• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

UK becomes first country to allow three-person embyros.

  • Thread starter Deleted member 231381
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/feb/03/mps-vote-favour-three-person-embryo-law

MPs have voted in favour of making Britain the first country in the world to permit IVF babies to be created using biological material from three different people to help prevent serious genetic diseases.

In a historic debate, the House of Commons voted by 382 to 128 – a majority of 254 – to allow mitochondrial donation through a controversial amendment to the 2008 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. They approved the regulation in spite of some critics warning it was a step towards creating “three-parent” designer babies. The regulations will now have to be approved in the House of Lords, where they are likely to be passed. MPs were allowed a free vote on the issue of conscience but both the Conservative and Labour front benches made it clear they believed it was an important scientific step forwards that did not amount to genetic modification.

Jane Ellison, the Conservative public health minister, told MPs the techniques provided in the regulations offered the only hope for some women who carried the disease to have “healthy, genetically-related children” who would not suffer from the “devastating and often fatal consequences” of mitochondrial disease. She said mitochondrial DNA made up 0.054% of a person’s overall DNA and none of the nuclear DNA that determined personal characteristics and traits. Critics of the motion had been given hope of defeating it after the Church of England and the Catholic Church in England and Wales said it was not yet clear that the technique was safe or ethical.

Opposition was led by Conservative MP Fiona Bruce, who said parliament needed more time to debate the issues. “I believe the regulations before us today fail on both counts, ethics and safety, and they are inextricably interlinked,” she said. “One of these procedures we are asked to approve today, pronuclear transfer, involves the deliberate creation and destruction of at least two human embryos, and probably in practice many more, in order to create a third embryo which it is hoped will be free from human mitochondrial disease. “Are we happy to sacrifice two early human lives to make a third?”

Several other MPs objected to the shortness of the 90-minute period for debate, saying a subject of such ethical controversy should be given more time for consideration. However, the minister said mitochondrial donation had been subject to extensive scrutiny for years and it was now time for MPs to vote. Andrew Miller, the Labour chairman of the science and technology committee, urged his colleagues to back the “overwhelming interest” of those families who have suffered from mitochondrial disease. “I put it to this house that the benefits to those – about 2,500 families – affected by mitochondrial disease up and down this nation, they deserve the support of this house because of the potential benefits,” he said. “Yes, of course, we’ve got to assess the risks as we do with all risks but they’ve got to be done in a rational and balanced way.”

Mitochondrial diseases are caused by genetic faults in the DNA of tiny structures that provide power for the body’s cells. The DNA is held separately to the 20,000 genes that influence a person’s identity, such as their looks and personality. Because mothers alone pass mitochondria on to children, the diseases are only passed down the maternal line. Around 40 scientists from 14 countries have urged the British legislature to approve laws allowing mitochondrial DNA transfer.

The “three parent” IVF therapy, which could help to eliminate certain incurable genetic diseases, involves swapping a fraction of a mother’s DNA with that from an anonymous female donor. Around 100 children each year are affected by genetic defects in the mitochondria and in around 10 cases the defects cause severe illnesses such as liver failure, muscle wasting, blindness and brain damage. The mitochondria sit outside the nucleus of cells and contain tiny quantities of DNA. Mitochondrial genes provide the cells’ energy, rather than conferring inherited traits such as appearance, intelligence or personality, and are sometimes referred to as cellular “batteries”. The mitochondria are passed down the maternal line, meaning that any mutations are guaranteed to be passed on to the next generation.

However, scientists will now legally be able to prevent this happening by taking two eggs, one from the mother and another from a donor. The nucleus of the donor egg is removed, leaving the rest of the egg contents, including the mitochondria, and this is replaced with the nucleus from the mother’s egg. This can be carried out either before or after the egg is fertilised with sperm.

Technically the baby would have three biological parents, with 99.8% of genetic material coming from the mother and father and 0.2% coming from the mitochondrial donor.
Dr Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, said: “Families who know what it is like to care for a child with a devastating disease are best placed to decide whether mitochondrial donation is the right option for them. We welcome this vote to give them that choice, and we hope that the House of Lords reaches a similar conclusion so that this procedure can be licensed under the UK’s internationally-admired regulatory system.”

Prof Alison Murdoch, head of Newcastle Fertility Centre at Life, which has pioneered the IVF technique, said: “This is good news for progressive medicine. In a challenging moral field, it has taken scientific advances into the clinic to meet a great clinical need and Britain has showed the world how it should be done.”

alternate sources:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...-in-Britain-as-MPs-say-yes-to-law-change.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...trongly-in-favour-of-law-change-10021265.html

Huge step forward, United Kingdom paving the way in mitochondrial donations. I hope other countries follow. A rare political decision that just makes me really happy.
 

Jackpot

Banned
Good.

It was funny to see the BBC front page on it with the links "Why scientists say this is a good thing" and "Why the Church opposes it".
 

Zaph

Member
AYho7hZ.jpg
 
Was reading about this earlier, fantastic news that it passed and it is indeed a huge step forward in helping with genetic disorders.

Although part of me wonders just how it will be until some arse decides to try and abuse this law and demand child support payments from the mitochondrial donor.
 

Dany

Banned
What about homosexual men who want children? Can the men cross their Y's with a surrogates X's.
 

Guileless

Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
If I had the choice I would totally take out "nature" from the equation and pick the best parts of my wife and I for our child. Wouldn't even think about it.

The 1% will probably have the choice to get a blond haired, blue eyed, high IQ baby in our lifetimes. That will do wonders for inequality.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
The 1% will probably have the choice to get a blond haired, blue eyed, high IQ baby in our lifetimes. That will do wonders for inequality.

I think the blond and blue-eyed part is relatively unlikely. I think one of the things that parents hope to see most in their children is a little of themselves. At worst or best depending on how you see it as that the 1% pick only the best traits already present in themselves for their children. Still, that's a long, long way from what this does.
 

Nivash

Member
Just the mitochondrial DNA? Yeah, that doesn't count. There's nothing separating "Natural" IVF Baby© with two parents from Chimera IVF Baby© with the same parents and a third mitochondrial donor. They would be closer than identical twins. Well, except for the whole part about Chimera Baby not suffering from a debilitating disease.
 
The 1% will probably have the choice to get a blond haired, blue eyed, high IQ baby in our lifetimes. That will do wonders for inequality.

This is assuming the option is only made to the uber rich. I guess that's a possibility. I'm hoping we've risen up to combat inequality by the time tech reaches this point.

I think it's our endgame honestly. We'll reach a natural capacity to reason/logic and use our brains. We'll have to force evolution along genetically or through mechanical means (cyborg).

I don't see Europe letting something like this become a super rich only thing. Socialized medicine and all that.
 

Zaph

Member
The 1% will probably have the choice to get a blond haired, blue eyed, high IQ baby in our lifetimes. That will do wonders for inequality.

I remember watching this old crappy scifi TV movie where they did something similar and represented genetic 'quality' by a crystal implanted in everyone's chest. Top quality Blues were only interested in other Blues etc.

If we went down a similar (but hopefully less dystopian) path, I wonder what it would do to our concepts of beauty. Aren't our cultural barometers heavily influenced by rarity? If all guys are tall with square jaws, would shortness eventually become a desired feature?
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
Why is this necessary? Why can't they screen potential embryos for the genetic issues and only implant non-affected ones?
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Why is this necessary? Why can't they screen potential embryos for the genetic issues and only implant non-affected ones?

Mitochondrial diseases aren't like other genetic diseases, they're really hard not to inherit in some form. Rather than checking if they're there or not, because they will be, the screening process becomes more one of finding an embryo which has an acceptably low number of mitochondrial flaws that any defects are manageable or non-expressed. Having to do that, and do it every generation, is a lot more difficult and costly than having a procedure you know will work, and means that the kid won't have to get the same thing done when they're an adult.
 
I hope the first baby born from this method is named Eve.

Also, I'm glad that the UK has made the progression to nip preventable genetic diseases in the bud. I just read that the FDA (nearly a year ago) was reviewing this method, but I didn't seen any new documents on what they decided.
 

Nivash

Member
Why is this necessary? Why can't they screen potential embryos for the genetic issues and only implant non-affected ones?

Because if the mother is the carrier for the mitochondrial disease, she will never be able to have a healthy child: all mitochondrial DNA is maternal. The paternal mitochondrial DNA is either lost or destroyed during fertilization. This technique is a way for female carriers to break the cycle and have a healthy child.
 

Broken Joystick

At least you can talk. Who are you?
Yay! Was debating this with a few classmates this morning.

I hope the first baby born from this method is named Eve.

Also, I'm glad that the UK has made the progression to nip preventable genetic diseases in the bud. I just read that the FDA (nearly a year ago) was reviewing this method, but I didn't seen any new documents on what they decided.

Or David!
 

Fuchsdh

Member
I remember watching this old crappy scifi TV movie where they did something similar and represented genetic 'quality' by a crystal implanted in everyone's chest. Top quality Blues were only interested in other Blues etc.

If we went down a similar (but hopefully less dystopian) path, I wonder what it would do to our concepts of beauty. Aren't our cultural barometers heavily influenced by rarity? If all guys are tall with square jaws, would shortness eventually become a desired feature?

An interesting question, but I don't think you'd see something as extreme as what you're talking about. There appear to be innate biological factors people look for (facial symmetry, voice pitch), and then there appear to be cultural ones (the shape of the ideal woman or man throughout history.) So I think it's possible you might see more unique or quirky features become more popular due to their rarity, but it's not as if the majority of people would suddenly eschew "conventionally attractive" people just due to their increased commonalities.

Not to mention that societal standards wax and wane to some degree. Might just be a future where everyone's "attractive", but what qualifies as "hot" or whatnot is some random attribute.

This is assuming the option is only made to the uber rich. I guess that's a possibility. I'm hoping we've risen up to combat inequality by the time tech reaches this point.

I think it's our endgame honestly. We'll reach a natural capacity to reason/logic and use our brains. We'll have to force evolution along genetically or through mechanical means (cyborg).

I don't see Europe letting something like this become a super rich only thing. Socialized medicine and all that.

I don't see any way this wouldn't be a super-rich advantage, at least in the beginning. Every technology we have seen in the past few hundred years has at least initially primarily benefited an exclusive group. Unless you do something like force biotech companies to give it away (like what I imagine would happen if you actually found a silver bullet cure for all or a broad number of cancers), there's no way the rich wouldn't have the best of the best.
 

bengraven

Member
This would be really cool for lesbians.

But I'm not sure if they're allowed unless one of them has the disease.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
This would be really cool for lesbians.

But I'm not sure if they're allowed unless one of them has the disease.

Doesn't do anything for lesbians. This is mitochondrial DNA only and it's plasmids that are being chopped out and put back in, they're not doing anything with chromosomes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom