Posted on 09/08/2005 3:01:00 PM PDT by Clock King
Last Updated: Thursday, 8 September 2005, 16:30 GMT 17:30 UK Embryo with two mothers approved Image of cloning The aim is to get healthy offspring free of inherited genetic disorders. UK scientists have won permission to create a human embryo that will have genetic material from two mothers.
The Newcastle University team will transfer genetic material created when an egg and sperm fuse into another woman's egg. The groundbreaking work aims to prevent mothers from passing certain genetic diseases on to their unborn babies. Such diseases arise from DNA found outside the nucleus, and thus inherited separately from DNA in the nucleus. Mitochondrial diseases
They are collectively called mitochondrial diseases. Mitochondria are small complex structures, which exist in every cell of the body, except red blood cells. They are responsible for producing the energy that we need to grow and live. One unique feature of mitochondria is that they have their own DNA - mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited from the mother only. The innovative approach being tested may lead to a treatment for mitochondrial myopathies Dr David Harrison of the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign
Q&A: Two mother embryo If this DNA is faulty, a mitochondrial diseases occurs. At present, no treatment for mitochondrial diseases exists.
Studies in mice show it is possible to prevent the transmission of mitochondrial disease by moving the pronuclei - the genetic material which will go on to form a nucleus - from a fertilised egg containing bad mitochondria and putting it into another fertilised egg which only contains good mitochondria. Professor Doug Turnbull, professor of neurology at Newcastle University, and Dr Mary Herbert, scientific director of Newcastle Fertility Centre at the city's Centre for Life, now plan to do the same in humans. US scientists at the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St Barnabas, New Jersey, reported back in 2001 that they had successfully done similar, giving rise to 15 healthy children who appeared to be free of their mothers' disease.
Safety check
Instead of transplanting the pronuclei, these researchers injected another woman's ooplasm - the substance inside the cell that contains the mitochondrial DNA and bathes the nucleus - into the egg cell of the mother with faulty mitochondrial DNA. The UK research, permitted by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and funded by the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, will check that transplanting the pro-nuclei works and is safe. The resulting egg would never be allowed to develop into a baby.
But even if it did, the offspring would still resemble their mother and father because the mitochondrial DNA does not dictate things like hair colour. The researchers stress that this research is only the very first step in a very difficult process, which they hope will lead to techniques that might prevent the transmission of mitochondrial DNA disease. About one in 5,000 children and adults are at risk of developing a mitochondrial disease.
These cause muscle weakness and wasting, making it difficult for those who have it to move normally - some may need to use a wheelchair. The Muscular Dystrophy Campaign said it was delighted that the HFEA had given approval for the research project. Head of research Dr David Harrison said: "The innovative approach being tested by Professor Turnbull may lead to a treatment for mitochondrial myopathies, a group of conditions that dramatically affect quality and length of life."
The public are currently being consulted about their opinions on laws governing embryo research such as this. Some believe it is dangerous and unethical to do human cloning work.
Debate
Josephine Quintavalle from Comment on Reproductive Ethics said she was horrified. "This shows once again that the HFEA does not have any regard for public consultation and the views of the public. It is undesirable to create children in this way. It will shock the world. This is playing around with early human life."
Professor Turnbull said they were not radically altering an embryo's DNA. "We are simply changing the energy source."
Professor Azim Surani, professor of physiology and reproduction at Cambridge University, said: "I see few ethical problems as we are dealing with the embryo at a very early stage where the cells haven't even started to divide yet."
Dr Andy Miah, ethicist at Paisley University, said: "Many of the more controversial ethical concerns arise only if we project into the future and imagine that a child were to be born, as a result of this kind of procedure.
"Even if a child were born with 'two mothers', I doubt very much that we should be concerned about its welfare any more than we are concerned about the welfare of all children."
In the year 6565
Ain't gonna need no husband, won't need no wife.
You'll pick your son, pick your daughter too.
From the bottom of a long glass tube. Whoa-oh
Unsurprisingly, this isn't QUITE what the article wants to make it sound like it is. They're taking the genetic material of a fertilized egg and transfering it into the cell of a third party. That said, it's still sick and Frankensteinian and will, apparently, result in the deaths of embryos.
Humanity as we know it will not exist in a couple of centuries. The world will be populated by genetically engineered blond hair blue eyed supermen and some women.
I would impose the death penalty for anyone doing what these people are doing.
Two "fathers" producing a child, two "mothers", pretty soon the animal genes will be inserted, and we'll have a real freak show on this planet.
Too many freaks. Not enough circuses.
Humanity will destroy itself, either through nuclear war, biological war, or genetic engineering.
Choose your poison.
Mad scientists.
Moral Absolutes Ping
Well, it's been a while since I pung the list.
Back on the job, I am. Maybe you won't be getting quite as many pings, at least for now.
How about this? Two mothers. Chop up and kill a few embryos on the way to find the utopia where everyone is perfectly free from disease. I mean, who wants to be counted as being "for disease", right?
Well, guess what. This world is not meant to be a perfect playground. There's certainly nothing wrong, and certianly praiseworthy, with trying to improve health and eradicate disease, as much as is practicable.
But science and medicine - or indeed, any field of human endeavor - which has gone beyond the boundaries of morality, is a menace. After all, Mengele was trying to push the frontiers of medicine, too. Help people. So what if a few undesirables died on the way?
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
The way I understand: God loves every soul, and is very displeased if someone sacrifices some for the good of others. It's a different thing entirely if an individual chooses to sacrifice for others' good - but we have no right to choose others to be sacrificed without their say-so. It's not only not right, it's a good illustration of hell.
We are on the brink of geneticaly engineered super babies.
What we don't know, and won't for a long time is what kind of hidden defects these "superhumans" might introduce to the human race. It is possible it could create a disease fatal to us all.
We shouldn't mess with stuff we don't quite understand. Look at prion research. What we thought was a simple protein has turned out to be much more complcated than we thought.
I'm blond haired and blue eyed. Guess I'm superhuman (in fact I know I am) But as far as I know, that's the way God made me, and my tribe has been around since the beginning of mankind's time on earth. But joking aside, I agree. these 'scientists' shouldn't mess at all with mankinds reproduction process. It's too important to be messing with, and we already know that these people simply don't know how anything works.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.