Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Baby With DNA From Three People Born In Greece (theguardian.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the there's-a-first-for-everything dept.

A baby with DNA from three people has been born in Greece following a controversial fertility treatment. "The doctors behind the treatment, from Greece and Spain, say it marks a historic advance -- it is the first time an in vitro fertilization (IVF) technique involving DNA from three people has been used with the aim of addressing fertility problems," reports The Guardian. From the report: The experimental IVF treatment, known as mitochondrial donation, involves using an egg from the mother, sperm from the father and another egg from a female donor. The vast majority of a person's genes -- about 99.8% -- are found on the 23 pairs of chromosomes that sit inside the nucleus in each cell in the body, and in the IVF procedure this DNA comes from the two parents. However, a tiny proportion of genetic material also resides in a cell's mitochondria, small structures that act as the cell's batteries and float around freely in the cell body. In mitochondrial donation, the mother's mitochondria are removed from her egg and replaced by a donor's.

The treatment was originally developed as a treatment that could prevent women with debilitating or even fatal mitochondrial diseases from passing them on to their children. The doctors behind the latest treatment claim that mitochondria also play a role in successful pregnancy and suggest that the technique could be applied more broadly as a fertility treatment. The 32-year old woman in the latest case had previously undergone four unsuccessful rounds of IVF.

86 comments

  1. Human population is increase by OrangeTide · · Score: 0

    There is no general fertility problem with human beings at this time.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:Human population is increase by SurenEnfiajyan · · Score: 2

      Yeah, overpopulation is a real problem, it creates more problems than solving. But we are getting closer and closer to creating humans with improved genome. More and more new babies will have enhanced intelligence, immunity to many diseases, long live, etc. Such thing already done in China.

    2. Re:Human population is increase by Calydor · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well they NEED to genetically engineer a working class that can survive a 996 workweek.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    3. Re:Human population is increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I think only people who never leave huge metropolitan areas believe in some general overpopulation. Visit Wyoming some time, or Patagonia.

    4. Re:Human population is increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is no general fertility problem with human beings at this time.

      There is in Europe

    5. Re:Human population is increase by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      The main problem is waiting until you're 40 before deciding to make babies.

      --
      No sig today...
    6. Re:Human population is increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that a lot of work just to produce more cannon fodder?

    7. Re: Human population is increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No problem. The immigrants have no fertility problem. I can't wait for them to take over, blow up all their monuments, burn their museums and wipe their asses with their books. Euro culture will be utterly and irrevocably destroyed and we can all have a big laugh.

    8. Re:Human population is increase by geekmux · · Score: 1

      There is no general fertility problem with human beings at this time.

      You're right, but unless you want to deal with a planet full of autistic humans in 20 years, we better start doing what we can to improve the next generation instead of breaking it.

      In less than 15 years, we've gone from 1 in 150 to 1 in 50 with regards to Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). And sadly, the rate of kids being medicated (to include the infamous ADD/ADHD) is likely much higher simply due to greed, which also damages our kids (read your warning labels).

      And yeah, I know we've gotten better at detecting autism. And cancer, Alzheimers, and a host of other diseases crippling our citizens . The bullshit "detection" excuse isn't helping, and it's certainly not an excuse to dismiss the rate at which these conditions are consuming our population.

      And if you're still in disbelief as to how bad it's gotten, go ask 10 parents with children. See how many have kids that have been diagnosed with ASD or are being medicated for ADD/ADHD.

    9. Re:Human population is increase by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Well they NEED to genetically engineer a working class that can survive a 996 workweek.

      Uh, no. We need to genetically engineer out the immoral and unethical mentality that believes that shit is viable or sustainable for any human.

      Logic dictates that as the population grows, so will the demand for people to work. You can only have so much demand before you're going to be forced to share that 996 with three other people.

    10. Re: Human population is increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not working 60h/week, at least, is unamerican and socialist.

    11. Re:Human population is increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think only people who never leave huge metropolitan areas believe in some general overpopulation. Visit Wyoming some time, or Patagonia.

      You heard it here first kids. China/India/New York/LA, you don't have an overpopulation problem. You just need to learn to spread out. Apparently you suck at it.

    12. Re:Human population is increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, stop reproducing.

    13. Re:Human population is increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can't genetically engineer certain aspects of mentality that are a byproduct of creativity without erasing creativity and the underlying system which makes it possible. That's a one-way ticket to stopping advancement in any field of thought.
      For creativity to exist you are just going to have to accept the negative and other relative byproducts of the underlying system and the concept itself, as just like anything in nature everything comes with both benefits and cost, and fucking with either only makes the costs worse without you even noticing it due to hubris and self-righteous shortsightedness.

      In addition, we are a long long long way from having population problems on this planet. What we have are urban planning problems and distribution problems.
      Rather than trying to stop Humans from reproducing which will grant you a civil war which you would deserve honestly speaking and which you can only achieve by becoming a genocider yourself, focus on setting a urban circumference limit for cities/hives, establishing a vertical planning rule which goes both upwards and downwards. 320 million people can fit shoulder-by-shoulder onto one horizontal plane of 5.7km. If we add a vertical to that then you can see that the Earth's crust and digging in can pretty much free up over 99% of the entire planet for wilderness to take it over without erasing Humans, or let's say Humans living in the urban area for one part of a year and then being sent to agrarian zones outside to revitalize their Vitamin D and other requirements in shifts, establishing a tiny part of the planet as the Urban zone and the vast majority of it as an Agrarian zone. Plenty of methods are available and technology makes it more and more possible and sustainable each day. In addition to that is of course the space aspect too.

    14. Re:Human population is increase by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      What? If you genetically engineer out immoral and unethical mentality, how do you plan to fill the C-Levels of corporations?

      Won't somebody please think of the corporations!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:Human population is increase by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The problem is that Europe introduced American economic conditions without first replacing the European mentality of a need for financial security with the "what could go wrong" happy-go-lucky mentality of the Americans.

      We only reproduce when we can afford it, ya know...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    16. Re: Human population is increase by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I bet you would have held your marshmellows into the fire of the library of Alexandria...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    17. Re:Human population is increase by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry, but improved detection isn't just an excuse. It's the reason. I'm reasonably old and remember my childhood, and back then I went to school with quite a few kids that would be diagnosed with certain mental conditions today, from ADHD to autism. Not the case back then. ADHD was "cured" by smacking the kids 'til they would sit still and autism was just shyness and being weird.

      Maybe you're not old enough to actually know that yes, these kids existed back then, too. The difference is just that nobody gave a fuck.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re: Human population is increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >_ Euro culture will be utterly and irrevocably destroyed and we can all have a big laugh.

      Euro culture came from the Arabs, you know... at least regarding knowledge, you know... original "Euro" culture would make you write things like MMXIX today.

      That the Arabs are different now from the Arabs of yore:

      -- Thank the $Deity you revere otherwise you'd be speaking Arabic like the Spanish did once and
      -- Why it happened (and also to the Greek) and how to avoid it.

    19. Re:Human population is increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are assuming that detection has improved. It has increased, yes, but I'm not convinced it has improved.
      I personally know several people who are not autistic who have been diagnosed as such by my peers. In at least two cases, the psychologist ‘granted’ the diagnosis to help their patients apply for government programs to help them find a job. In a third case, the psychologist in question is a close friend of mine. Although he's a decent person, very caring and very willing to spend effort for other people, a genuinely good guy, he did go through university getting nothing but sixes and the occasional low seven.

    20. Re:Human population is increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      9 hours/day, 9 days/week, 6 weeks/month. Got it.

    21. Re:Human population is increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      9 a.m. to 9 p.m.; 6 days a week.

      996 is an obtuse way of saying 72 hour week.

    22. Re: Human population is increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are delusional. With the average resource consumption level of modern humans, the sustainable human population on the planet is between 1 and 3 milliard. We have overpopulation problems right now, and greed is not at all necessary for creativity of any kind.

    23. Re: Human population is increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The solution is easy - chemically castrate anyone with the condition so they don't pass down faulty genes

    24. Re: Human population is increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It just means parents are not smacking their children enough. I grew up in Eastern Europe, we had these kids back then. A cane and a belt will set them straight for quite a few days, if not months. They are productive members of society who do not need medication and are not calling the whaambulance every 3 minutes

    25. Re:Human population is increase by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

      Tell that to Japan. Russia. Even Germany.

    26. Re: Human population is increase by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

      Well, the new crop of people in USA have not problems blowing (tearing down) monuments, "cleansing" museums. Banning words and thoughts that are not "correct". Why shouldn't we expect the same in Europe?

    27. Re:Human population is increase by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but improved detection isn't just an excuse. It's the reason. I'm reasonably old and remember my childhood, and back then I went to school with quite a few kids that would be diagnosed with certain mental conditions today, from ADHD to autism. Not the case back then. ADHD was "cured" by smacking the kids 'til they would sit still and autism was just shyness and being weird.

      Maybe you're not old enough to actually know that yes, these kids existed back then, too. The difference is just that nobody gave a fuck.

      The only thing higher detection did was maximize revenue streams. The only "cure" capitalism will ever legalize is perpetual prescriptions for however long your body can endure them.

      That is what I mean by detection not helping matters. It's not reducing the rate of autism or even remotely attempting to find a cure. Who gives a shit if we can eventually detect autism at birth? Detection is only half of the problem here, and it might in fact be making things worse by becoming a more efficient money maker. Oh, did I say 1 in 50? Yeah, it's now 1 in 10. Line up for your lifetime supply of pills, kids. Let's cheer on another round of bonuses for Big Pharma execs!

      With shareholders demanding infinite growth these days no matter how nonsensical that is, why would you ever assume that revenue stream wouldn't be abused? It can, and it will.

    28. Re:Human population is increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, stop reproducing.

      Uh, the younger American generation already has. They're having way less sex, and kids are simply financially impossible.

      The problem is convincing the rest of the planet. That 996 bullshit isn't going on in Kansas.

    29. Re: Human population is increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donâ(TM)t worry, immigrants will come in and make babies by the litter starting at 16.

    30. Re: Human population is increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am quite the opposite of delusional, i cared enough to actually inform myself on the topics, do calculations, and investigate various solutions with an open mind as opposed to engaging in short-sighted generalized absurdism like you do.
      You do not know the tiniest bit about what creativity even is from a neurological standpoint, but i know just enough of the bare basics from actually researching it to understand what a stupid notion it is you postulate.
      You do not know the tiniest bit about how resource consumption works and how it is broken up, but i know for instance that dismantling cities and concentrating those populations into a vertical megacity/hive not only frees up land for greenery and wilderness to overtake which is a positive influence on the planet, but also eliminates the need for much of the highway/road systems by moving the populations closer together and thereby massively reduces fuel/resources consumption stress on civil transport alone, making it an easier logistical picture to deal with resource extraction/refinement facilities and agrarian zone transport.
      The difference between a deluded and an effective person is that the later does research and is aware of various methods, while the deluded person like you merely throws out intangible generalized statements that don't mean fart without a single tangible solution that wouldn't require removing the Humanity from Humans by fucking with their genetics or calling for civil war where you are the evil side of it.

    31. Re: Human population is increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in my case my wife strongly suggested I had Asperger's. When I ended up in a psychiatrist's office due to anxiety/depression issues I didn't mention Asperger's at all. 5 minutes in she told me I have ASD. Apparently it's rather obvious.

      Not all of us labelled with it seek such diagnosis. The psychiatrist even said since I'm successful at life (good job, 40 years old, always been employed, happily married with kids) she wouldn't note it in my files but it will help me understand myself better to know.

      I'm rather glad it isn't official because, frankly, I have enough issues to deal with.

    32. Re:Human population is increase by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      We have them. They are called "robots".

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    33. Re:Human population is increase by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Care to inform me what medication would help with Asperger's? Wouldn't it be more profitable for pharma corporations if doctors came to other conclusions?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    34. Re:Human population is increase by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      That's a social problem, not an infertility problem.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    35. Re:Human population is increase by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Care to inform me what medication would help with Asperger's?

      There are no FDA-approved ones, but that certainly doesn't stop doctors from prescribing meds (SSRIs), particularly for related symptoms such as depression or anxiety.

      Wouldn't it be more profitable for pharma corporations if doctors came to other conclusions?

      And take a risk that their $1000/pill brand name drug might be eclipsed by a $5 generic solution?

      There's a reason drug pimps are highly paid to push specific solutions to those writing prescriptions.

  2. And this dear children... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And this dear children is why you should not do drugs and have intercourse with a bunch of random people while all grease-up.

    1. Re:And this dear children... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's one of those jokes that end in "Oh dear kid, just be happy that you don't bark".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. Nothing beats Nature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I say keep it that way.

    Natural selection must run it's course.

    1. Re:Nothing beats Nature by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Wait till the day that you are there with your wife and can't have kids without help.

    2. Re:Nothing beats Nature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Natural selection is dead and obsolete.

      95% of us should be dead, according to natural selection...

      Natural selection also says that the weak should be abused by the strong... as nature has no need for intelligence or art or creativity in general. Basically your natural selection, that your such an advocate for, sucks balls!

    3. Re:Nothing beats Nature by SurenEnfiajyan · · Score: 1

      I think we'll start to improve our genome before this happens. It's still possible to keep our genome healthy without cruel natural selection.

    4. Re:Nothing beats Nature by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Sorry I meant that as "AC, wait till you can't have kids and see how you feel about using IVF then. Easy to say 'natural selection' when you have no skin in the game."

      For both my kids we needed help, and the 2nd one was 2 cycles of IVF and 8 embryo transfers. I wouldn't wish that experience on my worst enemy.

    5. Re: Nothing beats Nature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who have more money than brains are breeding like rabbits. That's why we have so many morons who believe duh gubmint's Al-Qaeda conspiracy theories.

      There's no global terror organization conspiring in caves to blow up skyscrapers. 9/11 was obviously a controlled demolition. AE911Truth Org

    6. Re:Nothing beats Nature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing beats the vanishingly rare opportunity afforded to man to tell Nature to go fuck itself.

    7. Re:Nothing beats Nature by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Over here in the civilized world, we replaced natural selection with civilization.

      In return, we got Stephen Hawking. I'd say we win.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Nothing beats Nature by Yosho · · Score: 1

      Natural selection as an evolutionary pressure applies to a species, not individuals.

      This is natural selection at work. We, as a species, are capable of procreating and keeping our progeny alive where other creatures would die. That's why we've taken over the planet.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    9. Re:Nothing beats Nature by ejasons · · Score: 1

      For both my kids we needed help, and the 2nd one was 2 cycles of IVF and 8 embryo transfers. I wouldn't wish that experience on my worst enemy.

      There is absolutely no shortage of people on this earth, and so no reason to go through such measures to add another. Even worse that you seem to feel heroic for having done so...

  4. Then the 3rd donor is hit with child support... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As that is the way this system works...

  5. Baby With DNA From Three People Born In Greece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Baby With DNA From Three People Born In Greece
    In Greece, Baby With DNA From Three People Born In Greece
    Baby With DNA From Three People Born In Greece, Where It Was Born

    So, BeauHD, when are you going to share what this is really all about, hm?

  6. why some couples do not have children by lkcl · · Score: 2

    sadly, there are reasons why some couples cannot have children: i know of a couple that had infertility treatment, and the result was that their child was born severely handicapped.

    i suspect that nature has some form of "checksum" that detects if there is damage to the DNA. in speaking with an expert from the Cambridge Genome Project over ten years ago, what they described to me was that human DNA expresses something very close to a Turing Machine, *including* a byte-code-like "machine language".

    when i showed this same person the beautiful pictures of 3D mandelbrot sets that were discovered several years ago and published here on slashdot, he responded, "but those are exactly like the pictures i see under my microscope, every day!"

    so it is not outside the realm of possibility that DNA expresses a fully-functioning biological computer, complete with checksum capability. this is why messing with that - trying to bypass the safeguards - through any kind of genetic manipulation - is so incredibly dangerous.

    1. Re:why some couples do not have children by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Can't they adopt one?

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:why some couples do not have children by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Issues with the child are rarely the reason why couples can't have children. Many people, both those with reproductive issues and those without, will have children that miscarry or are born with problems irrespective of how the female becomes pregnant.

      It is usually to do with the reproductive system of one of the parents. eg not enough active sperm in the male, hormone resistance in the female, polycycstic ovaries, etc.

      For us my wife's body was resistant to estrogen. This meant she effectively didn't have a cycle and didn't produce eggs which were mature enough to be fertilized. She needed large doses of follicle stimulating hormone for the first 14 days of her cycle follower by a massive does of HCG and then an operation to harvest the eggs.

      Outside of this though she was perfectly able to carry a baby to term. So after the harvest cycle she had lower doses of FSH to get the lining of her uterus ready and then had an embryo transplanted.

      We now have two happy healthy girls.

    3. Re:why some couples do not have children by thomst · · Score: 1

      Joce640k inquired:

      Can't they adopt one?

      People who have never actually looked into the reality of the adoption process ask that question as if by reflex.

      In the USA, the average time it takes to actually adopt a child is seven years from the time you first submit your application. And the cost to adopt varies widely, depending, in part, on which state the prospective parents reside in, and whether the child they adopt is a resident of that state, a different state, or another country.

      Greece actually passed a sweeping adoption reform law last year that has considerably reduced both the cost and the legal complexity of adoption of Greek children by Greek citizens, so it's now easier and less expensive there than it is in the USA. But there are still many people who insist on their own, biological children for a whole range of reasons, including cultural tradtions, religious custom, and personal, psychological issues.

      My point is that, while it's an easy question to ask, it's a lot harder and more complex to answer it than most people even begin to imagine ...

      --
      Check out my novel.
    4. Re:why some couples do not have children by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"sadly, there are reasons why some couples cannot have children: i know of a couple that had infertility treatment, and the result was that their child was born severely handicapped."

      Bingo. It is primitive and sad that people will go to such ridiculous lengths to have a baby that simply must have their own or even SOME of their own genetics when adoption and surrogacy are available. Even more bizarre when tons of unwanted babies are born (or aborted) every day. It is even irresponsible when the parent(s) have known and dangerous genetic issues.

      The drive to have children is perfectly normal, and being a parent is a wonderful thing. But contributing one's own genetics into the equation is about 0.00000001% of being a parent. It is far more important to society to have good parents than it is to ensure every person can pass on their own DNA.

    5. Re:why some couples do not have children by raind · · Score: 1

      Right on, not everyone should be a parent or can be. If you want to so much then adopt.
      Further I need a license to do just about anything like fishinig. Why is it allowed any idiot is able reproduce, I'm talking about people who aren't mentally or fiscally able to sustain a child without public assistance. Note I'm thinking in the USA not other countries.

      --
      Get up!
    6. Re: why some couples do not have children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suppose DNA implements procedure "checksum". Therefore, DNA implements procedure "checksum". QED
       

    7. Re:why some couples do not have children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I took about 2 years in Slovakia about 12 years ago. No significant financial expenses. No idea how it is today.

    8. Re:why some couples do not have children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disclaimer: I am a Bioinformatician. I am working daily with terabytes genomic, trancriptomic, proteomic andepigenomic data.

      Let's first, almost everything is wrong in your post:
      - No, this is not even close to a turing machine;
      - No, there are no checksum (even is there some redundancy and there are some repairing mechanisms);
      - No, anecdotes are never a valid evidence ("i know of a couple", " in speaking with an expert from the Cambridge Genome Project over ten years ago", ...);
      - No, DNA does not express "a fully-functioning biological computer", it is not about computation;
      - No, we are not bypassing the safeguards, the modification that are done could have be done naturally over millions of year with the right sequence of environmental pressure and natural selection. We are just doing that faster, and with far less collateral damage.

      Your "expert" probably described to what you learn in the first quarter of a first course in molecular biology. If it was so simple, we would already deciphered the whole thing long time ago. In fact, this "computer" is doing a lot of mistakes all the time, many going uncorrected: this is a feature. Without those mistakes/mutations, there is no possible evolution and our survival as a specie will be challenged.

      The short story explained during first course is, the central dogma of biology: DNA is transcribed into RNA and RNA is later translated into proteins and not the other way around. But it is very far from the whole story:
      - There is the other way around (keyword: reverse transcriptase);
      - Some RNA are not translated into proteins but are still functional (keyword: ncRNA);
      - DNA is not sufficient to characterize a human (keyword: epigenome);
      - DNA is modified all the time by mutation or other mechanisms (keyword: MGEs);
      - DNA, RNA, Proteins interacts all the time and they regulate themselves mutually in a very complex systems (keyword: pathways);
      - The transcription DNA -> RNA is making a lot of mistakes;
      - The RNA are modified post-trancription (keyword: alternative splicing);
      - The proteins are modified post-translation;
      - The ribosomes (the machinery translating the RNA into proteins) are making mistakes;
      - Virus alters our genome all the time;
      - There is some redundancy (2 DNA strands, a.a. coded by multiple codon sequences), some mechanisms to correct DNA;
      - Women miscarriage far more often than believed without being aware of that, this is the main selective process, no checksum, it is all about one step in the development having failed. Simply. Brutal. Selection. Nature. Sometimes, it leads to handicap/sickness because the embryo is still viable. For example, The loss of three nucleotides in the DNA causes cystic fibrosis but do not prevent the development of the embryos.
      - ...

      Computer are simple, faultless (they execute the code without error), deterministic, for every common usage do not self-modify their code and do not evolve.

    9. Re: why some couples do not have children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We now have two happy healthy girls

      Who will both most likely have the same problems with reproduction their mother had, and will most likely pass those traits to future generations if aided by science.
      The fear with fertility treatments is that we as a species could end up in a situation where we can no longer reproduce naturally, since the genetic conditions causing infertility are no longer being removed from the gene pool.

    10. Re: why some couples do not have children by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Actually that is highly unlikely.

      The cause of their mothers problem is not genetically inheritable and is the result of bad luck.

    11. Re: why some couples do not have children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think computers are faultless I have a bridge in Arizona to sell to you

    12. Re:why some couples do not have children by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

      Have you tried? Abortion (regardless of if you think it's good/bad) has dramatically reduced the available babies for adoption. It's even difficult/expensive to go overseas. Personal experience, with info from lots of others so this is not just anecdotal.

    13. Re:why some couples do not have children by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

      yeah, right, "just adopt". Ain't that easy. As for licensing--are you crazy? Isn't that against the argument the pro-aborts use to say it's constitutional?

    14. Re:why some couples do not have children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disclaimer: I am a Bioinformatician. I am working daily with terabytes genomic, trancriptomic, proteomic andepigenomic data.

      Let's first, almost everything is wrong in your post:
      > No, there are no checksum (even is there some redundancy and there are some repairing mechanisms)
      I don't think the poster meant a literal checksum.

      > No, anecdotes are never a valid evidence
      They can indeed - e.g. as valid counterexamples.

      > No, DNA does not express "a fully-functioning biological computer", it is not about computation;
      You do not know really what it expresses except that it can build a variety of biological machinery more complex than anything we can construct using mechanisms we do not completely understand.

      > No, we are not bypassing the safeguards, the modification that are done could have be done naturally over millions of year with the right sequence of environmental pressure and natural selection.
      Except that they weren't, we are potentially doing it in a way so as to introduce large monocultures or vehicles to generate bacterial crossover and so forth.

      > Your "expert" ...
      Now you delve into random epistomology.

      > Computer are simple, faultless (they execute the code without error),
      Not correct; you're making the same fallacy as you accuse others, assuming simplicity for things you do not know about.

    15. Re: why some couples do not have children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Takes years and you have to be vetted as a perfect parent by children's aid.

      Also adoption has its own mixed bag to deal with. You will always be known as the parents who adopted even if you keep it secret, and most adoptive parents get pissed off when their child seeks out a connection with the birth mother, even though psychologists have discovered NOT having such a connection during teenage years causes mental issues.

      Not to mention there is mounting evidence that adopted kids experience more mental issues by default due to incompatible psychology with the adoptive parents.

      It's an imperfect solution in many ways.

    16. Re:why some couples do not have children by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      Not everyone who wants a child wants to raise someone else's.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    17. Re:why some couples do not have children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I don't think the poster meant a literal checksum.

      Then what does it means? There is nothing even close to checksum. When something goes wrong, most the time, cell dysfunction leads to apoptosis or senescence. Their is no nothing even similar in concept to crc, hash or anything like that. There is some redundancy (2 DNA strands, genes copies, multiple codons for proteins, ...), some polymers are degraded easier if they lack some fragments but none qualifies as checksum.

      >They can indeed - e.g. as valid counterexamples.

      https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evidence
      The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

      Counterexamples are counterexamples, not evidences.

      >You do not know really what it expresses except that it can build a variety of biological machinery

      Yes, we do know with a quite good accuracy what it expresses. RNA is the expression of DNA. RNASeq experiments are all about that. The translation into proteins is also quite well known. The interactions between all the diversity of RNA, proteins, ... are the difficulty. ~23000 genes, after splicing hundreds thousands of transcripts, lots of proteins and lots of post-translationnal modification, interactions between all that. This is the difficult part.

      >Except that they weren't, we are potentially doing it in a way so as to introduce large monocultures or vehicles to generate bacterial crossover and so forth.

      Thus, there are still no safeguard bypassing. Do not change the subject.

      >Now you delve into random epistomology.

      The quotes mean a citation, the term used by the OP. Nothing else.

      >Not correct; you're making the same fallacy as you accuse others, assuming simplicity for things you do not know about.

      I forgot to say that I was computer scientist before being Bioinformatician. And I know, all things being relative, that computer are simple, fautless (they execute the code without error), when compared to the living organisms.

    18. Re:why some couples do not have children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Then what does it means? There is nothing even close to checksum. When something goes wrong, most the time, cell dysfunction leads to apoptosis or senescence.
      Senescense is a good fit - checksums are largely used for rejection filtering.

      > https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evidence
      > The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
      Which includes counterexamples.

      > The interactions between all the diversity of RNA, proteins, ... are the difficulty.
      So you don't really know the total expression.

      > Thus, there are still no safeguard bypassing.
      Yes there are, we are not dealing with isolated and independent events, buit things that are pushed into the real world.

      > And I know, all things being relative, that computer are simple, fautless (they execute the code without error), when compared to the living organisms.
      Absolutely, but inside that relativity lurks a number of potentially new areas. Not all aspects of computing are determinstic, we go to great lengths in some cases to rid ourselves of determinism (PRNG) and I work with machines that have analogue instruments attached.

    19. Re:why some couples do not have children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sadly, there are reasons why some couples cannot have children: i know of a couple that had infertility treatment, and the result was that their child was born severely handicapped.

      i suspect that nature has some form of "checksum" that detects if there is damage to the DNA..

      Lots of kids are born severely handicapped completely naturally. If there is a checksum the algorithm sucks.

  7. Fucking gangbanging scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no shortage of humans. Please watch Idiocracy.

    1. Re: Fucking gangbanging scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smart people do not watch shit flicks that you shit people think (if that's what a demented retard's mental processes may be called). Go flush yourself down the toilet.

  8. Amazing! by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

    Finally, a real-live chimera!

    1. Re:Amazing! by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      No, a chimera is when you end up with different genetic material between groups of cells. In this case, each cell will inherit the same set of DNA.

    2. Re:Amazing! by thomst · · Score: 1

      Krishnoid enthused:

      Finally, a real-live chimera!

      Multiple human chimeras have been identified in the past, going back to 1953 ...

      --
      Check out my novel.
  9. I wish they could get appendicitis right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    before they start playing with DNA.
    Modern medicine still can't get appendicitis right. Doctors look at unreliable scans to make life or death decisions...

    https://psnet.ahrq.gov/webmm/c...
    https://journalofethics.ama-as...
    https://westjem.com/case-repor...

    and my favorite

    http://skepticalscalpel.blogsp...

    Great job, guys. You can't even figure out a 19th century disease and now you want to play with the mechanics of life itself?

  10. Two mistakes by demon+driver · · Score: 1

    We have no "general problem" with rare diseases, either. Still we try to find cures. Go figure.

    And then there is also no general problem with overpopulation. In developed countries we sometimes even find a demographic decline, coincidentally Greece is one of them, and the problems the world population growth poses can hardly counteracted by denying individuals reproduction in regions which don't even contribute to it.

  11. I don't see what's controversial about it by BlueCoder · · Score: 1

    It's easier to use new RNA but I wonder why they just couldn't fix the mRNA of the mother.

    If this becomes a commonplace fertility treatment in the future this will screw up mRNA ancestry tracing.

  12. Why is this controversial? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is something like this considered a "Controversial fertility treatment" , because a 3rd person is involved? I don't understand how something that assists a couple that wants to have a child through the use of assistance from another person could be considered a controversy. It is effectively no different then a female whose eggs don't allow them to conceive properly so they use donor eggs but carry the baby to term themselves, and that is not considered a controversy. Am i just missing something here?

  13. Calling it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a Troika Baby!

  14. Humanity @ its "best"!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hijacking natural laws to get what we want forcefully!!!

  15. What's the problem? by reboot246 · · Score: 2

    A healthy baby was born and he has people who love him. I don't really see a problem here. It's nice when technology does good things instead of bad.

  16. I Know Of Two Couples by kackle · · Score: 1

    I only know of two couples who had trouble getting pregnant, who then went through IVF in their early 30s. Each couple got pregnant with twins. One woman had a stillbirth after nine months; the other baby was born normally, but now has learning difficulties. The other couple had a normal child, but her twin brother has a learning disorder too. I've been curious about that process ever since.

  17. Those greeks ... by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    With all their debt, they still have the best orgies.

  18. Good. by Pezbian · · Score: 1

    I had a friend die from MELAS over a decade back. It was not a clean death, either. She faded away slowly and then suddenly. That shit was tough to watch and there was nothing that could have been done to stop it.

    --
    In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
  19. SO basically baby has 2 moms!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if someone calls him a Mofo he can Honestly say..... Just half