Slashdot Mirror
British MPs Approve 3-Parent Babies
An anonymous reader writes: A vote of 382-128 in the UK's House of Commons gave approval for a procedure that allows the creation of babies using DNA from three parents. If the measure passes the House of Lords and gets licensed by the fertility regulator, the UK would be the first country to allow such genetic engineering. The medical procedure was designed to help conception when genetic diseases could be passed through mitochondrial DNA. A child inherits mitochondria only from its mother, and these mitochondria have their own DNA, which doesn't affect things like the child's appearance.
The purpose of the procedure is to replace the mother's mitochondria, and that can happen in two different ways. In one method, doctors take eggs from the mother and from a donor, removing the nucleus of both. The mother's nucleus is then implanted in the donor's egg, which can then be fertilized by the father's sperm. The other method is similar, but both eggs are fertilized before the nucleus swap takes place.
There has been lively debate about this issue, with critics raising ethical concerns and questioning the procedure's success rate. They also bring up the slippery slope argument that this will lead to further genetic modification of children. Proponents point out that less than 0.1% of the child's DNA will come from the donor, and it won't affect anything other than the child's health.
The purpose of the procedure is to replace the mother's mitochondria, and that can happen in two different ways. In one method, doctors take eggs from the mother and from a donor, removing the nucleus of both. The mother's nucleus is then implanted in the donor's egg, which can then be fertilized by the father's sperm. The other method is similar, but both eggs are fertilized before the nucleus swap takes place.
There has been lively debate about this issue, with critics raising ethical concerns and questioning the procedure's success rate. They also bring up the slippery slope argument that this will lead to further genetic modification of children. Proponents point out that less than 0.1% of the child's DNA will come from the donor, and it won't affect anything other than the child's health.
This is, I think, more about the social situation then it is about the % of DNA.
People can become a parent even if they have 0% similar DNA. It never has been an issue, so now would it suddenly become one.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Since this story has been around for a couple of days I would have hoped slashdot would know better and have avoided the sensationalist headline. Here's what the experts say.
The biggest problem is that this has been described as three-parent IVF. In fact it is 2.001-parent IVF," Gillian Lockwood, a reproductive ethicist, told the BBC. "Less than a tenth of one per cent of the genome is actually going to be affected. It is not part of what makes us genetically who we are. It doesn't affect height, eye colour, intelligence, musicality. It simply allows the batteries to work properly."
child custody in a divorce? i don't know. might even be some BAD health things.
Do you think the donors of kidneys or stem cells should also have custody rights over their recipients? If not, why should the donors of mitochondria be treated any differently?
This sig consists of eleven words, twenty syllables, and sixty-one letters.
I've got a better, more practical line that successfully trolls both Republicans AND Democrats in one fell swoop. When you're in a chat room, any chat room, (especially chat rooms like trade chat in World of Warcraft) just say this simple line:
"I think abortion is ok so long as it's only for minorities."
Virtually anywhere with some variant on a 'legal apparatus you'd expect from a developing or developed nation' will have some equivalent of 'Markedly novel medical procedures and drugs need some sort of approval before use' rules in place. The difficulty of getting approval, and level of enforcement, vary sharply.
You can typically get creative with techniques and drugs that are already approved for some other purpose; but bringing a procedure or drug into the fold in the first place typically requires either that it be grandfathered in through age, or go through some sort of approval.
I may be wrong here but I think it was the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. If I've read it right it essentially bans labwork with embryos without a license for a very specific task, and to date they wouldn't have granted a license for this kind of procedure.
Watching this 'debate', I've been unsurprised; but depressed, at the quality of 'argument' trotted out. The one that particularly annoys me is the "We can't allow it unless we know that it's totally safe and effective! What about possible side effects?!!".
Guess what, kids, there have been precious few medically relevant developments, ever, that came without some human risk. This doesn't imply endorsement of the Josef Mengele protocol for experimental ethics, it's just a fact that we've (so far, I'm all for somebody who can improve this) been unable to avoid, and even the most by-the-book-and-informed-consent contemporary clinical trials are subject to it to some degree. We can't exactly know if it's actually fully safe and effective in humans by use of animal models and pure reason.
Perhaps more importantly, this is a technique to treat disorders that cause grievous impairment and/or early, unpleasant, death. It has long been a commonplace of medical ethics(and simple commonsense decision making) that you don't want a cure worse than the disease; but that nasty diseases can have cures that you would welcome compared to that disease; but would be horrified by in the context of a less serious one(eg. basically all cancer treatment and most surgery). You calibrate your sense of risk based on what the alternatives are, not based on Ideal Perfect Risk Free. In the case of mitochondrial defects, the alternatives suck.
Finally, if you don't wish to allow treatment of mitochondrial defects(effective treatment, that is, there are various, mostly symptom-easing, treatments of not terribly impressive efficacy for the symptoms of mitochondrial disorders; but only swapping out mitochondria, or advanced and aggressive genetic engineering, show much hope for a cure); what do you propose? Do mitochondrially defective would-be-mothers get to roll the dice and hope for a less-sick baby? Do we start charging them with negligent homicide if they keep spawning horribly doomed offspring even after enough failures to know that trying again is dangerously likely to condemn their child to an ugly and swift death?
If you are concerned about 'germline' genetic engineering, this somewhat-uncomfortably-retro 'eugenic' proposal is the other viable option to preventing mitochondrial disease; but I'm guessing that it won't be too popular.
(All that said, I hope that the treatment does work as well as its backers hope, and doesn't turn out to suffer from the drawbacks its critics fear, and if it does turn out to be too dangerous/imperfectly effective, I think that it should go back to the drawing board; but these phantoms of 'need to know for sure that it works' and 'must be proven safe' seem like disgustingly transparent rhetorical devices, not serious ethical arguments.)
Why would they need a new species classification, much less a genus? Your mitochondrial DNA differs from that of everyone else except your siblings by the same mother, and somehow you share a species label with the rest of us. The products of this technique will still have human nuclear DNA and human mDNA, just without Mom contributing half of the nuclear DNA and all of the mDNA, but instead only the nuclear DNA.
Future historians attempting to use mitochondria to trace female ancestry genetically will curse this development(just as the ones attempting to use Y chromosomes to genetically trace male ancestry would curse a hypothetical 'Y swap' corrective procedure for X-linked genetic disease); but it's hard to see an argument for why the product of this technique would be considered anything other than human.
I'm not sure how the issue got the very Daily Mail headline of "3 person babies". By that same logic anyone with a donor organ is a "monster franken-hybrid of two people!".
Essentially it's a transplant (astonishingly) early in that baby's life. Kind of impressive that we could pull it off, actually. Far better that we do something medically that will terminate that line of mitochondria from being passed on to make more people miserable.
That said, the 'poster mom' for this condition Sharon Bernardi has lost SEVEN children to this condition. (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19648992) "...Each of her first three children died within hours of birth and no-one knew why....At the same time, her mother revealed that she'd had three stillbirths before Sharon had been born. Further investigations by doctors revealed that members of Sharon's extended family had lost another eight children between them."
Her 4th child survived until he was 21, living a life of dysfunction and pain;
"..."In the last year of his life Edward was in chronic pain. He had dystonic spasms caused by things going wrong in his brain. His muscles would go into spasm for up to six hours at a time. Drugs could not help him."
"...Sharon and Neil kept on trying for a healthy baby but without luck. Although three more children were born, none lived beyond the age of two. Each time one of their children died, they told themselves that "the death was a one-off". After their last child had a heart attack and died in 2000 they stopped trying...."
I'm sorry, but what the hell? How colossally selfish does someone have to be to just keep pumping out babies that die? There are at least hundreds of thousands of adoptable children *desperate* for parents to love them, your womb is so fucking sacred that you're willing to (essentially) just keep killing babies until you get one that's "of you"?
That's not the most sympathetic figure they could have picked to represent why this was needed.
-Styopa
That's going to end badly. I barely escaped with my life(and several of my most valued colleagues were permanently ontologically disabled or lost all their qualia); when The Incident occurred at the Liebnitz Institute for High Energy Metaphysics. I've seen ugly accidents in physics research, and industrial radiochemistry messes; but nothing nearly as horrific as a monad spallation cascasde exhibiting an unpredicted excursion beyond safe values. I'll never forget the screams.
"critics raising ethical concerns" no seriously, beside religious catholic concern about offing an embryo to save another, what real ethical concern is there *at all* ?
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
And the law is so written to stop guys having sex, creating babies then denying any responsibility. Hence the requirement that the donation be under the supervision of a doctor.
I'm not sure what the concern here is, unless the suggestion is that three people will come together in a back room without a doctor, privately switch out the mitochondrial DNA in the woman's egg and then fertilize the egg.
DNA is usually not a consideration in custody decisions.
I disagree. Possession of a second X chromosome tends to be a big advantage.