Posted on 09/08/2005 4:52:44 PM PDT by 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.
Sterile Institutions could be the greener grass considering those subject to the human trafficking rings.
... What you wrote. Dittos!
It is most certainly NOT for cosmetic purposes. Ethical or not, the claim is that this procedure will prevent genuinely debilitating disorders that are attributable to mitochondrial DNA.
Is that a reply to my question about what this had to do with homosexuality?
A lot of things are "unnatural", whatever that means. Why single out homosexuality? This article had nothing to do with it.
Besides, how is something being "unnatural" a criticism? Heart transplants aren't natural. So what?
I see people reacting instinctively and automatically assuming a genetic procedure is evil without ever giving a reason why it should be thought evil. I don't recall God talking about genetics.
Bump!
No, they are taking an unfertilized egg from one mother, removing its ooplasm---the material surrounding the nucleus, where the chromosomes are---and injecting that ooplasm into the fertilized egg. I'm not sure whether it is a full replacement of the fertilized egg's ooplasm or whether it is simply an addition to it.
The reason they would do this is to counter genetic defects in the embryo's mitochondrial DNA. This is DNA that is passed only from the mother and is not in the 46 chromosomes themselves. If that DNA is defective it can lead to certain disorders like some muscular dystrophy-like symptoms.
Again, not to defend the practice as ethical necessarily, but it is worth pointing out that this is NOT done simply to create a designer baby but rather to correct known and significant defects. It likely wouldn't pass the ethical test for anyone who believes life should be protected from conception, however, because it puts the egg at risk not commensurate with the severity of the disorder.
I'm not sure what your post had to do with what I said.
susie
No, we just stole their research and goals.
I'm curious what effect totally foreign mitochondrial DNA might have down the road on the person. I mean, in nature, the mitochondrial DNA has a connection to one of the people who provided chromosomes (the mother). Is it possible that this could create a problem they've not thought of?
Additionally, this is interesting since they have used mitochondrial DNA to track ancestry. This will surely put a kink in that down the road.
Anyway, I think it's unethical to create human embryos to study them and kill them. I used to think in vitro fertilization was fine since it's goal was to help nature along in producing a baby. However I'm more squeemish about it now because so many extras are produced that are killed or studied.
People would raise an outcry if I poduced puppies for sale and then just killed the ones I didn't sell once they were past the cute stage. And yes, for the record I have 2 family members who did in vitro.
susie
Well I called Father's office and understand it better now.It is against the teaching of the Catholic Church.They do have a booklet that explains it -just go to www.priestsforlife.org and they will send it out free.
I definitely agree with you on the ethical issues. It is far from clear that this "hybrid" child would be free from serious, unintended consequences. Yes, the diseases caused by mitochondrial DNA defects can be severe but who knows how worse the cure will be. And in the meanwhile, embryos will be created and destroyed to find out.
Moral Absolutes Ping.
IIRC, this is the second article about this gruesome practice.
Too tired to make comments, the others already there are enough.
But, since I must make comments or my eyes start bulging, here's one, similar to what I said on the other thread:
This world is not a carnival, it's an educational institution. And we all have to take the final exam. Messing around with natural law, bending and twisting and splicing and dicing just to try to make this mortal world into a utopia where everyone gets to have just what they want is not only a waste of time, it'll never be perfect. It's designed that way.
It's not the hand you're dealt, it's what you make of the hand you're dealt.
And dying rich is not the goal, nor is dying with the perfect kids, the Ph.D, framed clippings yellowing with age about one's acheivements, the acclaim of one's fellows, or blue ribbons. Especially if any of these acheivements were made at the cost of causing suffering to others.
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
Good night, all!
It ain't right, makes me wonder why my grandfather fought at Normandy after all. Perhaps we need another Normandy soon.
Your logic leads to the conclusion that we should never try to improve anything, make anyone's life better, or strive for anything. I really don't think you believe that.
Obviously that is not my position.
My position is this: as responsible, cilvized human beings, it is our responsiblity to take responsibilities for ourselves, our dependents, and care about others according to our capacity and position.
That necessitates using our God-given intelligence, intution, and the wisdom of our forebears to make the world as livable as can be, keeping in mind that actions have reactions, and if we break the bounds of morality as enjoined in all the world's religions, we are now on the road to hell/aka as Utopia.
The world has built-in limitations. We cannot live forever in these material bodies, there is no possibility of scientifically or otherwise preventing all illness or eradicating old age, what to speak of the death of the body.
There is a higher purpose to life besides eat, drink and be merry. Scripter's tagline says well:
scripter (Let temporal things serve your use, but the eternal be the object of your desire.)
Any worthy human field of endeavor - be it science, business, agriculture, the arts - which rejects the eternal moral principles which are universal, destroys what makes human civilization human and civilized. Scientists who think themselves lord and God and that moral absolutes are made to be broken become agents of harm instead of good.
I would deny anyone the right to kill someone else in order to have a "better" life. My good health or even my child's good health that depends on the death of another is inhuman. It's nothing more than Nazism in different dress.
Whether that death involves someone already born or not yet born is immaterial.
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.