Scientists given go-ahead for 'dual mother' embryo

Australian Broadcasting Corporation ^ | 9 September 2005

[Aussie Dasher]

A team of scientists in Britain have been granted official approval to create a human embryo using genetic material from two women, raising the future prospect of babies with a pair of mothers.

The group from Newcastle University in Britain has been given the green light by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the Government-appointed genetics and reproductive technology watchdogs for Britain, where such science is tightly regulated.

The scientists will transfer the pro-nuclei - the components of a human embryo nucleus - made by one man and woman into an unfertilised egg from another woman.

This technique is intended to help prevent mothers from passing on so-called mitochondrial diseases on to their unborn babies, genetic conditions caused by DNA outside the nucleus of a cell, in the mitochondria.

Mitochondria have their own DNA, inherited from the mother only.

If this DNA is faulty, then children can develop diseases affecting cells in the brain, heart, liver, kidney or skeletal muscles, for which there is currently no known cure.

Previous studies in mice showed in was possible to prevent the transmission of mitochondrial disease by moving the nucleus from an egg containing bad mitochondrial DNA to an unaffected egg.

Controversial research

The human trial will not see any eggs allowed to develop into babies, but the research nonetheless remains controversial.

Professor John Burn from Newcastle University stressed that the new tests would not lead to "designer babies".

"From a philosophical or medical point of view there is no reason why we should not do this," he said.

"I would use the analogy of simply replacing the battery in a pocket radio to explain what we are doing. You are not altering the radio at all -- just giving it a new power source.

If a baby was born following such a technique, he noted, it would resemble its biological parents rather than the women into whose embryo the nucleus would be transplanted, as characteristics such as hair colour, height and personality come from nucleus DNA.

However, campaigners expressed concern at the project.

"This shows once again that the HFEA does not have any regard for public consultation and the views of the public," Josephine Quintavalle from the Comment on Reproductive Ethics group told the BBC.

[mlo]

It's more unnatural than homosexuality. However, I don't think homosexuality is a choice [for most], but this is a choice. What's the purpose of it? To see if it can be done? It's not right.

The purpose was stated in the article. What does homosexuality have to do with it?

[Calpernia]

My opinions were much more colorful than yours.

And my opinions were prohibited as per FR's posting rules.

[ItsOurTimeNow]

There are ethical lines that are being crossed by this procedure. It's sick and unnatural; and I reckon that anyone who confesses faith in God would feel the same way.

Of course, secular humanists/atheists will have no problem with it, as you've just proven.

Your support for this barbarism is between you and the LORD.

[brytlea]

But the baby (assuming down the road they do produce a child this way) is getting something from the mitochondrial DNA. It does something, else there would be no need to do this procedure. I wonder what the potential upshoot of this are. I'm not smart enough to figure it out, just smart enough to know that the potential child is getting something from that DNA.
susie

[gobucks]

"The human trial will not see any eggs allowed to develop into babies, but the research nonetheless remains controversial."

So, a human baby will be created in a dish, then picked apart before it gets too big to be called a fetus even...


You are right Aussie .... we beat the Nazis ... but we didn't beat Nazi thinking.

This step is beyond sick. It signals the formal return of slavery in the name of science. People can be owned now, and their genetic information is merely property. People are effectively DNA/RNA suitcases, and the suitcase is subject to the sovreignty of the almighty scientists.

Doctor El .... you will live to regret this step.

[gobucks]

I don't know who runs the abortion ping list, but this needs a Red Siren attached....

[TheBattman]

The homosexuals will stop at nothing to "legitimize" thier abhorrent, abnormal, and immoral lifestyle - even going so far as to genetically engineer children. ARRRGGHHHH.....

Come Sweet Jesus!

[mcg1969]

But the baby (assuming down the road they do produce a child this way) is getting something from the mitochondrial DNA. It does something, else there would be no need to do this procedure. I wonder what the potential upshoot of this are. I'm not smart enough to figure it out, just smart enough to know that the potential child is getting something from that DNA.

You are right, and I did not intend to say otherwise. The mitochondrial DNA does serve CERTAIN purposes; and those purposes become all the more apparent when there is a defect in that DNA. But those purposes are far more limited than the DNA in the chromosomes. From a genetic standpoint this is something of a small "patch" to a large code.

But there is an important distinction here, and that is that this technique is meant for theraputic purposes; that is, to prevent certain disorders from arising in the child. That is not to say that the ethical costs are too high: this is like embryonic stem-cell research in that respect.

[King Prout]

oh.

this isn't what the headline led me to expect.

I thought they were going to try some real Frankenstein business by fusing the haploid nuclear material from ova from two women into a diploid zygote.

[drlevy88]

We are the Nazis,
We are the Nazis,
No room for morals,
For we are the Nazis...

[brytlea]

The mitochondrial DNA does serve CERTAIN purposes; and those purposes become all the more apparent when there is a defect in that DNA. But those purposes are far more limited than the DNA in the chromosomes. From a genetic standpoint this is something of a small "patch" to a large code.

I'm sorry, I was kind of musing, I'm not sure if we really know what the upshot (for the child) might actually be. It seems that they have only fairly recently realized that mitochondrial DNA had any impact. But, my understanding of genetics is certainly limited.
I certainly think our abilities frequently outpace our ethics.

susie

[fatima]

Calpernia,So they are putting a fertilized egg into a embryo?.

[Calpernia]

I didn't follow all of the sci fi tech speak on the implementation of it.

Sounded something like the DNA of the male + female to fertilize and then an added cocktail from another female for cosmetic purposes.

IMO they are violating their hypocritic oath.

[hocndoc]

Similar procedures have been done. At least 30 babies have been born after in vitro fertilization, followed by the injection of cytoplasme from a healthy donor:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1312708.stm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9570273&dopt=Abstract

""Genetic fingerprint tests on two one-year-old children confirm that they contain a small quantity of additional genes not inherited from either parent.""

[fatima]

Got you so it will not be fertilized and they will take DNA from male and female and add to female egg to see if it eliminates the bad DNA from the Male 1 and female 1.

[Clara Lou]

Unnaturalness.

[Calpernia]

>>>add to female egg to see if it eliminates the bad DNA from the Male 1 and female 1.

I didn't say that.

[fatima]

I did-I will ask Father Pavone-it very confusing,thanks Calpernia

[mvpel]

Considering that there are 700,000 children in Russia growing up in sterile institutions with scant hope for adoption, and millions more unwanted, already-born children all over the rest of the world, there's no need to do this procedure in the first place.