Slashdot Mirror


World's First Baby Born With New '3 Parent' Technique (newscientist.com)

A five-month-old baby boy has been revealed as the first kid in the world with three biological parents, reports New Scientist. The baby boy was apparently conceived by a technique that has been legally approved in the UK, and lets parents with genetic disorders have healthy babies. Though, the method used in this particular cases was slightly different from one legalized in the UK. From the report: Zhang (a doctor) took a different approach, called spindle nuclear transfer. He removed the nucleus from one of the mother's eggs and inserted it into a donor egg that had had its own nucleus removed. The resulting egg -- with nuclear DNA from the mother and mitochondrial DNA from a donor -- was then fertilised with the father's sperm. Zhang's team used this approach to create five embryos, only one of which developed normally. This embryo was implanted in the mother and the child was born nine months later. "It's exciting news," says Bert Smeets at Maastricht University in the Netherlands. The team will describe the findings at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine's Scientific Congress in Salt Lake City in October.

28 of 203 comments (clear)

  1. Call me strange but... by JustNiz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >> "It's exciting news," says Bert Smeets

    I REALLY don't get how making more humans (even wierd hybrids) is meant to be somehow self-evidently always a good thing.

    1. Re:Call me strange but... by Empiric · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Particularly when it leads to definitional collapse leaving people with (or making them realize they always had) the question of what specifically justifies for them and their particular DNA pattern the specially-treated category of "human".

      I suggest the differentiator of a "soul".

      Your mileage, and your logically-unavoidable results, may vary.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    2. Re:Call me strange but... by JustNiz · · Score: 2

      > I suggest the differentiator of a "soul".

      Which is what exactly? I mean there is no proof that it even exists, let alone a good definition of exactly what it is.

    3. Re:Call me strange but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Only two groups of people think about their mitochondria DNA.
      1) scientists studying mitochondria
      2) people with malfunctioning mitochondria

      There is no failure of definition here, the DNA that defines human form and function is entirely the merge of a half set from the father and a half set from the mother. Just as through a natural conception. In theory, it should be possible to extract mitochondria from the father and implant those into an egg cell to maintain even more familial connection, but such a process would be more difficult as clearing out the faulty mitochondria would involve more and smaller targets than replacing a nucleus.

    4. Re:Call me strange but... by Empiric · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And that, as a matter of historical fact, came from philosophy.

      Odd that your implicit assertion would be that it came suddenly from nowhere.

      But if we're going to play dictionary games, here's Merriam-Webster:

      noun sci-ence
      Popularity: Top 1% of lookups
      Simple Definition of science
      : knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
      : a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science
      : a subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc.

      Does this scope specifically and only to the specific form-hypothesis-test-repeat steps (choose your alternate permutation of steps of which you claim there in only one standard) referred to as scientific method? No.

      But then, no need for that. Such scoping is irrational and would immediately destroy science, if strong but untestable inference from established tested knowns is excluded.

      Or, you can throw away, for one, most of Quantum Physics, particularly the core Interpretations, i.e. Copenhagen, Everett, etc., etc.

      This physics is not science? Do you want more examples?

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    5. Re:Call me strange but... by Empiric · · Score: 2

      Can you define what "consciousness" is?

      Not with any more precision than I can "soul", but neither of us doubts it exists.

      Notably, that it doesn't exist is one of the required "stances" , which end up being rather overtly indefensible, as an alternative way to rationalize the dilemma posed by the Mind-Body Problem.

      If you want to delve into the question deeper here, googling "Mind-Body Problem" or "Cartesian Dualism" will provide you with all the background information on historical vetting of this issue you could want.

      For a summary, I'd recommend:

      http://www.owl232.net/mind.htm

      Written by, incidentally, if you suspect me of bias, a current professor of philosophy and stated atheist (see top level URL).

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    6. Re:Call me strange but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well TBH the summary omits the most major point of the thing. Which is the REASON WHY!
      Here, dear readers, is the reason why they did it:

      - The mom had been pregnant with about five other kids before. They all died early, before three years of age.
      - She has a condition that all her past babies are guaranteed to be born with, and remember they will all die early.
      - So that gene was removed from her eggs and replaced with a stable gene from another.
      - She gives birth to a disease free child.

      That's why it's "good news" to her and the doctors. Any exaggerative thoughts about super-babies, etc is just worrysome fodder.

      TL;DR? read the article.

    7. Re:Call me strange but... by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, there are no such studies. There are studies confirming that a drop in oxygen levels to the brain, often concurrent with someone about to die, will lead to some pretty wild hallucinations, but what you wrote is just pure bullshit. There is nothing to indicate in any research that the mind is anything more than the sum of actions of several different parts of the brain.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:Call me strange but... by Empiric · · Score: 2

      Ah, no, you are muddling the issues here.

      First of all, there is no hypothesis is science that has a "provable result". There is current correspondence between empirical information and a given scientific model, which is -permanently- provisional and open to new data.

      Luminiferous Ether was, per all testing of the model at the time, "proven". The Steady State model of the universe was, by per all testing of the model of the time, "proven".

      And both were false.

      As for what a hypothesis "can lead to", if presently it is not testable, that it will or won't be is an exercise of you injecting your psychic powers regarding the future into science. Better to adjust your stance to what science actually is--that a strong inference from tested knowns is science, even in the absence of a known or proposable test, e.g., the QM Interpretations.

      You don't really understand the words you are using here trying to address what philosophy actually is, since "metaphysics" is a core branch of of philosophy, along with epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and politics. It does not mean "stuff they show on Ghost Hunter". Metaphysics is the domain that studies "what fundamentally exists", and even if your stance is "only material scientifically-detectable things exist", you still have a metaphysics, and that is your stance on it. That aside, philosophy is -extremely- rigorous. Logic, for one, defines rules for evaluation of premises that are far more rigorous that statements we can make in science, due to the fact theories are provisional. A fallacious argument is fallacious, period, fully demonstrated right then and there and refuted forever. Science does not have, and never can have, that level of definitive certainty.

      Most important application of this rigor is exactly what has, again, been specifically what happened historically--defining at the core what science is, and is not. Fortunately, that rigor has held and so we have means of properly defining and scoping science, which, again, you don't, and haven't, as demonstrated precisely what you're claiming. You have nothing more than a circular definition of "science"--your (inaccurate) notion of science is backed by... you repeating your demonstrated-false definition of science.

      Science can thank philosophy for keeping science-damaging people like you from repeatedly harming people's understanding of it. Yes, I know, your whole reason for excluding untestable QM science as "science" is because Dawkins convinced you that science is whatever you need to say it is, to politically exclude anything relating to religion.

      Fix your understanding anyway.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    9. Re:Call me strange but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In some developed countries, in any given year, there may be no children awaiting adoption at all.

      I live in one of those countries. Here, it's quite okay to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, or it's quite okay to be a single parent, so babies are rarely (if ever) abandoned or put up for adoption. It's pretty rare for both parents to die leaving orphans, too, and in those very rare cases, the child's grandparents are usually able to adopt the child immediately.

      This leaves thousands of childless couples just as unable to adopt as they are unable to conceive children naturally. And no, they can't legally adopt children from other countries, without moving to those countries first.

      Got any other clever 19th-century solutions for 21st-century problems?

  2. It takes a village by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

    It takes a village...

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:It takes a village by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      In Debbie's case, all of Dallas.

  3. Re:Or they could have just adopted by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hardly fair to call the baby malicious names even if you disapprove of this medical technique. If you must; bash the doctor and the parents, but the baby is innocent in this.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  4. Re:Or they could have just adopted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    He called it a monster because he's terrified of it. He's afraid of a baby.

  5. Re:What selfish bastards by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is more demand for adopting babies than babies available. It can be a challenge.

    Now older kids... they get the short end of the stick, very few people want to adopt an older child; part of that is that they often come with emotional and mental challenges due to being orphans and passed around without a real home for much of their childhood... and not getting adopted adds to that.

    If someone wants a baby, it may be easier to get medical help than adopt. You could say they should adopt one of the older children available for adoption instead... and that would be nice but some parent's aren't willing to adopt a troubled older child rather than start with a clean slate who they can mould into their own child.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  6. Congratulations by rlp · · Score: 4, Funny

    Congratulations, Ms Singh, your newborn child has been engineered to be superior in every way. And yes, 'Khan' is an excellent name.

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
  7. Re:What selfish bastards by dgatwood · · Score: 3

    There's millions of kids in this world who need adopting. How about they try that instead of passing on their hereditary disorders and polluting the gene pool even further.

    I think you kind of missed the point, which is that this lets them pass on most of their genes without passing on their hereditary disorder....

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  8. Re:What selfish bastards by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There is more demand for adopting babies than babies available.

    Indeed. My wife and I looked into adoption, and we were told it would be a long arduous and expensive process, and in the end we would probably be rejected because of my age (50+). So we got a dog instead.

  9. Re:Or they could have just adopted by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

    Hardly fair to call the baby malicious names even if you disapprove of this medical technique.

    The same thing happened back in 1978, when Louise Brown was born. Today everyone accepts IVF as routine. This time will be the same: The first baby is on the front page, the 2nd baby is mentioned on page 6, and the 3rd baby is ignored.

  10. Re:What selfish bastards by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just increase immigration to compensate and better outcomes for all.

    RTFA. This procedure is illegal in the USA, so the parents went to Mexico. This baby IS an immigrant.

  11. Not meaningfully different from in-vitro by Junta · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, a lot of work went in, but ultimately, all of the *significant* genetic material came from two parents. Passing on your mitochondrial DNA doesn't do anything to really shape your offspring (unless your mitochondrial DNA is just *really* messed up). Now if the donor egg somehow had defective Mitocondrial DNA, ok, this is at least somewhat useful.

    But pretending this offspring has three equally biological parents is disingenuous.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  12. Re:Why are we doing this? by omnichad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Stop being selfish (needing your "damaged" genes to propagate)

    The damaged mitochondrial DNA was replaced completely - and will propagate the replaced DNA as well.

    There are plenty of children that need to be adopted.

    A baby is a child, but a child is not a baby.

    Raise one of them, and accept they won't be propagating your genes but they will be propagating your values.

    Depending on the age of the child, there's no guarantee you can change/undo what's already been done.

  13. Re:What selfish bastards by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just increase immigration to compensate and better outcomes for all.

    Maybe, or it could me a worse outcome for all. I won't talk about race, race has been more or less scientifically proven to be a not a real thing. While there may be some clustering toward the lower and upper bounds of the normal range for various characteristics in some populations its not big enough to be relevant.

    Culture on the other hand is. Europe has had a huge problem with 'multiculturalism' you can't allow just any immigrants to show up and form ghettos. Its curcial to recognize and value ones one culture and probably ones national identity. I am all for legal immigration but the people who come here (speaking as an American) so do so because they want to be Americans, not ${former nationality}-Americans, no ${former continent}-Americans, or ${ethnic-population}-Americans but just plain simple Americans. I am all for freedom of religion and am okay with whatever they want to do inside their homes, or at their meeting place on ${Weekday} or if they don't want to ${food item} etc. In general though they need to join the rest of secular society, see the same movies, talk about the same sports, eat most of the same foods, date people no from their orign group, etc. Its simply wrong to place equal value on other cultures. Western civilization is superior its brought like to a dark world that other cultures frankly have not made lasting contributions to in terms of thought and ideas since before the fall of Rome.

    'We' as individuals are not better than 'them' but 'we' as a culture certainly are. If 'they' want to immigrate grate as long as their desire is to be like us. If its to come here or to Western Europe just to live in Little-${whatver} but collect a bigger public assistance check than is available back home, no we should not want them and we should not let them come. Recently cultural appropriation has been branded a bad thing. Its not its great thing, imitation is the highest form of flattery! Cultural appropriation is in fact the correct and proper way to value other cultures. You recognize what is best about them and perhaps better than our traditional way and adopt it! That is the melting pot model, we take the best ideas from everywhere and made them our own! Everyone should be welcome who wants to add and integrate. Unfortunately this idea that we have to allow them to instead replace, in the name of respect has taken hold.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  14. Too much office work by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    Now all the usual forms and databases are going to have to be reworked. And they may not stop at 3 parents, so design it for many parents.

    Next the baby will be able to be its own parent, creating recursion. You go to print out a family tree, and get a Stack Overflow error.

  15. "First"? This was done in the 1990s. by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 5, Informative

    Okay, this may be the world's first baby, but there are apparently 30-50 teenagers with three parents.

    The girl with three biological parents

    The technique was pioneered in the late 1990s, but then the US FDA said "please cut it out", and as far as we know everyone did.

    So, yes, the future looks bright for this new baby, given that several dozen other beneficiaries of this technique seem to be doing quite well in their teenage years...

  16. Re:What selfish bastards by DRJlaw · · Score: 2, Informative

    RTFA. This procedure is illegal in the USA, so the parents went to Mexico. This baby IS an immigrant.

    1. The article says that this is a Jordanian couple who sought treatment from U.S. doctors, and that the U.S. doctors chose to perform their work in Mexico.

    2. The article doesn't suggest that anyone was an immigrant anywhere (def'n: "a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.). People appear to have temporarily traveled to do stuff, then returned to their respective homes. So, the baby is an immigrant to where? The parents' home country? Because?

    3. Finally, there's this little thing called citizenship by birth, which the not terribly reliable but readable-by-non-arabic-speaking-me source suggests is automatic for this child. Your own country, by definition, is not a foreign country, which means that you cannot be an immigrant to it. Similarly, for a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent in wedlock, odds are pretty good that they're already a U.S. citizen, falling on the "Nationality" side of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

  17. Re:What selfish bastards by unixisc · · Score: 2

    There is more demand for adopting babies than babies available. It can be a challenge.

    Now older kids... they get the short end of the stick, very few people want to adopt an older child; part of that is that they often come with emotional and mental challenges due to being orphans and passed around without a real home for much of their childhood... and not getting adopted adds to that.

    If someone wants a baby, it may be easier to get medical help than adopt. You could say they should adopt one of the older children available for adoption instead... and that would be nice but some parent's aren't willing to adopt a troubled older child rather than start with a clean slate who they can mould into their own child.

    That depends on where you are talking about. While there may be a shortage of babies in the West, there ain't such a shortage in Asia i.e. China, India, et al. So GP makes a valid point. In this story, the parents in question are Jordanian. There is no shortage of Syrian orphans in Jordan that they could have picked from. But then again, adoption is a practice that was ended by Mohammed in Islam, so that's probably out the window.

  18. Why do you hate America and its values? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    RE: In general though they need to join the rest of secular society, see the same movies, talk about the same sports, eat most of the same foods, date people no from their orign group,

    Why do you hate America and its values?

    Should we deport all the Amish? Orthodox and Hasidim Jews? Moral majority-style Christians? Mormons? Devout Muslims?

    I agree some cultures are better than others, but you have American culture quite wrong.

    The things we should share in common are respect for the law, right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, understanding of inalienable rights, and so on. Take some civics classes or something.

    The sports and movies and (presumably) TV trash you are talking about is absolutely unnecessary to partake to be a good American. Shame on you, and learn to love what this country is actually about.

    ironic captcha; idealism