Slashdot Mirror
Ethics Panel Endorses Mitochondrial Therapy, But Says Start With Male Embryos (sciencemag.org)
sciencehabit writes: An experimental assisted reproduction technique that could allow some families to avoid having children with certain types of heritable disease should be allowed to go forward in the United States, provided it proceeds slowly and cautiously. That is the conclusion of a report released today from a panel organized by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS), which assesses the ethics questions surrounding the controversial technique called mitochondrial DNA replacement therapy. More controversially, however, the panel recommended that only altered male embryos should be used to attempt a pregnancy, to limit the possible risks to future generations. (Males can't pass along the mitochondrial DNA that is altered in the procedure.)
Gender is a social construct ;)
Well it is; at least all that pink-is-for-girls, blue-is-for-boys rubbish is. People who are biologically male can wear high heels and enjoy chick flicks, but they can't pass on mitochondrial DNA, which is the relevant point here.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I see you haven't looked into mitochondrial disease at all.
I knew a couple that just lost their child to it. The baby took 9 months to die, losing all bodily functions and slowly withering away, unable to obtain energy for the cells from food. A colleague of my wife lost their baby in two months to a comparable but slightly different genetic failmode, which caused the skin to fall off her body. She died in horrible agony without eyes, nose and cheeks, and black, rotting skin all over.
There are pretty compelling reasons to want to do something about this, and it's really no coincidence that the mitochondrial diseases are first in line for an attempt at a cure.
Even then, sickle cell trait may have genetic strengths against malaria, but it's a stopgap measure at best and we have much better treatments nowadays - if you can afford to get a genetic cure, you can certainly afford profylaxis and medication against malaria. This goes for many other "genetic strengths" that are mostly crippling disabilities, as well. So to me, your statement is merely a variation on the rather worn out theme that "man should not meddle with Nature".
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
Genetic modification in humans is not necessarily safe. Human's are complex organisms and we just don't fully understand all the gene interactions. It is one thing to choose to modify your own genes but it is another to want to modify someone else's when there are still so many unknowns. It is why most of the time it is limited to curing disease rather than something like changing eye color or height.