14 ms·

UK to allow babies from three people

172 points by jcrei 12y ago

JacobAldridge 12y ago
We (my beautiful wife and I) are currently going through the baby-making limbo, and it looks as though IVF will be the necessary next step. When you start actively trying to have children, there's loads of literature preparing you for the pregnancy swelling and the sleepless life of parenthood etc - less so preparing you for the anxiety, uncertainty, and just general feeling of not being in control of your life which comes from things not working for you. I couldn't imagine the additional emotional turmoil that would come from repeated miscarriages, terminations etc. I'm really holding myself back from thinking about the ecstasy that a confirmed pregnancy will provide after our time and struggles - to have complications and loss after that would be devastating. So bravo to the scientists working on this, to the parliament for 'permitting' it, and of course to those struggling wannabe parents having to fight for their family dream.
- michaelsbradley 12y ago
  I have some friends who struggled with infertility, went through the whole IVF thing (big medical bills, without success) but ultimately had repeat success with the help of modern NFP methods such as NaPro and Billings: http://www.thebillingsovulationmethod.org/ http://www.thebillingsovulationmethod.org/ http://www.naprotechnology.com/ http://www.naprotechnology.com/
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    IVF involves all the same hormonal and ovulation monitoring that NFP would, so I'm a bit baffled by the apparent belief that this anecdote is anything other than raw probability in action.
    - michaelsbradley 12y ago
      I simply offered the anecdote for consideration. I had three couples in mind. One went through IVF three times, the others two times each. In none of the cases were there successful results, though in all three cases there were significant financial costs. All three couples had a child (two of them more than one, so far) after they began using a modern NFP method to track the female partner's fertility; and the financial costs involved were a tiny fraction of the costs of IVF. The anecdote certainly does not prove IVF does not work, nor was that my intention in relating it. So what is the point? Well, many couples are oblivious to the existence of modern NFP and its effectiveness at helping couples both avoid and achieve pregnancy, without recourse to surgery and/or pharmaceuticals. I simply want/ed to help raise awareness of these methods.
      - jessaustin 12y ago
        ...many couples are oblivious to the existence of modern NFP... Gosh, why wouldn't their fertility doctors have told them about it? b^)
        tomp 12y ago
        Because they can't charge as much.
        ceejayoz 12y ago
        That's the same argument made by conspiracy theorists claiming pharmaceutical companies suppress cancer cures, and it's just as bullshit. My infertility treatment involved a cheapest-first approach, and that's entirely standard. We were told about charting cycles for best chances, analyses were done, some drugs were tried, and we were able to get pregnant via IUI for about $300 total. IVF is pretty much the final option, tried after everything else fails.
        tomp 12y ago
        Just because idiots use an argument doesn't mean the argument is stupid. 30 seconds of Googling brings up this article [1] (a secondary source, primary sources are Bloomberg and Washington Post), discussing the impression that doctors are performing/suggesting unnecessary, yet expensive surgeries/treatments. Even if it turns out not to be true (after proper research), it's an argument worth considering in any situation that involves financial incentives not aligned with the desired outcome. [1]: http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/unnecessary-surgeries-you-bet-doctors.html http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/unneces...
  - nsxwolf 12y ago
    Uh oh - stealth religious content on HN! Downvote! Downvote! Downvote! Even if it's backed up by legitimate science... The Catholic Church is behind it! Abort! Abort!
- mikerichards 12y ago
  We did IVF and got pregnant on our first try. We now have a beautiful 2 year old boy :) Good luck.
  - stenl 12y ago
    We did it four times, and now have four beautiful sons aged 4 - 15 (some requiring a couple of attempts). Not saying IVF will be easy for you, but that it's perfectly fine and - for some people - more efficient way of making babies. We never did find out why making babies the old-fashioned way doesn't work for us. Very good luck!
    - RobAley 12y ago
      Just adding to the data, we did it once and got twin girls on the first go. Instant family. We then got a "surprise" (my wife says I'm not allowed to use the word "accident") three years later with a naturally conceived girl. Chaps - when the docs tell you you're infertile and need IVF, don't assume you'll be infertile forever. Have a vasectomy and "make it so". Good luck with your IVF, if it works, it'll totally be worth it. Probably.
mikerichards 12y ago
So was this banned before?
- maxerickson 12y ago
  Yes (at least, in the UK). The brief here: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN06833/mitochondrial-donation http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/brie... Mentions the "The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008" which banned implantation of a genetically modified embryo. There is a provision in that act for Parliament to approve regulations that provides exceptions for the treatment of mitochondrial diseases. More: Here's the section of the act: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/22/section/26 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/22/section/26
- geographomics 12y ago
  Yes, it was explicitly banned in 1990, with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. In 2008 the government modified the act to allow mitochondrial transfer under future regulations, which enabled such research to take place on human tissue [1]. [1] Section 4 of http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2015/9780111125816/pdfs/ukdsiem_9780111125816_en.pdf http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2015/9780111125816/pdfs/...
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    (I wasn't) correct in saying that the implantation of modified embryos was banned in 2008: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/22/section/3 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/22/section/3 Here's the relevant original text: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/37/section/3/enacted http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/37/section/3/enacte... edited for error.
    - geographomics 12y ago
      Perhaps I'm reading this incorrectly, but as far I can see it was implicitly banned in the 1990 Act by section 3(3d). And then section 3ZA(5) as introduced in 2008 enabled the development of oocyte or embryo-modifying technologies to prevent mitochondrial disease.
stefantalpalaru 12y ago
What are the legal rights of the parent who contributed only her mitochondrial DNA?
- maxerickson 12y ago
  It would be absolutely stunning if the law gives them any rights at all.
  - saidajigumi 12y ago
    One can hope that the updated legislation somehow addresses this. That said, it would be absolutely stunning if the previously existing law didn't simply go 'boink!' in the face of a heretofore novel circumstance. At very least, I could see the need for the courts to set a precedent if/when the first case came along.
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      I guess it isn't that novel anymore for a woman to donate eggs and not expect to have any rights to any resulting children. Swapping out the nuclear DNA doesn't really complicate that.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- ck425 12y ago
  I believe the proposals state that the mitochondrial donor has no legal rights in regards to the child.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago
    See my comment elsewhere with regard to the question of what the child's rights might be.
- M2Ys4U 12y ago
  As I understand it they have the same rights as an organ or blood donor - none.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
BadCookie 12y ago
I wonder how people will feel about two men being genetic parents to one baby (with the help of a surrogate mother) once it becomes technologically possible. In that case, no disease is being avoided, but I don't think it falls under the realm of a "designer" baby either. My guess is that many of us will live to see it happen.
- barking 12y ago
  Re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic doesn't seem like quite the right metaphor but at a time when the world's population is exploding this doesn't seem like our most pressing problem.
  - Tuna-Fish 12y ago
    World population is not exploding, and overpopulation is not and will not be a major world problem.
    - manicdee 12y ago
      Are you suggesting there are no limits to growth? No limits to available fresh water supplies? No limits to energy production? Once you run you of fresh water and have to rely on nuclear power to run the desalination plants to keep people watered, you have three major problems.
      - Buge 12y ago
        Of course there is a limit. But population is soon going to start falling. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate the chart on the right. We're currently at 2.36 fertility rate and falling rapidly. 2.33 is what is necessary for replacement. The US is at 1.9 and Europe is 1.59.
      - damon_c 12y ago
        The growth rate is slowing. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growthrate http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growthrate
Cogito 12y ago
To those wondering, this does not involve gene splicing or anything like that. Instead, defective mitochondria are being replaced with mitochondria from a healthy donor. This technique is only valid for diseases involving defective mitochondria. The mitochondrial DNA is responsible for very very little of the genetic material that defines who a person is, essentially limited to how effective the mitochondria are at their job. This is around 0.1% of the total genetic code. Mitochondria are organelles in our cells that break down molecules to provide energy for the cell, in the form of ATP. They have their own genetic code completely distinct from the host cell's DNA. The mitochondria are replaced in either the egg OR in the embryo. In both cases this is done by removing the nucleus (containing the cell's genetic material) from the cell that has defective mitochondria and transferring it to a donor cell with healthy mitochondria. The donor cell's nucleus is completely removed. The mitochondrial DNA is passed down from the mother alone, whilst the DNA in the embryo is formed from both the mother and father. For this reason mitochondrial DNA has much less genetic diversity. Mitochondria 'reproduce' by binary fission which is similar to bacterial cell division and produces little variation in its genetic code, whilst egg and sperm go through meiosis allowing the genetic code to be mixed. Opposition seems to be coming from two camps. - Those who don't like the destruction of the donor embryo (when that method is used), - Those who think this is the start of ever more invasive genetic modification of humans, or so called "designer babies"
- Crito 12y ago
  How do mitochondria replicate their own DNA? Do they somehow have the rest of the cell do it, or do they contain/produce and use all of the necessary enzymes/proteins/base-pairs/etc to do it by themselves? The relationship between them and their host cell almost seems similar to ant-fungus mutualism.
  - schoen 12y ago
    This is actually a now-standard theory of the origin of mitochondria (that they were originally separate organisms): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis
  - 12y ago
Crito 12y ago
Does anybody know why the "embryo repair" method would be used if the "egg repair" method was also an option? Is the embryo-repair method meant to weed out donor eggs that were not viable (by first ensuring that they can at least be fertilized, by fertilizing them)?
- geographomics 12y ago
  This paper from 2011 has a nice comparison of the two methods, there's pros and cons for both: [1] According to the HFEA [2], the research group in Newcastle (who wrote the above paper) has been testing the two methods against each other - no decision yet as to the best for treatment, though. [1] http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/20/R2/R168.full#sec-5 http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/20/R2/R168.full#sec-5 [2] Section 3.4.4 of http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/Third_Mitochondrial_replacement_scientific_review.pdf http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/Third_Mitochondrial_replacement_...
m_mueller 12y ago
It seems to me that the 'three people' metaphor is a bit misguided. I'd look at it as an organ donor-ship to an embryo - just a special organ that gets copied into every cell.
- wtallis 12y ago
  It isn't just copied into every cell, it's also heritable—just a very insignificant inheritance.
- geographomics 12y ago
  I think "three people" is okay as it correctly gets across how many contributors there are of genetic and other biological material. Some other sources have been referring to "three-parent babies" though, which doesn't seem right, as the mitochondrial donor has no maternal role or rights to the baby.
- tomp 12y ago
  It's not, really, it's the other way around. The "mother's" nucleus is transplanted into the donor's nucleus-less egg (which has all the mitochondria). The appropriate analogy would be transplanting one person's brain into another person's body.
e0m 12y ago
One could have a Mom, Dad, and ???
- M2Ys4U 12y ago
  Another mother. The nucleus from the "true" mother is transplanted into a healthy donor egg (or embryo) that has had its nucleus removed but still has its healthy mitochondria.
brianpgordon 12y ago
> Other groups, including Human Genetics Alert, say the move would open the door to further genetic modification of children in the future - so-called designer babies, genetically modified for beauty, intelligence or to be free of disease. There are people who don't think this is a good thing?! If we could eliminate congenital disease, and make everyone smarter, it would be like fast-forwarding human evolution.
- 3d8995163 12y ago
  And the kids whose parents couldn't afford to have them genetically improved? They just exist as some sort of permanent underclass? If you think the inequality and the way poor people get treated is a problem now, wait until rich people are actually genetically superior to the poor.
  - vacri 12y ago
    'could not afford'^
  - bayesianhorse 12y ago
    If genetic engineering really became this important to human "performance" or health, I would think that most countries who can afford it, will actually have a way for society to pay for such services. It's the right thing to do, and the most profitable for the society as a whole. Just as in health care the smart policy is to spread the cost and risks around and keep the providers in check so that they can't hold individual's health as a hostage. Exception being the U.S., of course ...
    - gpvos 12y ago
      Then it would increase the difference between rich and poor countries. I'm not sure that that would be any better.
      - TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago
        How would it be any different to the world today? The chasm between rich and poor nations is huge. The argument against this is similar in many ways to arguing against, say, smartphones because only the rich can afford them. And yet 'poor' people, even in our own countries, and in 'poor' countries have smartphones, or soon will have access to them. As soon as a nation of people get organised enough to plan ahead well enough to copy existing technology, or trade it, then technology can be had by all. I don't believe it makes a whole lot of sense for 'rich' people to preserve a specific set of technologies for themselves when they can get richer if more people are able to pay for it. And where that doesn't happen we see other countries copying the technology.
transfire 12y ago
One has to really admire the "free world" where everything is made illegal until our benevolent rulers so graciously let us do otherwise.
- recibe 12y ago
  excellent remark.
kareemm 12y ago
I can just hear the guy who wrote the software for creating UK birth certificates: "I know for sure that I need to display two parents max on these." And I feel for the poor programmer whose job it is to deal with the brand-new edge case of putting three parents' names on one.
- thisone 12y ago
  IVF can currently involve 5 people as it is. Sperm donor, egg donor, surrogate, couple whose child this will be. This method ups it to 6.
  - firethief 12y ago
    It takes a village...
  - Houshalter 12y ago
    The kid could also have an organ transplant.
- bayesianhorse 12y ago
  For most purposes I think two parents would be enough, even if the child was born using more than two parents. Generally the decision to have a child, and the decision to be a family is complicated enough with two people. A third person to have "rights" over the child can only mess up stuff.
  - Cthulhu_ 12y ago
    > For most purposes If only we as software developers could create software for most purposes :(
  - TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago
    In Australia children are assigned independent legal representation in the Family Law Courts. Australia has taken steps to shift away from parents having rights over children and moving toward children having rights (to be safe, cared for, to see their parents, etc). I would hazard a guess there is a possibility, down the track, that a court will have to determine whether a child has a right to know from whom her DNA comes. It will be interesting to see, from the comfort of my arm chair, how this all unfolds over time.
fmax30 12y ago
My take on this is that either make it free for everyone or don't do it at all. If you only allow the rich to have this treatment ( is there a better word for it) then you are artificially inviting a whole new brand of racism and social inequality into the system. Also everyone should watch Gattaca, it is one of best movies that shows how social inequality can arise in situations like these.
- alexandros 12y ago
  On your first point, most new things are subsidised by the rich at the start, and end up mass produced so the middle-class can have them, often times becoming commoditised to being in the reach of almost everyone. Computers are a good example. The world hasn't divided because of this. The divisions usually come in the form of "zero-sum" status goods such as high-end brands or jewelery that has little instrumental value. On the second point, Gattaca is a fictional tale, and as such should not be used as evidence to "show" anything. It is, at best, a hypothesis, and one not optimised for accuracy, or subjected to any scrutiny at that. http://lesswrong.com/lw/k9/the_logical_fallacy_of_generalization_from/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/k9/the_logical_fallacy_of_generaliza...
- PJDK 12y ago
  Although it is probably too early to say (I imagine efficacy vs cost will need to be evaluated by NICE), this is likely to be available on the NHS.
throwaway3425 12y ago
Mitochondrial diseases can be shitty, shitty things - I have multiple siblings with untreatable and debilitating effects from it. I didn't know they could even do this (technically), so this news gave me tears of joy. I am lucky on two counts, to be male (can't pass it on) and also not (yet) had any symptoms myself. It must be horrible for any female who has to decide whether having kids is worth passing those risks on to their offspring.
- arethuza 12y ago
  BBC Radio 4 had an interview with the mother of a kid suffering from these kinds of problems yesterday and, as a parent, it nearly had me in tears. They had some daft Conservative MP on as well trying a "slippery slope" argument but he completely missed the point about it being mitochondrial DNA so sounded, at least to me, rather silly.
- aroch 12y ago
  Out of curiosity, presumably your mother knew she had defective mitochondria so why did she elect to have children?
  - throwaway3425 12y ago
    Nope. The ability to diagnose it is pretty new; it went undiagnosed in my oldest sibling until age 12 or so. Not for lack of trying; they just couldn't figure out what it was until then. The effects vary wildly based on where the "bad" mitochondria are distributed throughout your organs, so there's no one thing to look for. Even though she carries it, my mother didn't develop any symptoms herself until well after her children did. She once told me she wouldn't have had children if she'd known she carried it. I'd make the same choice if I were female.
bayesianhorse 12y ago
The reason why some people believe this to be an ethical problem, and others don't, is that the questions "What constitutes a human being?" and "When does a part of another Human body become a human being?" are hotly disputed. It's hard to say for certain what aspects of "humanity" is carried by mitochondria. So some will say that there are two mothers, others will say there is only one. Some will say this is unnatural or violates religious beliefs. In my opinion it's a wide leap to say some reproductive technique is evil just because the people writing holy texts didn't conceive of it a few centuries ago.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
MileyCyrax 12y ago
>But Frank Dobson, a former former health secretary, So, a health secretary?
Vladipoteur 12y ago
Just to add for (evolution): GATTACA Argument Darwinism We have to keep in mind that, e.g. in Japan the fertility rate is 1.4/woman. The rich people make less children than poor. Beside, in rich countries fertility rate is dropping, especially in big cities. Therefore, one way of seen this could be just as palliative.
vegancap 12y ago
I'm rarely proud of our government. But this was really forward thinking and really set a good example.
efaref 12y ago
I really hate this sensational "from three people" thing. It's a mitochondria transplant. We don't start calling people "frankenstein's monsters" because they've had a lung transplant, even though that technically makes them a "person from FOUR people!" Shock!
- recibe 12y ago
  Its not sensational because of the clickbait title. It is sensational because it is an example of the state sanctioning the customization of human eggs and embryos - which is a pivot of public policy that creates vast consequences.
Eye_of_Mordor 12y ago
An Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman walked into a pub and bought himself a pint...
V-2 12y ago
The article feels pretty one-sided. Ethical dilemmas are more mentioned than actually explained to the reader, while there was space for two interviews with women in favor of the technique (giving that side of the story a personal tone; no sceptic is interviewed, they're just "some people"), plus these emotionally loaded, cheesy subtitles ("life-saving", "proud")...

172 points by jcrei 12y ago

We (my beautiful wife and I) are currently going through the baby-making limbo, and it looks as though IVF will be the necessary next step. When you start actively trying to have children, there's loads of literature preparing you for the pregnancy swelling and the sleepless life of parenthood etc - less so preparing you for the anxiety, uncertainty, and just general feeling of not being in control of your life which comes from things not working for you. I couldn't imagine the additional emotional turmoil that would come from repeated miscarriages, terminations etc. I'm really holding myself back from thinking about the ecstasy that a confirmed pregnancy will provide after our time and struggles - to have complications and loss after that would be devastating. So bravo to the scientists working on this, to the parliament for 'permitting' it, and of course to those struggling wannabe parents having to fight for their family dream.

michaelsbradley 12y ago
I have some friends who struggled with infertility, went through the whole IVF thing (big medical bills, without success) but ultimately had repeat success with the help of modern NFP methods such as NaPro and Billings: http://www.thebillingsovulationmethod.org/ http://www.thebillingsovulationmethod.org/ http://www.naprotechnology.com/ http://www.naprotechnology.com/
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  IVF involves all the same hormonal and ovulation monitoring that NFP would, so I'm a bit baffled by the apparent belief that this anecdote is anything other than raw probability in action.
  - michaelsbradley 12y ago
    I simply offered the anecdote for consideration. I had three couples in mind. One went through IVF three times, the others two times each. In none of the cases were there successful results, though in all three cases there were significant financial costs. All three couples had a child (two of them more than one, so far) after they began using a modern NFP method to track the female partner's fertility; and the financial costs involved were a tiny fraction of the costs of IVF. The anecdote certainly does not prove IVF does not work, nor was that my intention in relating it. So what is the point? Well, many couples are oblivious to the existence of modern NFP and its effectiveness at helping couples both avoid and achieve pregnancy, without recourse to surgery and/or pharmaceuticals. I simply want/ed to help raise awareness of these methods.
    - jessaustin 12y ago
      ...many couples are oblivious to the existence of modern NFP... Gosh, why wouldn't their fertility doctors have told them about it? b^)
      - tomp 12y ago
        Because they can't charge as much.
        ceejayoz 12y ago
        That's the same argument made by conspiracy theorists claiming pharmaceutical companies suppress cancer cures, and it's just as bullshit. My infertility treatment involved a cheapest-first approach, and that's entirely standard. We were told about charting cycles for best chances, analyses were done, some drugs were tried, and we were able to get pregnant via IUI for about $300 total. IVF is pretty much the final option, tried after everything else fails.
        tomp 12y ago
        Just because idiots use an argument doesn't mean the argument is stupid. 30 seconds of Googling brings up this article [1] (a secondary source, primary sources are Bloomberg and Washington Post), discussing the impression that doctors are performing/suggesting unnecessary, yet expensive surgeries/treatments. Even if it turns out not to be true (after proper research), it's an argument worth considering in any situation that involves financial incentives not aligned with the desired outcome. [1]: http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/unnecessary-surgeries-you-bet-doctors.html http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/unneces...
- nsxwolf 12y ago
  Uh oh - stealth religious content on HN! Downvote! Downvote! Downvote! Even if it's backed up by legitimate science... The Catholic Church is behind it! Abort! Abort!
mikerichards 12y ago
We did IVF and got pregnant on our first try. We now have a beautiful 2 year old boy :) Good luck.
- stenl 12y ago
  We did it four times, and now have four beautiful sons aged 4 - 15 (some requiring a couple of attempts). Not saying IVF will be easy for you, but that it's perfectly fine and - for some people - more efficient way of making babies. We never did find out why making babies the old-fashioned way doesn't work for us. Very good luck!
  - RobAley 12y ago
    Just adding to the data, we did it once and got twin girls on the first go. Instant family. We then got a "surprise" (my wife says I'm not allowed to use the word "accident") three years later with a naturally conceived girl. Chaps - when the docs tell you you're infertile and need IVF, don't assume you'll be infertile forever. Have a vasectomy and "make it so". Good luck with your IVF, if it works, it'll totally be worth it. Probably.

mikerichards 12y ago

So was this banned before?

maxerickson 12y ago
Yes (at least, in the UK). The brief here: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN06833/mitochondrial-donation http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/brie... Mentions the "The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008" which banned implantation of a genetically modified embryo. There is a provision in that act for Parliament to approve regulations that provides exceptions for the treatment of mitochondrial diseases. More: Here's the section of the act: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/22/section/26 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/22/section/26
geographomics 12y ago
Yes, it was explicitly banned in 1990, with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. In 2008 the government modified the act to allow mitochondrial transfer under future regulations, which enabled such research to take place on human tissue [1]. [1] Section 4 of http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2015/9780111125816/pdfs/ukdsiem_9780111125816_en.pdf http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2015/9780111125816/pdfs/...
- maxerickson 12y ago
  (I wasn't) correct in saying that the implantation of modified embryos was banned in 2008: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/22/section/3 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/22/section/3 Here's the relevant original text: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/37/section/3/enacted http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/37/section/3/enacte... edited for error.
  - geographomics 12y ago
    Perhaps I'm reading this incorrectly, but as far I can see it was implicitly banned in the 1990 Act by section 3(3d). And then section 3ZA(5) as introduced in 2008 enabled the development of oocyte or embryo-modifying technologies to prevent mitochondrial disease.

stefantalpalaru 12y ago

What are the legal rights of the parent who contributed only her mitochondrial DNA?

maxerickson 12y ago
It would be absolutely stunning if the law gives them any rights at all.
- saidajigumi 12y ago
  One can hope that the updated legislation somehow addresses this. That said, it would be absolutely stunning if the previously existing law didn't simply go 'boink!' in the face of a heretofore novel circumstance. At very least, I could see the need for the courts to set a precedent if/when the first case came along.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    I guess it isn't that novel anymore for a woman to donate eggs and not expect to have any rights to any resulting children. Swapping out the nuclear DNA doesn't really complicate that.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
ck425 12y ago
I believe the proposals state that the mitochondrial donor has no legal rights in regards to the child.
- TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago
  See my comment elsewhere with regard to the question of what the child's rights might be.
M2Ys4U 12y ago
As I understand it they have the same rights as an organ or blood donor - none.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

BadCookie 12y ago

I wonder how people will feel about two men being genetic parents to one baby (with the help of a surrogate mother) once it becomes technologically possible. In that case, no disease is being avoided, but I don't think it falls under the realm of a "designer" baby either. My guess is that many of us will live to see it happen.

barking 12y ago
Re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic doesn't seem like quite the right metaphor but at a time when the world's population is exploding this doesn't seem like our most pressing problem.
- Tuna-Fish 12y ago
  World population is not exploding, and overpopulation is not and will not be a major world problem.
  - manicdee 12y ago
    Are you suggesting there are no limits to growth? No limits to available fresh water supplies? No limits to energy production? Once you run you of fresh water and have to rely on nuclear power to run the desalination plants to keep people watered, you have three major problems.
    - Buge 12y ago
      Of course there is a limit. But population is soon going to start falling. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate the chart on the right. We're currently at 2.36 fertility rate and falling rapidly. 2.33 is what is necessary for replacement. The US is at 1.9 and Europe is 1.59.
    - damon_c 12y ago
      The growth rate is slowing. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growthrate http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growthrate

Cogito 12y ago

To those wondering, this does not involve gene splicing or anything like that. Instead, defective mitochondria are being replaced with mitochondria from a healthy donor. This technique is only valid for diseases involving defective mitochondria. The mitochondrial DNA is responsible for very very little of the genetic material that defines who a person is, essentially limited to how effective the mitochondria are at their job. This is around 0.1% of the total genetic code. Mitochondria are organelles in our cells that break down molecules to provide energy for the cell, in the form of ATP. They have their own genetic code completely distinct from the host cell's DNA. The mitochondria are replaced in either the egg OR in the embryo. In both cases this is done by removing the nucleus (containing the cell's genetic material) from the cell that has defective mitochondria and transferring it to a donor cell with healthy mitochondria. The donor cell's nucleus is completely removed. The mitochondrial DNA is passed down from the mother alone, whilst the DNA in the embryo is formed from both the mother and father. For this reason mitochondrial DNA has much less genetic diversity. Mitochondria 'reproduce' by binary fission which is similar to bacterial cell division and produces little variation in its genetic code, whilst egg and sperm go through meiosis allowing the genetic code to be mixed. Opposition seems to be coming from two camps. - Those who don't like the destruction of the donor embryo (when that method is used), - Those who think this is the start of ever more invasive genetic modification of humans, or so called "designer babies"

Crito 12y ago
How do mitochondria replicate their own DNA? Do they somehow have the rest of the cell do it, or do they contain/produce and use all of the necessary enzymes/proteins/base-pairs/etc to do it by themselves? The relationship between them and their host cell almost seems similar to ant-fungus mutualism.
- schoen 12y ago
  This is actually a now-standard theory of the origin of mitochondria (that they were originally separate organisms): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis
- 12y ago

Crito 12y ago

Does anybody know why the "embryo repair" method would be used if the "egg repair" method was also an option? Is the embryo-repair method meant to weed out donor eggs that were not viable (by first ensuring that they can at least be fertilized, by fertilizing them)?

geographomics 12y ago
This paper from 2011 has a nice comparison of the two methods, there's pros and cons for both: [1] According to the HFEA [2], the research group in Newcastle (who wrote the above paper) has been testing the two methods against each other - no decision yet as to the best for treatment, though. [1] http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/20/R2/R168.full#sec-5 http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/20/R2/R168.full#sec-5 [2] Section 3.4.4 of http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/Third_Mitochondrial_replacement_scientific_review.pdf http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/Third_Mitochondrial_replacement_...

m_mueller 12y ago

It seems to me that the 'three people' metaphor is a bit misguided. I'd look at it as an organ donor-ship to an embryo - just a special organ that gets copied into every cell.

wtallis 12y ago
It isn't just copied into every cell, it's also heritable—just a very insignificant inheritance.
geographomics 12y ago
I think "three people" is okay as it correctly gets across how many contributors there are of genetic and other biological material. Some other sources have been referring to "three-parent babies" though, which doesn't seem right, as the mitochondrial donor has no maternal role or rights to the baby.
tomp 12y ago
It's not, really, it's the other way around. The "mother's" nucleus is transplanted into the donor's nucleus-less egg (which has all the mitochondria). The appropriate analogy would be transplanting one person's brain into another person's body.

e0m 12y ago

One could have a Mom, Dad, and ???

M2Ys4U 12y ago
Another mother. The nucleus from the "true" mother is transplanted into a healthy donor egg (or embryo) that has had its nucleus removed but still has its healthy mitochondria.

brianpgordon 12y ago

> Other groups, including Human Genetics Alert, say the move would open the door to further genetic modification of children in the future - so-called designer babies, genetically modified for beauty, intelligence or to be free of disease. There are people who don't think this is a good thing?! If we could eliminate congenital disease, and make everyone smarter, it would be like fast-forwarding human evolution.

3d8995163 12y ago
And the kids whose parents couldn't afford to have them genetically improved? They just exist as some sort of permanent underclass? If you think the inequality and the way poor people get treated is a problem now, wait until rich people are actually genetically superior to the poor.
- vacri 12y ago
  'could not afford'^
- bayesianhorse 12y ago
  If genetic engineering really became this important to human "performance" or health, I would think that most countries who can afford it, will actually have a way for society to pay for such services. It's the right thing to do, and the most profitable for the society as a whole. Just as in health care the smart policy is to spread the cost and risks around and keep the providers in check so that they can't hold individual's health as a hostage. Exception being the U.S., of course ...
  - gpvos 12y ago
    Then it would increase the difference between rich and poor countries. I'm not sure that that would be any better.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago
      How would it be any different to the world today? The chasm between rich and poor nations is huge. The argument against this is similar in many ways to arguing against, say, smartphones because only the rich can afford them. And yet 'poor' people, even in our own countries, and in 'poor' countries have smartphones, or soon will have access to them. As soon as a nation of people get organised enough to plan ahead well enough to copy existing technology, or trade it, then technology can be had by all. I don't believe it makes a whole lot of sense for 'rich' people to preserve a specific set of technologies for themselves when they can get richer if more people are able to pay for it. And where that doesn't happen we see other countries copying the technology.

transfire 12y ago

One has to really admire the "free world" where everything is made illegal until our benevolent rulers so graciously let us do otherwise.

recibe 12y ago
excellent remark.

kareemm 12y ago

I can just hear the guy who wrote the software for creating UK birth certificates: "I know for sure that I need to display two parents max on these." And I feel for the poor programmer whose job it is to deal with the brand-new edge case of putting three parents' names on one.

thisone 12y ago
IVF can currently involve 5 people as it is. Sperm donor, egg donor, surrogate, couple whose child this will be. This method ups it to 6.
- firethief 12y ago
  It takes a village...
- Houshalter 12y ago
  The kid could also have an organ transplant.
bayesianhorse 12y ago
For most purposes I think two parents would be enough, even if the child was born using more than two parents. Generally the decision to have a child, and the decision to be a family is complicated enough with two people. A third person to have "rights" over the child can only mess up stuff.
- Cthulhu_ 12y ago
  > For most purposes If only we as software developers could create software for most purposes :(
- TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago
  In Australia children are assigned independent legal representation in the Family Law Courts. Australia has taken steps to shift away from parents having rights over children and moving toward children having rights (to be safe, cared for, to see their parents, etc). I would hazard a guess there is a possibility, down the track, that a court will have to determine whether a child has a right to know from whom her DNA comes. It will be interesting to see, from the comfort of my arm chair, how this all unfolds over time.

fmax30 12y ago

My take on this is that either make it free for everyone or don't do it at all. If you only allow the rich to have this treatment ( is there a better word for it) then you are artificially inviting a whole new brand of racism and social inequality into the system. Also everyone should watch Gattaca, it is one of best movies that shows how social inequality can arise in situations like these.

alexandros 12y ago
On your first point, most new things are subsidised by the rich at the start, and end up mass produced so the middle-class can have them, often times becoming commoditised to being in the reach of almost everyone. Computers are a good example. The world hasn't divided because of this. The divisions usually come in the form of "zero-sum" status goods such as high-end brands or jewelery that has little instrumental value. On the second point, Gattaca is a fictional tale, and as such should not be used as evidence to "show" anything. It is, at best, a hypothesis, and one not optimised for accuracy, or subjected to any scrutiny at that. http://lesswrong.com/lw/k9/the_logical_fallacy_of_generalization_from/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/k9/the_logical_fallacy_of_generaliza...
PJDK 12y ago
Although it is probably too early to say (I imagine efficacy vs cost will need to be evaluated by NICE), this is likely to be available on the NHS.

throwaway3425 12y ago

Mitochondrial diseases can be shitty, shitty things - I have multiple siblings with untreatable and debilitating effects from it. I didn't know they could even do this (technically), so this news gave me tears of joy. I am lucky on two counts, to be male (can't pass it on) and also not (yet) had any symptoms myself. It must be horrible for any female who has to decide whether having kids is worth passing those risks on to their offspring.

arethuza 12y ago
BBC Radio 4 had an interview with the mother of a kid suffering from these kinds of problems yesterday and, as a parent, it nearly had me in tears. They had some daft Conservative MP on as well trying a "slippery slope" argument but he completely missed the point about it being mitochondrial DNA so sounded, at least to me, rather silly.
aroch 12y ago
Out of curiosity, presumably your mother knew she had defective mitochondria so why did she elect to have children?
- throwaway3425 12y ago
  Nope. The ability to diagnose it is pretty new; it went undiagnosed in my oldest sibling until age 12 or so. Not for lack of trying; they just couldn't figure out what it was until then. The effects vary wildly based on where the "bad" mitochondria are distributed throughout your organs, so there's no one thing to look for. Even though she carries it, my mother didn't develop any symptoms herself until well after her children did. She once told me she wouldn't have had children if she'd known she carried it. I'd make the same choice if I were female.

bayesianhorse 12y ago

The reason why some people believe this to be an ethical problem, and others don't, is that the questions "What constitutes a human being?" and "When does a part of another Human body become a human being?" are hotly disputed. It's hard to say for certain what aspects of "humanity" is carried by mitochondria. So some will say that there are two mothers, others will say there is only one. Some will say this is unnatural or violates religious beliefs. In my opinion it's a wide leap to say some reproductive technique is evil just because the people writing holy texts didn't conceive of it a few centuries ago.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

MileyCyrax 12y ago

>But Frank Dobson, a former former health secretary, So, a health secretary?

Vladipoteur 12y ago

Just to add for (evolution): GATTACA Argument Darwinism We have to keep in mind that, e.g. in Japan the fertility rate is 1.4/woman. The rich people make less children than poor. Beside, in rich countries fertility rate is dropping, especially in big cities. Therefore, one way of seen this could be just as palliative.

vegancap 12y ago

I'm rarely proud of our government. But this was really forward thinking and really set a good example.

efaref 12y ago

I really hate this sensational "from three people" thing. It's a mitochondria transplant. We don't start calling people "frankenstein's monsters" because they've had a lung transplant, even though that technically makes them a "person from FOUR people!" Shock!

recibe 12y ago
Its not sensational because of the clickbait title. It is sensational because it is an example of the state sanctioning the customization of human eggs and embryos - which is a pivot of public policy that creates vast consequences.

Eye_of_Mordor 12y ago

An Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman walked into a pub and bought himself a pint...

V-2 12y ago

The article feels pretty one-sided. Ethical dilemmas are more mentioned than actually explained to the reader, while there was space for two interviews with women in favor of the technique (giving that side of the story a personal tone; no sceptic is interviewed, they're just "some people"), plus these emotionally loaded, cheesy subtitles ("life-saving", "proud")...