nickie on 3/2/2015 at 13:58
British "(
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31069173) MPs will hold a crucial vote later to decide whether to allow the creation of babies using DNA from three people" in order to help families whose children are born with mitochondrial disease which causes brain damage, muscle wasting, blindness and heart failure.
It's opposed by the churches although not completely, and others who talk a lot about slippery slopes to designer babies. And not all scientists are in favour yet as they're not convinced of safety. Naturally, the families who are affected by the disease are all for it. There are about 150. I don't know anyone who is affected but I'm hoping for a yes vote which will mean a change in the law.
The 3-person tag is a bit misleading apparently. Dr Gillian Lockwood, a reproductive ethicist said
Quote:
"The biggest problem is that this has been described as three-parent IVF. In fact it is 2.001-parent IVF," she said.
"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."
The technical details are a bit beyond me but I understand the principle. I have no problem with the ethics and think that at the very least, it will save the NHS money in the long run.
Simple explanation of what's involved (
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/feb/02/three-parent-babies-explained) here.
demagogue on 3/2/2015 at 14:14
If they have an ethical problem with that small contribution from a 3rd person, nobody tell them how much of human DNA we inherited from our lizard or fishy or slug ancestors.
That said, there's always a potential for abuse. I read about it with the cloning debate. You want to make sure the best interests of the child are addressed (like the health risks. For cloning they aren't trivial. Don't know about this).
There's probably also legal issues of patrimony/matrimony they need to be clear about. Does the 3rd parent just sign off on losing all parental rights. Is that even legal, since parental rights are so fundamental? And where's the line where parent rights kick in? Etc.
nickie on 3/2/2015 at 14:32
From the Guardian report:
Quote:
Women who donate their mitochondria would remain anonymous and have no rights over the child. They are not involved in the child's upbringing. On a genetic level, all of the 20,000 genes on the child's 23 pairs of chromosomes come from the child's mother and father. The donor only contributes DNA that sit in the mitochondria, less than 0.2% of the total.
I don't see how parental rights would be an issue. People donate eggs and sperm all the time without having parental rights (I think) and although it involves egg donation, everything other than the mitochondria is destroyed which is why the Catholic Church objects. The Church of England wants to see "more scientific research and debate on the ethics, safety and efficacy before the law is changed".
And for a change, the naysayers are quite sensible in their objections even if I don't agree. All except the doom merchants.
I think there's potential for abuse in anything really but there is still a ban on altering nuclear DNA.
Edit. And the vote is yes, 382 to 128.
faetal on 3/2/2015 at 18:16
DEVILRY! Almost as terrible as when they invented transfusion. 2 PERSON BLOOD IS NOT NATURAL!
octavian on 3/2/2015 at 18:51
I hope it's cheap so everybody who needs it can afford it. It should be covered by health insurance.
nicked on 3/2/2015 at 19:28
Quote Posted by nickie
slippery slopes to designer babies.
Is that a
bad thing per se? I mean, I've seen Gattaca, but that's as far as my knowledge extends. Apart from naysaying religion, are there proper reasons this shouldn't be a legitimate research goal?
It got me thinking, because I was talking about this three-person baby thing to a friend of mine who is a lesbian, and she said it would be great if her and her partner could have a baby that they were both parents of.
nickie on 3/2/2015 at 20:29
I have no facts so this is just personal rumination. I don't know exactly what I think about so-called designer babies. And I haven't any knowledge about what people really mean by that so I'm probably talking through my hat. If it's something like choosing hair/eye colour, I don't have problems with it, religious of otherwise. If people stopped thinking that tall people were somehow better, I'd add height to the list.
I think my main concern would be that it would ultimately divide people more than they are already if babies could be designed for greater strength, intelligence or looks. If something like that did happen, it wouldn't be for medical reasons but for personal preference and here at least, it would probably cost and therefore only really be available to the rich. And they already have an advantage in terms of being able to afford the best food, warm homes, clothes, schools etc. But if it was free for all for any reason at all then that objection disappears. As a taxpayer though, I'm not sure that I'd think that was a good use of my money when I think there are more important things to spend it on.
Is it so different from sperm banks. A quick google of one place says "To be a sperm donor you should be aged between 18 and 40 years old and free of serious medical disability and without a family history of inherited disorder(s)." That's sensible but it's being selective. A recipient, depending on the country, can select a donor from a profile. Selective.
I also don't see it as very different from screening for Down's Syndrome and choosing to have a termination. It's still being selective.
I'm a little uneasy about it all but I don't know why. I need knowledge to clarify my muddled thoughts.
Quote Posted by octavian
I hope it's cheap so everybody who needs it can afford it. It should be covered by health insurance.
I imagine it would be free in the UK. If it was treated like IVF, then you get 3 tries free on the NHS if you qualify under certain criteria, i.e. you're under 40 and haven't got pregnant or you've had 12 tries at artificial insemination and that hasn't worked. I'm sure this would be more expensive but if they've any sense, it would be weighed against the cost of caring for people with the condition and probably be much cheaper in the long run. But it's all guesswork on my part.
It is being suggested that the first baby might appear next year.
Kolya on 7/2/2015 at 18:05
I just would like to call dibs on Sigourney Weaver as my third mate. Still have to talk this through with the wife, but I figure that's just a formality in the light of these events.
Yakoob on 7/2/2015 at 21:44
While the idea of eventual designer babies makies me bit uncomfortable (especislly since it will inevitably create another rich vs. poor dimensions that will serve to broaden the divide) i also feel they are inevitable given how technology is progressing. Hence im all for it; we might as well go on and get it over with. When in history has suppression of science wver worked in the long run? Even the dark ages ended after some point.
DDL on 9/2/2015 at 17:58
The things that annoy me is are the "it's a slippery slope" argument, and the "three parent" argument.
Firstly, if we're going by DNA, it's 2.001 parents. If you and your partner bought a house and I chipped in 25 quid, I am not now "owner of a third of your house".
MitoDNA is tiiiny, and very mission critical: we know exactly what each gene in the mtDNA genome does, and what they do is not "hair colour, height, athleticism" or any of that stuff: what they do is "allow cells to remain alive". Electron transfer components, ATP synthase bits, and ribosomes & tRNAs to make those first two.
Secondly, it's not a slippery slope. It's a giant wall.
We are doing mitoDNA transfer because it's a wholly beneficial technique which we can actually do, because mitochondria are tiny little subcellular sausages that carry their own tiny little loops of DNA. Swapping them out is only possible because of this.
Actually editing nuclear DNA in a user-targeted fashion is something we're only JUST beginning to be capable of to any great extent of success (see: crispr, talens), and even then it's a relatively crude technique with a crazy-high failure rate (and thus generally requires insertion of a marker gene just to confirm editing has actually occurred).
In other words, this does not set any kind of precedent that is likely to be of any relevance any time soon. I wish it was, because nuclear genome editing could help so many sick children.
But hey. It passed, so woo. Faith in the UK parliament very slightly restored a little bit.
