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

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."

Comments

How DARE you propose NOT to allow this?

[jeffb (2.718)]

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".

Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this?

[Hognoxious]

You'd have a point if mitochondrial DNA did all that shit. Thing is, mitochondrial DNA doesn't so any of that shit.

Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this?

[offrdbandit]

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?

Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this?

[twotacocombo]

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.

Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this?

[Microlith]

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.

Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this?

[gIobaljustin]

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.

Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this?

[geekoid]

"until you find out 400 years later that the new gene has a self destruct sequence."
MORBO: "THAT IS NOT HOW GENES WORK!"

Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this?

[Anubis IV]

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.

Re:Stranger than fiction

[JazzHarper]

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.

Re:Stranger than fiction

[datavirtue]

and this whole time I was wishing I had parents

Re:well...

[bluefoxlucid]

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.

Re:Stranger than fiction

[PolygamousRanchKid]

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.

Re:Stranger than fiction

[wonkey_monkey]

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.

Re:Stranger than fiction

[wonkey_monkey]

For god's sake WHY?

Because most people don't feel the way you do about family.

No big deal

[wonkey_monkey]

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