should be there to keep things civil,enforce contracts, and prevent crime. But I don't see that it is there to be mommy and daddy, and say what I can or cannot do with my body or my life.
  And really...how does banning this type of thing affect the common good one way or another? This is purely a decision and action by consenting adults, why should anyone else, particularly the government have a say in what they are doing here?
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
7. Re:well... by bluefoxlucid · 2014-02-27 10:08 · Score: 2
  
  Many species engage in rape as a reproductive strategy. Ducks for example. The essential hunting, restraining, and forcible penetration strategy is common across various species.
  I have the actual answer for why rape is wrong because I've been able to correctly define right and wrong. This requires some explanation, but the final result will be apparent.
  People seek security. In the absence of society, people are individuals with numerous natural threats from wild animals, the weather, starvation, and the like. People form society as protection from these things. If the society fails to create security--if it creates an unsafe scenario--people will again form society: revolution.
  This expands into a long-winded discussion that simply comes across as thus: things are wrong when individuals are threatened by having no protection against them. You have protection against being put in jail: Don't commit crimes. Tyrannical government making illegal things which every person naturally and instinctively feels compulsion for and which does not threaten others is, thus, wrong: the society becomes threatening. Rape is wrong because the fear of being raped is a thing that people will constantly seek to escape until they form a society with rules and enforcement mechanisms to prevent rape. Murder, theft, and so on. Starvation brings crime, and thus society seeks to eliminate starvation; but wealth redistribution is also a threat to society, until there is so much wealth that almost all persons have all which they desire (Star Trek economics: post-scarcity means money is effectively meaningless because there is so much of everything including labor that all things are cheap and there is more money than purchasing demand).
  Incest and bestiality are considered wrong because a group of people--a large group of people, but initially just certain puritans--believe it is immoral, and they also believe that immorality somehow threatens them. These people want control over society, and want society to not expose them to things which will not harm them but which will upset their world view; however, if society accepts those things, then in short decades most of those in society will no longer feel threatened by them. That is the difference between "immoral" and "wrong": if society allows brutal, violent rape, then in decades or centuries people still are terrified that they may at any moment be violently raped, thus society must and will change this.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
8. Re:well... by Dcnjoe60 · 2014-02-28 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  You start off by saying how many species engage in rape as a reproductive strategy, but then conclude with why rape is wrong because people will still be terrified and thus society must change this. However, while I don't condone rape, it is an effective strategy for passing on a male's genetic code. When the Norse raided villages and raped and pillaged (or the Huns or just about any other group), from their moral perspective, raping those conquered did not cause a moral problem for them.
  Your premise is that things are wrong when people feels an instinctive compulsion against some act. And yet, what you are calling instinct is really just a form of conditioning. In the West, we are instinctively opposed to murder, not because of instinct, but because society says it is wrong and has done so for a long time. But, it still isn't instinct. Rape, except for the most violent types, has pretty much been accepted by society until the last 150 years.
  You assume that if society allows these brutalities that eventually, because people are terrified, it will somehow change. However, there isn't any evidence to support that hypothesis and actually quite a bit to counter it. The strong prey on the weak. That is just as true for humans as it is lions. Change doesn't occur until somebody stronger forces their will on others. Historically, that stronger force was the king or the pope or some other form of religion. People changed because the pain of not changing was too painful. Today, there are no kings and religion has lost it's allure for many, so exactly where do we get our moral code from, the whim of the people? That is relativism, not morality. Basically, relativism removes any absolute truths so a society that can decide brutality to women is wrong is just as capable as deciding it is perfectly acceptable. The problem with relativism is that it allows for a man to sleep with a 14 year old girl in parts of Africa as acceptable and a crime in the US. Is the African immoral? No. Should they change? That depends. Who is to say Western sensibilities are the correct ones? Obviously, those in the West believe their ways are correct. But that believe often leads to war, as the Western governments then take on the role of king or religion to enforce their beliefs on others.
  No, what you propose is just a clouded form of the strong make the rules for the weak. It seems acceptable to you, because in these issues, you agree with the outcome. But that doesn't make the moral system you describe correct or accurate.
9. Re:well... by Dcnjoe60 · 2014-02-28 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't the purpose of government to ensure the common good?
  Depends on what govt. your talking about. IN the US, the constitution basically sets up the federal govt. to have a set, small enumerated set of powers (yes, sadly we're really getting away from that)...but it should be there to keep things civil,enforce contracts, and prevent crime. But I don't see that it is there to be mommy and daddy, and say what I can or cannot do with my body or my life.
  And really...how does banning this type of thing affect the common good one way or another? This is purely a decision and action by consenting adults, why should anyone else, particularly the government have a say in what they are doing here?
  Being for the common good has nothing to do with the government being mommy and daddy for the people. As for banning this procedure being wrong, well, why should the government regulate anything, then? One can make an argument that any decision made by consenting adults is okay. Don't want to pay to have a board certified surgeon remove your appendix? Fine, maybe the butcher down the street will do it. After all, as long as there are consenting adults, that's fine, right? But, if it is alright for the government to regulate other medical procedures and who can perform them, again, for the common good, then why would that not be the case for these procedures?
  Simply put, if the government is allowed to regulate medical procedures, devices, medication, etc., what makes this, as of yet, experimental procedure, any different?
10. Re:well... by Dcnjoe60 · 2014-02-28 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  Individual liberties be damned.
  What individual liberty is being damned if this procedure is not approved? The couple in question is still free to procreate. They are still free to use IVP to do it and screen the embryos for those with the defect or not. They are free to adopt, if they decide the risk is too great. Of course, adoption would not be the woman's natural child, but then again, if you replace the mitochondrial DNA with another woman's, then neither is the child that would result.
  So, what individual liberty is being damned?
11. Re:well... by gIobaljustin · 2014-02-28 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  The couple in question is still free to procreate.
  Just like you're still free to travel even though the TSA will molest you at airports. The availability of alternate solutions does not mean that your individual liberties are not being infringed upon; you are taking away one possible choice, and that alone is enough to infringe upon people's individual liberties, no matter how many other choices exist.
  Awful, awful logic.
  
  --
  Thank you Dave Raggett
12. Re:well... by gIobaljustin · 2014-02-28 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  Fine, maybe the butcher down the street will do it. After all, as long as there are consenting adults, that's fine, right?
  Yep. If some dumbass wants to risk it, I don't really care; fewer stupid people that way.
  
  --
  Thank you Dave Raggett
13. Re: well... by Dcnjoe60 · 2014-02-28 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  Liberty is normally thought of as a freedom from coercion or a freedom to act. Since nobody is being forced to do this procedure, the question is whether restricting a medical procedure actually restricts one's freedom to act.
  The individual is not being kept from having IVP, nor is the donor of the mitochondrial DNA being restricted from donating her egg. The donor doesn't have a right to force anybody to use her egg, so she isn't harmed in any way if the procedure isn't allowed. Likewise, the woman can still have a child either naturally or by artificial means, so her liberty isn't restricted either.
  The only two people who might be impacted, in terms of liberty, are the doctor, but that would imply he has a right to do any medical procedure devised. But the courts have already ruled that is not a right, and since it is not, liberty isn't impinged. The other entity is the child who cannot be born healthy without the procedure. One could argue that his liberty is impinged, however, he doesn't even exist without the procedure and as such, has no liberty to impinge.
  So, back to the original question, whose liberty is being restricted?
14. Re: well... by gIobaljustin · 2014-02-28 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  Since nobody is being forced to do this procedure, the question is whether restricting a medical procedure actually restricts one's freedom to act.
  Restricting this would eliminate one possible choice, which restricts people's freedom. Random rationalizations won't change anything. The end.
  
  --
  Thank you Dave Raggett
15. Re: well... by Dcnjoe60 · 2014-03-03 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  Since nobody is being forced to do this procedure, the question is whether restricting a medical procedure actually restricts one's freedom to act.
  Restricting this would eliminate one possible choice, which restricts people's freedom. Random rationalizations won't change anything. The end.
  You seem to think that people have some kind of government granted right to choice, they do not. I'm short, no matter how much I want it, I cannot choose to be a fighter pilot. I pilot many aircraft, including decommissioned fighter planes, but I still did not have a choice to fly one for the military. Did that regulation restrict my liberty? No. Nor does restricting the use of experimental procedures.
16. Re:well... by bluefoxlucid · 2014-03-03 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  Ducks are not as social as human beings. Humans depend on society for survival; rape decreases survival overall, while ducks benefit overall from rape.
  Your assumption of conditioning versus instinct is nonsense. Conditioning stems from instinct: instinctive needs being met or harmed provides conditioning, among other things. People instinctively have a desire to live, which is why they will kill to take things they want/need, and will kill in self defense if conditioned largely not to kill. When this desire is threatened, people run away: a raging killer--human or a wild bengal tiger--will get people to either kill it or run far away.
  A society will eventually provide protection for a people: running away takes energy and thus decreases survival (requires more food), thus a society will seek to reduce the amount of threats. That's why we've been conditioned to not like wild animals--because wild animals are dangerous, and it was easier to clean them away from society, and now we are more conditioned to react even more sensitively to the threat of wild animals. Originally, we instinctively did not want to be eaten by wolves or diseased to death by rats, and so we made efforts to reduce these problems which were real and undesirable but not terrifying and unknown.
  Similarly, murderers and rapists bring harm and produce a fear reaction. The free flow of murder and rape without consequence produces fear in individuals: it makes them afraid to participate in society. Thus society develops a majority driver that murder and rape are wrong, and it becomes imperative to prevent or punish these acts.
  You will notice that every society develops a common theme: anything that threatens the stronger members of society is wrong. A totalitarian, centrally-dominated society run by a small group who oppress a large group will enforce few rules about murder, rape, and theft if they do not impact the ruling class--but will strongly enforce protection of the ruling class. A male-dominated society where women are treated as property will allow for rape of women more often, except as it damages the reputation of a family or the value of selling off daughters as wives or whatever. Egalitarian societies ("Equalitarian" is apparently not a word) provide protections for all classes: the US has allowed for the murder of blacks, the beating of women, and the disenfranchising of homosexuals throughout its history; over time, the US has come to treat these groups as equals, and moved to protect their rights.
  You will notice as well that major uprisings occur when the majority society or a significant group finds the rules of society unpalatable. For example: the French wee treated with little concern, trodden on, occasionally murdered, not given a strong police force to their benefit, and taxed out of existence. This suited the Bourgeois ruling class, who had no imperative to protect the peasantry since only the Bourgeois made the rules and sensed no threat from the peasantry: a firm hand would keep them in line, of course. Well, it didn't. They got together, murdered the Bourgeois out of existence, and formed a new society in main attempt to attain safety for themselves.
  Other rules come mainly from conditioned values. It's wrong everywhere to murder peoples' children: society will eventually get sick of this and band together to kill you. But there are many tribal societies today in which it is considered a rite of passage for 11 year old boys to perform fellatio and swallow semen to attain manhood. There were ancient Greek and Roman societies in which sex with young teens or children was considered normal, healthy, and desirable. These acts did not distress the parents because they held no Puritan values; in fact, Phoenician values suggest that life is for pleasure and play, and so sexual behavior with a 13 year old girl is considered healthy and good for the child. Modern societies follow a value system in which this is considered damaging--at least to the passing of
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
17. Re: well... by gIobaljustin · 2014-03-03 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to think that people have some kind of government granted right to choice, they do not.
  You seem to think that the constitution is a blacklist of things the government can't do; it is not.
  
  Did that regulation restrict my liberty?
  Yes.
  
  --
  Thank you Dave Raggett
18. Re: well... by Dcnjoe60 · 2014-03-03 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to think that people have some kind of government granted right to choice, they do not.
  You seem to think that the constitution is a blacklist of things the government can't do; it is not.
  
  Did that regulation restrict my liberty?
  Yes.
  Please explain how it restricted my liberty. Do I have a right to fly a fighter jet? No, I do not. Therefore, if I do not have a right to do something, I cannot have my liberty restricted by not being permitted to do it. Liberty only impacts things you have a right to in the first place. That's why not being allowed to sleep with your neighbors kids also doesn't restrict your liberty.
19. Re: well... by gIobaljustin · 2014-03-03 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to think that the constitution is a blacklist of things the government can't do; it is not.
  You seem to think that the constitution is a blacklist of things the government can't do; it is not.
  You seem to think that the constitution is a blacklist of things the government can't do; it is not.
  You seem to think that the constitution is a blacklist of things the government can't do; it is not.
  
  --
  Thank you Dave Raggett
20. Re: well... by gIobaljustin · 2014-03-03 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  UK, not US. I'm talking about the US constitution, and this story is about the UK.
  Absolutely, though, if government thugs take away your choices, they're infringing upon your liberties. Whether or not you or the government acknowledges that those liberties exist is another matter. Government thugs routinely (TSA, NSA, Patriot Act, DUI checkpoints, etc.) ignore people's rights.
  
  --
  Thank you Dave Raggett
21. Re:well... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-03 22:25 · Score: 0
  
  it forms because humans need society, and they need a society that provides security. A society that allows these brutalities will be replaced by one which doesn't.
  
  It's irrelevant here, but a society with few protections for individual liberties is worthless. We've seen individual liberties infringed upon by things like the TSA, the NSA, the Patriot Act, free speech zones, border searches, DUI checkpoints, etc. It's unacceptable, but people's fear and hatred of liberty allows it to happen, and since liberties are more important, security is simply unacceptable sometimes.
Safe by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 08:45 · Score: -1

Asbestos is safe.
Smoking is safe.
Flouride is safe.
Fracking is safe.
No need to worry about some new disease from this. SARS, AIDS, CANCER, are all just fine, and not caused by those issues, nor GMO's.
Everything is safe, until there is proof that it's not. When assassins start taking executives and politicians out, then you will see it stop.
1. Re:Safe by lazy+genes · 2014-02-27 08:52 · Score: 0
  
  Nuclear power is safe too, you just need to store your eggs and sperm under ground or encased in lead.
2. Re:Safe by OrangeTide · 2014-02-27 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  cancer isn't new.
  back in the old days they would have called something like SARS a walking pneumonia, as sort of a catch all for a contagious pneumonia that sometimes progresses in an acute pneumonia. There could possibly been dozens of viral outbreaks like SARS in the past that we don't know about because virology didn't exist to identify the cause of such diseases. And it wasn't in fashion for doctors back then to give a collection of symptoms scary sounding acronyms.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by jeffb+(2.718) · 2014-02-27 08:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

This is a solution doesn't just allow such women to have healthy, genetically related children. It frees their lineage from the disease. Implement this fix in one generation, and the children, grandchildren, and all their progeny are disease-free.
I find it incredibly offensive to say that women should be forced to condemn their children to suffer from a preventable disease, or be prevented from bearing genetically-related children, simply because some people think the cure is "unnatural".
1. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by aphelion_rock · 2014-02-27 08:53 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I can see the merit in this for removing a defective gene.
  How long until people start hand picking the genes for the next super generation. The next super athlete, scientist, beauty queen...
  Add in some DNA from neanderthal man and you can see what other interesting characters we could come up with for our entertainment..
  
  Once Started, how are you going to police this?
2. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by Hognoxious · 2014-02-27 08:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You'd have a point if mitochondrial DNA did all that shit. Thing is, mitochondrial DNA doesn't so any of that shit.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
3. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 08:58 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I find it incredibly offensive to say that women should be forced to condemn their children to suffer from a preventable disease,
  
  Then don't have kids. It's still an elective choice.
  
  or be prevented from bearing genetically-related children, simply because some people think the cure is "unnatural".
  By its very definition of how it's done is unnatural and the long term consequences to the gene pool unknown.
4. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by offrdbandit · 2014-02-27 08:59 · Score: 2
  
  Because this one procedure is the ONLY way for someone with this type of condition to have healthy children, right? I guess you're just pretending egg donation and adoption don't exist so you can climb on the high horse for a second?
5. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 09:02 · Score: 0
  
  Jeez, I wish you were a preventable disease.
6. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 09:02 · Score: 0
  
  removing only recognised disease genes?
  There will be temptation but for now that should be enough though, when we get better at understanding the consequences, what would be wrong with enhancement? It would require laws to prevent monoculture or stupid changes if people try to hard to chase after "ideals" and "new" genotypes will need stricter regulation too but still, assuming we can do it safely and don't let it get too out of hand how will it be worse than what already happens?
7. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 09:02 · Score: 0
  
  Some people would prefer to have their own children rather than somebody else's children. As you point out, I can grab somebody else's children off the street any time I want.
  Ob car analogy: Lots of people like to buy cars, even though taxis exist!
8. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by twotacocombo · 2014-02-27 09:06 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Or, you know, NOT having children also eliminates the perpetuation of a disease. All genetically-inherited diseases, in fact. Why some people think this planet is in such dire need of more inhabitants that they'd go to lengths such as these just blows my mind. Absolutely feel the need to raise a child? Please adopt. There are plenty of children out there that would love to have a permanent, loving home. Same goes for animals. Before we bring more life into this world, we need to address the suffering of those who are already here.
9. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 09:06 · Score: 0
  
  I think the counterargument to your offense at people objecting based upon a subjective sense of "unnatural" is probably that, indeed, it is subjective and it is equally subjective to claim those objecting to your stance shouldn't outright kill you as their response.
  Neither Darwin, nor anything you can name, gives the slightest actual meaningful objection to them doing so.
  At that point, we might start to consider possibilities for sources of objective authority that might provide actual resolution to these matters.
10. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Please stop breathing. You're asking someone else to stop one of the basic impetuses of life....its reasonable to ask you to do so in return isn't it?
11. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 09:09 · Score: 0
  
  Can you explain why it should be bad because it is unnatural?
  In this case the permitted technique is very narrow in what it can do, the consequences are no more unknown than other types of straightforward fertility treatment. I can see no way that it would have any real long term effects on the gene pool other than a slightly quicker elimination of genetic variants that will already eventually be eliminated, so why do you care?
  Can you see any reason why it should or could even cause problems? how?
12. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by Microlith · 2014-02-27 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  Then don't have kids. It's still an elective choice.
  That's a sad excuse for "choice," especially when a solution is readily available.
  
  By its very definition of how it's done is unnatural
  So is clothing.
  
  and the long term consequences to the gene pool unknown.
  The gene pool would be unchanged because what's happening is a mechanical repackaging of the genetic material with non-defective mitochondria.
13. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by asylumx · 2014-02-27 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  Air conditioning is unnatural, but people don't have a problem with that. In the medical domain, organ transplants are unnatural but people don't generally have problems with that, either. Why do you care so much about this particular procedure and not about all the other "unnatural" things that exist in the everyday life of a human? Why is it okay to transplant an organ, but not a piece of DNA? Doesn't the organ contain DNA?
14. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by Microlith · 2014-02-27 09:12 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Or, you know, NOT having children also eliminates the perpetuation of a disease.
  Or we could solve the problem instead of simply going "oh you should just not have children."
  
  Why some people think this planet is in such dire need of more inhabitants that they'd go to lengths such as these just blows my mind.
  Because it's an inherent drive in most living creatures. Feel free to start with yourself, however.
  
  Before we bring more life into this world, we need to address the suffering of those who are already here.
  Addressing the suffering of those who are here has no bearing on bringing in more life, nor are they mutually exclusive.
15. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by interkin3tic · 2014-02-27 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Caution when it comes to heritable changes should be the default mode. Thalidomide provides a good example of why "Sure, try it on unborn children and see what happens" should not be the default. But certainly TRIALS should be allowed if animal studies don't provide any reason to think we're going to create Parasite Eve or create new heritable diseases.
16. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by asylumx · 2014-02-27 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  I can grab somebody else's children off the street any time I want.
  I think I get what you were going for here, but you came off as a seriously creepy AC by phrasing it this way....
17. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 09:29 · Score: 0
  
  The animal models are not the most promising. Many of the animals showed behavioral problems who this treatment was tested on. Also, of the 11 kids that where born with this treatment two of them had a very rare disorder. Now, it's possible it was just bad luck or that this treatment has a high risk of creating that disorder. Unfortunately, am having trouble digging through all the press releases on Google at the moment.
  The problem I think comes down to that mitochondrial DNA has muted/evolved along side with regular DNA, and we don't know enough about the interaction between the two to make smart choices about who is a suitable mitochondrial donor and who isn't. Am guessing it would be possible to sequence the donor's and the mother's mitochondrial DNA and pick someone who has as close a match as possible but without having the disorder. Main factor here would be cost.
18. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by LordNimon · 2014-02-27 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  Is the proposed law limited to mitochondrial DNA? And even if it is, how long before that restriction is lifted in another law? Once you start down this road, there's no going back. The end result is obvious: a world like Gattaca, where every unborn child will need his DNA tampered just to get a job.
  
  --
  And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
  To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
19. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by gIobaljustin · 2014-02-27 09:35 · Score: 2
  
  How long until people start hand picking the genes for the next super generation. The next super athlete, scientist, beauty queen...
  I honestly don't care if they do.
  
  --
  Thank you Dave Raggett
20. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by cyn1c77 · 2014-02-27 09:36 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I find it incredibly offensive to say that women should be forced to condemn their children to suffer from a preventable disease,
  Then don't have kids. It's still an elective choice.
  
  or be prevented from bearing genetically-related children, simply because some people think the cure is "unnatural".
  By its very definition of how it's done is unnatural and the long term consequences to the gene pool unknown.
  How about you don't have kids? We don't need any more AC trolls in the world.
  We started messing with the "gene pool" when we started giving people things like glasses, surgery, antibiotics, and immunizations to enhance their lives.
  Most people will have children regardless. Your stance is effectively condemning those children to a diseased life.
  My elective choice would be to take all the people like you, ship them to an island that was devoid of any modern medicine, and let you "evolve" naturally. Enjoy dying at 35!
21. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by fulldecent · 2014-02-27 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  Sure... until you find out 400 years later that the new gene has a self destruct sequence.
  Or worse, patent law follows the trend of copyright law in the US and half the population ends up owing royalties for the genes they were born with.
  
  --
  -- I was raised on the command line, bitch
22. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by gIobaIjustin · 2014-02-27 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  By its very definition of how it's done is unnatural and the long term consequences to the gene pool unknown.
  Humans are part of nature. There is literally nothing we can do that is "unnatural." Furthermore, what is "unnatural" is not necessarily bad; that's just a fallacy.
23. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by gIobaIjustin · 2014-02-27 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  I have no problem with things like this, but...
  
  Because it's an inherent drive in most living creatures. Feel free to start with yourself, however.
  Already have. Now, if only the unintelligent masses would follow. We really don't need anywhere close to 7 billion people on this planet.
24. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by cayenne8 · 2014-02-27 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  How long until people start hand picking the genes for the next super generation. The next super athlete, scientist, beauty queen...
  And, what exactly would be wrong with that? People try to do the best for their kids after they're born...why should they not try to do so BEFORE they're born too? If I could help to ensure my prodigy was smart, healthy, athletic, why in the world would I try for anything less for them?
  Heck, if you're one that believes in God (and I do), you have to believe he gave us the brain power to figure this stuff out, and use it, no?
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
25. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 09:49 · Score: 0
  
  I'd say there's a pretty hard line between mitchondrial DNA and the DNA that's in any way part of the 23 pairs, and it should be a pretty solid line we can draw to distinguish the difference. That said, I also thought that people would be knowledgable enough to resist the attempts to blur any potential moral difference between the use of adult and embroyonic stem cells.
26. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by cayenne8 · 2014-02-27 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutely feel the need to raise a child? Please adopt.
  Yeah, but if you do that, it is SO damned hard to get them to look like you as they grow up...
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
27. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by geekoid · 2014-02-27 09:51 · Score: 2
  
  "until you find out 400 years later that the new gene has a self destruct sequence."
  MORBO: "THAT IS NOT HOW GENES WORK!"
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
28. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by datavirtue · 2014-02-27 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  enough of your shitty facts and pedantry....we were having a good time working up a mob until you opened your big trap
  
  --
  I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
29. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by geekoid · 2014-02-27 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  " if only the other unintelligent masses would follow."
  FIFY
  " We really don't need anywhere close to 7 billion people on this planet."
  based on..what?
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
30. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by datavirtue · 2014-02-27 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  One would argue it is all natural if you were watching all of this happen from a half million miles away
  
  --
  I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
31. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by MozeeToby · 2014-02-27 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, mitochondria DNA does have effects on athletic performance, so there is that.
32. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by geekoid · 2014-02-27 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  And? It's ANOTHER way to have children. Bonus, there children will be healthier to, and so.
  Clearly this woman want to have a child with her genes. It's almost like she's some sort of a mammal
  Just so you know, you are the one on the high horse. You might want to look up what that means.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
33. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by Hentes · 2014-02-27 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  These children wouldn't exactly be like their parents either, that's the point.
34. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 10:18 · Score: 0
  
  Of course, if it becomes popular, then it reduces overall genetic diversity.
  Perhaps they should be required to back up the mitochondrial dna.
35. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by gIobaljustin · 2014-02-27 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  FIFY
  Yeah, I never even saw that coming.
  
  based on..what?
  Based on simple logic. We have enough trash and orphans as it is.
  
  --
  Thank you Dave Raggett
36. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by fishybell · 2014-02-27 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  This sidesteps the issue. Yes, adoption is an option for some, but not all. The cost and legal requirements can be quite high, whereas this is medical procedure to fix a disease (really prevent), potentially covered by insurance or a universal healthcare system. You're advocating the idea that those less affluent can only have genetically disease free kids if they themselves are free of genetic disease.
  
  --
  ><));>
37. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by Anubis+IV · 2014-02-27 10:41 · Score: 2
  
  It frees their lineage from the disease.
  It's a slippery slope. So we allow them to prevent this disease. What gets defined as a disease next? Genetic predisposition to heart disease? Sounds great. We'd probably allow it if we had already allowed them to deal with the disease being discussed here, right? And if heart disease, then why not genetic predispositions to high cholesterol as well? It only makes sense. What about cancers? Surely we'd deal with any susceptibilities to those too, right?
  But at a certain point you start to get into diseases that are either specific to or identified with specific races, cultures, or segments of society. Should we get rid of gingers because their genetics render them more susceptible to a variety of skin cancers such as melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma? Should we allow insurers to offer discounts to people with better genetics? Should we (or will we be required to) disqualify those with worse genetics from participating in some activities, on account of their increased susceptibility to injury or illness? What about mission critical activities, where someone with "inferior" genetics is not expected to perform as well? Do we treat people with "inferior" genetics as having a handicap?
  TL;DR: Go watch Gattaca.
38. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 10:43 · Score: 0
  
  Our entire god damn society is unnatural. Go back to your damn cave already and let the rest of humanity reach the stars.
39. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 10:54 · Score: 0
  
  Or worse, patent law follows the trend of copyright law in the US and half the population ends up owing royalties for the genes they were born with.
  We should also stop allowing black people to reproduce just in case at some point in the future people decide to bring back slavery.
40. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by misexistentialist · 2014-02-27 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  Those unnatural things are adapted to our nature (generally poorly) while DNA manipulation can change our nature to something indeterminate. Even in this minor first step are the kids going to have three parents legally responsible for them, or is up to government going to make the determination? If lab makes a mistake can the artificial baby be sent back to be destroyed?
41. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by jxander · 2014-02-27 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  I find it shortsighted to believe that an experimental fertilization method that's never born a single child should be allowed without testing.
  I'm all about personal liberty, but safety needs to be a concern too. If the doctors can demonstrate that this method is at least as safe as normal IVF (safe for the parents AND potential child) then have at it, but until then, let's temper our excitement
  I'd also tread very carefully around what looks and sounds like a potential new form of eugenics.
  
  --
  This signature is false.
42. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by twotacocombo · 2014-02-27 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  You're advocating the idea that those less affluent can only have genetically disease free kids if they themselves are free of genetic disease.
  No, I'm advocating that everyone take a step back and ask "does the world really need another mouth to feed?", regardless of genetic suitability. Deciding not to have a child because it may be afflicted by a genetically inherited condition, in my opinion, is a noble choice. Spending $$$ on a method to circumvent this natural limitation just so you can have a brand new little copy of yourself seems a bit selfish. The more diseases we cure, the more babies we have, the longer we extend natural lifespans, the closer we get to resource scarcity. Take a look at places in the third world with rampant disease and famine. It's not because god hates them or they're unlucky, it's in part because they're producing more mouths than the land can feed. We will some day reach that point as well, but we shouldn't just go running full speed towards it because we all feel some biological need to reproduce. That's what sets us apart from the animals, right? The ability to reason and think about the consequences of our actions, and plan accordingly?
43. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by dpryan · 2014-02-27 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  DNA isn't being manipulated. The nuclei are just swapped. Mitochondrial DNA is physically separate from the rest of your DNA. This is a very non-slippery slope.
  Regarding parental rights, the women donating the egg sans-nucleus has no parental rights, which would seem reasonable. Of course that's up to the government, all parental rights in a society are governed by that society via its government. If a lab makes a mistake, then presumably the unfertilized eggs would be destroyed. If by that question you meant if there was a mixup in the lab, then presumably it'd be identical to any other IVF case where there's a mixup (apparently this has happened, though people don't usually end up finding that out until the kid is born).
44. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by Noishkel · 2014-02-27 12:34 · Score: 1
  
  Well the only thing I'd personally worry about is if these changes result in stable and healthy genetics. I'm not really up on the latest in genetic research but I didn't know that we were at the point where science could move in to selectively excise 'bad' genes and insert health DNA. The last time I even looked into genetic engineering involved the science of GMO crops. And at that time there we just hammering random DNA into cells until they could get a cell that didn't automatically die.
  Maybe it works since you're not trying to insert completely random DNA into the mix. But until we see some solid results with a high precentage of success I'll remain skeptical and be against it. But here's hoping it does work. I'm actually pretty interested in a lot of trans humanist concepts. (as long as they're all voluntary, that is.) So I say keep on working on it. But hold off on trying to push it out until we have some good results in the lab.
45. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 13:04 · Score: 0
  
  I find it incredibly offensive to say that women should be forced to condemn their children to suffer from a preventable disease,
  Then don't have kids. It's still an elective choice.
  
  or be prevented from bearing genetically-related children, simply because some people think the cure is "unnatural".
  By its very definition of how it's done is unnatural and the long term consequences to the gene pool unknown.
  So next time you got any kind of disease or any injury, DO NOT SEEK MEDICAL HELP, it is "unnatural".
  In fact, the effect of your continued existence the long term consequences to the gene pool is unknown, so please stop breathing altogether, it is also an elective choice.
46. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 13:07 · Score: 0
  
  If the doctors can demonstrate that this method is at least as safe as normal IVF (safe for the parents AND potential child) then have at it,...
  Mitochondrial disorders are different from infertility. Broadly speaking, a mother who is a carrier for a mitochondrial disorder will still be able to have children but there will be a high probability that some of her children will be very sick - dying in infancy or perhaps surviving to early adulthhod but with severe intellectual disability (unable to walk or talk).
  Now, it remains to be seen whether this particular technique will actually work. There's still a lot that's not known about mitochondrial genetics. For example, a typical cell contains hundreds of copies of the circular mitochondrial "chromosome" but it's clear that there's some sort of bottleneck where only a few specific copies of the mother's mitochondrial "chromosomes" are passed down to here children - which allows genetic drift to keep the mitochondrial "chromosome" pure. Without this mechanism the entire mitochondrial "chromosome" would become polluted with pathogenic mutations that built up slowly over time. But with this mechanism, a child either gets a lot of a particular mutation or none at all (and if the child gets a lot and the mutation is pathogenic then the child dies before reproducing).
  If this technique turns out not to work then there will be a few more sick kids in the world. But what is the alternative - compulsory testing and sterilization of all women who are carriers for mitochondrial disorders? Or do nothing and continue to have children born with these devestating disorders?
  Some times life gives you hard choices and all you can do is make the least bad choice.
47. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 13:19 · Score: 0
  
  Why do you care so much about this particular procedure and not about all the other "unnatural" things that exist in the everyday life of a human?
  Those are large, visible, and easy to understand. Molecular biology, not so much. People fear what they don't understand. Its the same as the hullabaloo over GM foods. The smaller you get, the closer to the uncanny valley you get between life and not life, the stranger things feel. That and no one makes movies about mad scientists making air conditioners that go crazy and kill everybody.
48. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by kwbauer · 2014-02-27 15:07 · Score: 1
  
  So we should only allow fertilization via copulation and anything else ist verboten?
  Personally, I consider it a very unnatural act to go around sticking little needles into people and injecting things into them for the sole purpose of giving their immune systems a head start against a few diseases. You do understand that those needles and what they contain aren't grown on trees or vines, right?
49. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by kwbauer · 2014-02-27 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  I'm certain the legalities can be sorted out in the same way that adoption (child generally has four possible parents there), sperm donation and egg donation are currently worked out.
50. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by kwbauer · 2014-02-27 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  Please post us the proof that you've been surgically sterilized so we can all relax, comfortable with the knowledge that you aren't going to be "bring[ing] more life into this world."
51. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 15:41 · Score: 0
  
  Deciding not to have a child because it may be afflicted by a genetically inherited condition, in my opinion, is a noble choice.
  I agree that it's good too minimize the number of children born with severe genetic disorders. But there are lots of things that can be done to minimize this number - in particular, scientific research (for example, to understand who's a carrier and who is not). So, speaking of being noble versus being selfish, would you care to enlighten us with the fraction of your yearly income that you personally donate to scientific research on genetic disorders?
  
  Take a look at places in the third world with rampant disease and famine. It's not because god hates them or they're unlucky, it's in part because they're producing more mouths than the land can feed.
  Many of the "they" who are suffering the most from famine and disease are children who did not choose to be born. And, when people are lifted out of poverty and have access to education and contraception they actually have less children. So, again speaking of being noble versus being selfish, I don't suppose you'd care to enlighten us with the sacrifices that you personally have made to provide people in developing countries with access to eduction and contraception?
52. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by asylumx · 2014-02-27 16:23 · Score: 1
  
  That and no one makes movies about mad scientists making air conditioners that go crazy and kill everybody.
  Actually I'm pretty sure I saw a really bad movie with a premise very similar to that when I was much younger...
53. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by IndustrialComplex · 2014-02-27 16:56 · Score: 1
  
  I find it shortsighted to believe that an experimental fertilization method that's never born a single child should be allowed without testing.
  I'm all about personal liberty, but safety needs to be a concern too. If the doctors can demonstrate that this method is at least as safe as normal IVF (safe for the parents AND potential child) then have at it, but until then, let's temper our excitement
  I'd also tread very carefully around what looks and sounds like a potential new form of eugenics.
  Until I had my first child, it was quite the experiment. Lots of room for error too. But I suppose it is better to leave things to chance, and hope on that first ultrasound that everything looks to be developing properly.
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
54. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 16:57 · Score: 0
  
  I can only assume you are referring to this scene.
55. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-28 01:42 · Score: 0
  
  These children would look as much like their parents as normal children (which isn't the case for most adopted children) would. If you don't understand what is being discussed you are wasting everybody's time by making an uninformed comment, please educate yourself on the topic before posting further.
56. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by asylumx · 2014-02-28 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  Hah no, but that's a damned good example!
57. Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? by Hognoxious · 2014-02-28 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  We should keep Monsanto well out of the way, because they'd sneak such a thing in if they could.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Child Support Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 08:46 · Score: 0

SO .. will the third parent be asked to pay child support by the court?
1. Re:Child Support Nightmare by ebrandsberg · 2014-02-27 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  DNA testing would see the parentage of the third doner without specialized testing. Mitochondrial DNS are ONLY passed to offspring by their mothers, and given the procedure, there will still be a "DNS" mother involved, insuring that a reasonable set of parents can still be determined using the normal procedures. Not a nightmare at all.
2. Re:Child Support Nightmare by Hognoxious · 2014-02-27 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  No, because the UK isn't Kansas.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
3. Re:Child Support Nightmare by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2014-02-27 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  SO .. will the third parent be asked to pay child support by the court?
  I suspect that a lawyer would advise against this; but I would be sorely tempted to point out that anyone who thinks that providing a lifetime supply of mitochondria that actually make it to the 'ATP' part of the job isn't 'child support' in a sense that makes anything after the invention of currency look like trivial stamp collecting, they are welcome to explore this hypothesis with the assistance of such obliging simulations of mitochondrial defects as cynanide, 2,4-dinitrophenol, or Flavotoxin A. Should they be available for comment afterward, I suspect they would prove... more agreeable.
  
  If anything, in this particular arrangment, it's that deadbeat jerkoff who managed to provide a whole sperm cell who should get out the checkbook(especially if kiddo is a girl, and not even exploiting the otherwise unavailable properties of having a Y chromosome...).
4. Re:Child Support Nightmare by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2014-02-27 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  DNA testing would see the parentage of the third doner without specialized testing. Mitochondrial DNS are ONLY passed to offspring by their mothers, and given the procedure, there will still be a "DNS" mother involved, insuring that a reasonable set of parents can still be determined using the normal procedures. Not a nightmare at all.
  One annoyance, for a select group, would be that such offspring would toast the assumptions behind mitochondrial inheritance modeling(since you always get the mitocondria from mommy, and the thing still has nearly as much independent genome as it did in its free-living days, mitochondrial DNA is a good trick for tracking maternity over historical time, similar to the use of Y chromosomes for historical paternity tracking.
  
  If some kid suddenly shows up with a random(but functional) stranger's mitochondrial DNA, rather than their mother's defective stuff, they and their descendants will give some future anthropologists a dose of Extra Challenge Mode.
5. Re:Child Support Nightmare by slew · 2014-02-27 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  No, because the UK isn't Kansas.
  No, but they have their own mess going on there in the CSA (child support agency)... Apparently earning its own level of bureaucratic hell...
Frosty by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 08:46 · Score: -1

SO you mean to tell me that researchers have found a way to pass genetic material into the uterus through the walls of the rectum? How is this done without double-penetration?
Only makes sense if it is 2 gays and a straight by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 09:00 · Score: -1

Because 2 straights and a gay makes no sense at all.
mod 03p by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 09:04 · Score: -1

pract4ical p0rposes
Frankinfoetus by noshellswill · 2014-02-27 09:07 · Score: -1

How's that genetic dice-roll doin' for ya? Gotchr 3rd eye yet .., the one that sees bash_script written in lemon-juice? Better make shur there's a LGBT gene pimped ... er pumped in there somehow or the nanciboiz gonna howl.
This is not the threesome... by dsmoses · 2014-02-27 09:09 · Score: 1

you were looking for!
I want Pizza by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 09:12 · Score: 0

Julius Benedict: You moved too soon.
Burt Klane: [confused] What?
Julius Benedict: The second rule in the crisis situation.
Morris Klane: Uh oh, he's starting that funny talk again.
Julius Benedict: If you choose to bluff, you must be prepared to have your bluff called.
Burt Klane: This is no bluff.
#
Laura Kinney: [to Doug#4 thinking he's her husband] Please, just tell me what it is that you want.
Doug Kinney #4: I want Pizza.
Evil by The+Cat · 2014-02-27 09:18 · Score: 0

Supremely selfish and cruel thing to do without even the remotest understanding of the potential consequences.
What if this leaves the child diseased or crippled with some kind of birth defect? Or that child's children?
Experimenting on human beings who have no say in the procedure in order to satisfy some ambitious ego is nothing more than an expression of pure evil.
(Yes I realize this is high blasphemy against the holy church of science and that it will be modded -1 "Heathen" I don't care. It needs to be said)
1. Re:Evil by compro01 · 2014-02-27 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  What if this leaves the child diseased or crippled with some kind of birth defect? Or that child's children?
  That's what this will prevent.
  This isn't "Hey, let's try this for no particular reason". This is a means of (at least hypothetically) preventing heritable mitocondrial disorders, such as Leigh syndrome.
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
2. Re:Evil by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 09:42 · Score: 0
  
  What if iPads also lead to "some kind of birth defects" ? You went full retard.
3. Re:Evil by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 09:44 · Score: 0
  
  So I take it you've had a full genetic screening, and your mate (if you have one) will undergo the same?
  You're then going to have a team of crack geneticists analyze the potential mishaps?
  Yeah, I thought not. You have no standing. Shut the hell up.
4. Re:Evil by The+Cat · 2014-02-27 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  The burden of proof is not on me to justify the safety of biological reproduction.
5. Re:Evil by Megane · 2014-02-27 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, you should be modded -1, Kneejerk. Seems to me this is not about "Heather has two mommies and a daddy", but specifically to avoid known expected birth defects due to bad mitochondrial DNA in the mother.
  Mitochondrial DNA is exclusively inherited from one parent, the mother in humans. Swap out the known bad stuff for some other woman's known good stuff, and Bab's your aunt.
  Mitochondrial DNA#Female_inheritance
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
6. Re:Evil by bluefoxlucid · 2014-02-27 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  Then you burn the defective thing.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
Sad day... by Iniamyen · 2014-02-27 09:20 · Score: 1

This new technology is an affront to our traditional three-parent conception model!
1. Re:Sad day... by bluefoxlucid · 2014-02-27 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  Your girlfriend's into that huh?
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
2. Re:Sad day... by Iniamyen · 2014-02-28 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  I wish!
genetic contributor - not parent by RichMan · 2014-02-27 09:22 · Score: 1

It really should be not a parent but a genetic information contributor. If it is parent they have an extra target for child support.
However if they do make it parent then I want my probiotic yogurt maker listed as my parent and years of support payments. I am linking the bacteria are a large part of our component body to this notion that a supplier of genetic materials becomes financially liable for care.
1. Re:genetic contributor - not parent by geekoid · 2014-02-27 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  since probiotic yogurt does nothing, then you want have much of a case. IT's all dead before it gets to your intestine.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
2. Re:genetic contributor - not parent by Jhon · 2014-02-28 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  "since probiotic yogurt does nothing, then you want have much of a case. IT's all dead before it gets to your intestine."
  Are you lying or just ignorant? Check out the research on the effects of probiotic yogurt on IBD. Just because the culture may not survive to the intestines does not mean it "does nothing".
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
  See? I can "stalk" you, too. The difference is that I done lie and spout off in ignorance.
Tor is building an anonymous instant messenger by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 09:28 · Score: -1

Tor is building an anonymous instant messenger
"Forget the $16 billion romance between Facebook and WhatsApp. There's a new messaging tool worth watching[1].
Tor[2], the team behind the world's leading online anonymity service, is developing a new anonymous instant messenger client, according to documents[3] produced at the Tor 2014 Winter Developers Meeting in Reykjavik, Iceland."
http://slashdot.org/submission...
[1] http://www.dailydot.com/techno...
[2] https://www.torproject.org/
[3] https://trac.torproject.org/pr...
Medicine Unnatural by Roger+W+Moore · 2014-02-27 09:47 · Score: 1

By its very definition of how it's done is unnatural and the long term consequences to the gene pool unknown.
By that definition so is just about every medical treatment or procedure ever devised. Any treatment that cures someone and lets them live long enough to reproduce affects the gene pool this include vaccines, antibiotics etc. Indeed you could argue that this problem is itself unnatural since many people with genetic diseases would not live long enough to reproduce in the natural world. So, unless you want to argue that we are better off without any medicine we are already tampering with the gene pool and an increase in genetic disease is likely one consequence. So surely the logical response is to use medicine to cure this problem by getting rid of the defective genes which medicine allowed into the gene pool in the first place?
excellent by geekoid · 2014-02-27 09:48 · Score: 1

a great opportunity for women like that.
Also a great step forward to removing genetic diseases from the gene pool.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
1. Re:excellent by slew · 2014-02-27 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  Also a great step forward to removing genetic diseases from the gene pool.
  For some definition of genetic disease... Definitions are very important in this area...
  Historically, anything people didn't agree with was categorized as a disease. For example, being gay was once considered a potential genetic mental disorder/disease. Not to be too flip about it, it once had a strong potential to handicap you in life relative to your peers which could potentially shorten your lifespan. I imagine not everyone has migrated away from this view.
  Also, evolutionary, there have been times when certain diseases apparently have been beneficial in certain environments. The classic example from secondary school is the sickle-cell anemia / malaria dichotomy. Given the controversy over monoculture, it's important to understand this in the context of disease resistance.
  Humanity has a pretty poor track record on this whole definition thing which is why treading lightly is a prudent thing to do.
  Of course mitochondrial disease elimination isn't a binary thing because of heteroplasmy in mutations and inheritance. This apparently isn't as rare as various forms of chimerism or mosaicism which are of course the DNA analogs...
  AFAIK, a ooplasmic transfer technique has already been href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1312708.stm">done (creating a mix of mitochondria or heteroplasmy). Other techniques allow using an entire donor egg which could eliminate nearly all of the population of the mother's mitochondria in the child. Since reality often doesn't conform to strict rules, I think there have been documented cases of paternal mitochondria from the sperm making into people (usually the egg kills paternal mitochondria off after fertilization, but life apparently sometimes finds a way around this).
  Given the possibility of egg-fusion, it isn't totally clear that a mistake could be made in IVF resulting in a mosaic/chimera baby with two independent lines of DNA (they already have been IVF babies that have a mix of father-mother, and mother dna in a mosaic/chimera). Such a baby would have 3 parents.
2. Re:excellent by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 14:00 · Score: 0
  
  Of course mitochondrial disease elimination isn't a binary thing because of heteroplasmy in mutations and inheritance.
  Yes, but there's also a poorly understood bottleneck in the transmission of the mother's mitochondrial "chromosomes" to her children: even though a typical cell contains hundreds of copies of the mitochondrial DNA, effectively only a few of these copies are inherited by each child. For example, I was recently recently looking at some next-generation mitochondrial sequencing data (2000X coverage) from an extended family, where certain members are suspected to have a mitochondrial disorder, and there was only one position, out of the 16 thousand positions (nucleotides) along mitochondrial "chromosome", that was definitely heteroplasmic. The family had about 60 differences from the reconstructed mitochondrial reference sequence (the ancestral mitochondrial "eve" sequence) but, except for that one heteroplasmic position, the differences were all at 100% (fixed) - 100% within each individual and all individuals had exactly the same 60 differences from the reference.
3. Re:excellent by slew · 2014-02-28 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but there's also a poorly understood bottleneck in the transmission of the mother's mitochondrial "chromosomes" to her children...
  I'm not a expert on this by any means, but a simplistic answer is that it suggests that only a few of mitochondria out of the 1000's that are in the egg are the ones replicating (rather than all of them uniformly). Perhaps it is related to the inhibition process described in this analysis. As I recall, the eggs come as part of the later differentiation cycle in the inner cell mass and those are the only ones that get passed to children.
  Of course that's just a guess. As I understand it, one question is if the "chromosomes" go through some sort of actual selection process before/during/after mtDNA replication prior to binary fission and what that mechanism might be, or if there is a selection process done after fission by some other unknown method.
There is no shortage of humans by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 10:36 · Score: 0

If only people with such conditions had the for-sight simply to remove themselves from the gene pool(Don't have kids).
We are 'eating' ourselves out of a clean environment. We speak all we want about being environmentally responsible and thats fine and dandy but the real problem is our numbers.
I dont' speak of food resources alone, but everything we take to build/live.
One step closer by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 10:42 · Score: 0

to creating Time Lords...
No big deal by wonkey_monkey · 2014-02-27 10:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

My DNA is already a mis-mash of genes from millions of ancestors. What would one more matter?

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
1. Re:No big deal by DigiShaman · 2014-02-27 15:05 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure the folks at Monsanto were thinking the exact same thing. Once we hit a "brick wall" with our food stuff, we're going to have to go back to original seed stock. Possibly from the doomsday vault. Can't really do that with mammalian life.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
2. Re:No big deal by coolsnowmen · 2014-03-03 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  Except for, if you think about it more than your knee can jerk, you'd realize that your argument is invalid here. Your biggest concern with the monsanto seed bank is it's mono-lineage and so we have less diversity. That is the opposite of a problem in the world with respect to the human gene pool.
free the mitochondria! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 11:08 · Score: 0

the thing still has nearly as much independent genome as it did in its free-living days
Is it right that the Eukaryote races have enslaved this hardworking powerhouse bacterial entity? What about the rights of each mitochondrion to free-living? Oh yeah, it's a bacterium. It doesn't have rights.
GATTACA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 11:14 · Score: 0

nt
Just like the visitors! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 12:40 · Score: 0

Speaking of which, does anyone else hate the new "alien nation" rip-off as much as me?
So much medicine and technology... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-27 16:06 · Score: 0

it seems like the human race is the first species to be subject to Darwin's Corollary for the Modern Age. we are so fit, we have degraded to Survival of the Least Adequate.
mitochondria from birds by Theovon · 2014-02-28 01:16 · Score: 1

I think there are some bird species with super efficient ATP generation due to superior mitochondria. I’d love to be able to replace all of mine with theirs.
One word.... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-28 03:40 · Score: 0

Twins :-)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...