from the mothers-day-just-got-more-expensive dept.
The BBC reports that three-person IVF will soon be legal in the United Kingdom. The procedure involves replacing mitochondrial DNA in an embryo from that of a second woman in order to eliminate deadly mitochondrial genetic disorders. Alana Saarinen was successfully conceived in the U.S. using the procedure back in 2000, but the FDA banned ooplasm transfer in 2001.
The UK has now become the first country to approve laws to allow the creation of babies from three people. The modified version of IVF has passed its final legislative obstacle after being approved by the House of Lords. The fertility regulator will now decide how to license the procedure to prevent babies inheriting deadly genetic diseases. The first baby could be born as early as 2016. A large majority of MPs in the House of Commons approved "three-person babies" earlier this month. The House of Lords tonight rejected an attempt to block the plan by a majority of 232. Estimates suggest 150 couples would be suitable to have babies through the technique each year.
Additional coverage at Wired UK and The Guardian.
Related: UK Parliament Gives Three-"Source" IVF the Go-Ahead.
Related Stories
A study by Newcastle University researchers has found that three-person in vitro fertilization is safe (does not adversely affect embryos) and can be routinely performed. Three-person IVF allows the transfer of donor mitochondria into an embryo in order to prevent mitochondrial disease:
Published today in the journal Nature, scientists at the Wellcome Trust Centre for Mitochondrial Disease at Newcastle University report the first in-depth analysis of human embryos created using a new technique designed to reduce the risk of mothers passing on mitochondrial disease to their children, which is debilitating and often life-limiting.
[...] Today researchers, in a study involving over 500 eggs from 64 donor women, publish results that indicate that the new procedure does not adversely affect human development and will greatly reduce the level of faulty mitochondria in the embryo. Their results suggest that the technique will lead to normal pregnancies whilst also reducing the risk of babies having mitochondrial disease. The results of this study will be considered by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's (HFEA) Expert Scientific Panel. The HFEA will ultimately decide whether to issue the first licence to a clinic. A licensed clinic would allow couples affected by mitochondrial disease to have the choice of whether to use pronuclear transfer to try and have healthy children.
Also at the BBC. You can fill out this form to donate eggs or sperm to the Newcastle Fertility Centre at Life.
Towards clinical application of pronuclear transfer to prevent mitochondrial DNA disease (DOI: 10.1038/nature18303)
Previously: UK Approves Three-Person IVF Babies
U.S. Panel Gives Tentative Endorsement to Three-Person IVF
Dr. Kathy Niakan from the Francis Crick Institute is seeking approval from the UK's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in order to genetically modify human embryos:
A scientist has been making her case to be the first in the UK to be allowed to genetically modify human embryos. Dr Kathy Niakan said the experiments would provide a deeper understanding of the earliest moments of human life and could reduce miscarriages. The regulator, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), will consider her application on Thursday. If Dr Niakan is given approval then the first such embryos could be created by the summer.
[...] Dr Niakan, from the Francis Crick Institute, said: "We would really like to understand the genes needed for a human embryo to develop successfully into a healthy baby. The reason why it is so important is because miscarriages and infertility are extremely common, but they're not very well understood."
Of 100 fertilised eggs, fewer than 50 reach the blastocyst stage, 25 implant into the womb and only 13 develop beyond three months. She says that understanding what is supposed to happen and what can go wrong could improve IVF. "We believe that this research could really lead to improvements in infertility treatment and ultimately provide us with a deeper understanding of the earliest stages of human life."
However, she says the only way to do this is to edit human embryos. Many of the genes which become active in the week after fertilisation are unique to humans, so they cannot be studied in animal experiments. "The only way we can understand human biology at this early stage is by further studying human embryos directly," Dr Niakan said. Her intention is to use one of the most exciting recent scientific breakthroughs - Crispr gene editing - to turn off genes at the single-cell stage and see what happens. [...] She aims to start with the gene Oct4 which appears to have a crucial role.
Related: UK Approves Three-Person IVF Babies
The Rapid Rise of CRISPR
Group of Scientists and Bioethicists Back Genetic Modification of Human Embryos
Following a September 3-4 meeting in Manchester, England, the Hinxton Group, "a global network of stem cell researchers, bioethicists, and experts on policy and scientific publishing" has published a statement backing the genetic modification of human embryos, with caveats:
It is "essential" that the genetic modification of human embryos is allowed, says a group of scientists, ethicists and policy experts. A Hinxton Group report says editing the genetic code of early stage embryos is of "tremendous value" to research. It adds although GM babies should not be allowed to be born at the moment, it may be "morally acceptable" under some circumstances in the future. The US refuses to fund research involving the gene editing of embryos. The global Hinxton Group met in response to the phenomenal advances taking place in the field of genetics.
From the statement:
Genome editing has tremendous value as a tool to address fundamental questions of human and non-human animal biology and their similarities and differences. There are at least four categories of basic research involving genome editing technology that can be distinguished: 1) research to understand and improve the technique of genome editing itself; 2) genome editing used as a tool to address fundamental questions of human and non-human animal biology; 3) research to generate preliminary data for the development of human somatic applications; and 4) research to inform the plausibility of developing safe human reproductive applications. These distinctions are important to make clear that, even if one opposes human genome editing for clinical reproductive purposes, there is important research to be done that does not serve that end. That said, we appreciate that there are even categories of basic research involving this technology that some may find morally troubling. Nevertheless, it is our conviction that concerns about human genome editing for clinical reproductive purposes should not halt or hamper application to scientifically defensible basic research.
BBC has this beginner's guide to the designer baby debate.
Related:
The Rapid Rise of CRISPR
NIH Won't Fund Human Germline Modification
Chinese Scientists Have Genetically Modified Human Embryos
UK Approves Three-Person IVF Babies
A National Academy of Medicine (formerly known as the Institute of Medicine) committee has given conditional backing to the use of mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRT). Three-person in vitro fertilisation was approved and legalized in the United Kingdom last year, but has been banned by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration since 2001, despite having been used to conceive a patient back in 2000. Mitochondrial replacement is intended to allow a couple to conceive a child, but with healthy mitochondria inserted into the embryo from a female donor:
Would it be ethical for scientists to try to create babies that have genetic material from three different people? An influential panel of experts has concluded the answer could be yes. The 12-member panel, assembled by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, released a 164-page report Wednesday outlining a plan for how scientists could ethically pursue the controversial research. "The committee concludes that it is ethically permissible" to conduct such experiments, the report says, but then goes on to detail a long list of conditions that would have to be met first.
For example, scientists would have to perform extensive preliminary research in the laboratory and with animals to try make sure it is safe. And then researchers should initially try to make only male babies, because they would be incapable of passing their unusual amalgamation of DNA on to future generations. "Minimizing risk to future children should be of highest priority," the committee writes.
The report was requested by the Food and Drug Administration in response to applications by two groups of scientists in New York and Oregon to conduct the experiments. Their goal is to help women have healthy babies even though they come from families plagued by [mitochondrial] genetic disorders.
The PDF of the report, "Mitochondrial Replacement Techniques: Ethical, Social, and Policy Considerations" (DOI: 10.17226/21871) is 8.1 MB and can be downloaded "as guest" with no email confirmation.
MPs have voted in favour of the creation of babies with DNA[*] from two women and one man, in an historic move. The UK is now set to become the first country to introduce laws to allow the creation of babies from three people.
In a free vote in the Commons, 382 MPs were in favour and 128 against the technique that stops genetic diseases being passed from mother to child. During the debate, ministers said the technique was "light at the end of a dark tunnel" for families.
A further vote is required in the House of Lords. If everything goes ahead then the first such baby could be born next year.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-31069173
[Additional Coverage]: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26906-uk-parliament-gives-threeparent-ivf-the-goahead.html
[*] Editor's Note: Contrary to many media reports, this is not a "three-parent" situation. The law identifies that there is a woman donor who provides an egg (from which the chromosomal DNA is removed and whose mitochondrial DNA will remain) and then two parents: another woman (the mother) whose chromosomal DNA is implanted in the donor egg, and a man (the father) who donates the sperm.)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday February 26 2015, @08:10PM
When it comes to the medical science of this, there is absolutely no problems compared to the untreated case.
That's not going to stop some assholes from throwing around the term "frankenbaby." You know, to describe a human child.
(Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Thursday February 26 2015, @08:19PM
Most of us are the frankengreatgrandchildren of 8 people, and the sum of millions of life-altering DNA mutations.
Every time I visit my cousins at the zoo, they wonder which idiot decided to replace perfectly good fur and leather with silly clothes and shoes.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday February 26 2015, @08:25PM
Heck. Some of us are m-m-m-mutants(I don't know if that includes me or not).
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday February 26 2015, @08:40PM
No Mutants Allowed. (Just Saying) = Fallout Reference - FYI
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:16PM
Get back in the sewer
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Thursday February 26 2015, @08:42PM
Frankenbabies aren't the problems. I have no issues with genetic engineering myself: I view mankind today as being able to accelerate its own evolution, and that, in a sense, is evolution itself.
Bad things will happen when people's opportunities in life become restricted by their genome. Think better jobs or lower health care costs for designer babies. Think ostracism against "organic" babies. If you want to see the future of this, watch the movie Gattaca [imdb.com].
This is a very slippery slope, and given how ruthless and amoral corporations have proven to be today, it's more than a little worrying.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MrGuy on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:47PM
Sigh. Get a new hobbyhorse. "ZOMG Gattica!" has been thrown around since 1997.
Not every advance in reproductive technology is a step towards "Genetic predisposition is an absolute determinant of destiny, and people will be judged accordingly and exclusively based on their genes."
Indeed, the body of science around behavioral and environmental factors overriding genetic destiny continues to grow.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:00PM
That's one vision. Here's mine:
The real problem isn't eugenics, it's income inequality. Genetic engineering technologies will get cheaper and more available within "developed" countries, but people in extreme poverty (often caused by conflict) won't have access for years or decades.
Health care costs will tank when preventative nanotechnology medicine becomes the norm. Today's high health care costs will be demolished by nanoparticles and later nanomachines that repair the body constantly, removing the need for anything other than emergency care.
Superintelligent babies or not, there will be a permanent unemployment trend as productivity continues to go up and humans are replaced by robots and computers across all sectors.
You say there could be ostracism against "organic" babies, but normal non-GMO "organic" babies could be regarded as the ideal while genetically altered humans are discriminated against and killed by religious extremists.
The three-person IVF procedure is extremely limited in scope, basically replacing some tamed "bacteria" with others. More radical and cosmetic genetic engineering will face bans in most countries. If it gets very cheap, safe, and reliable, the bans may become easy to circumvent.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Disagree) by SuperCharlie on Thursday February 26 2015, @08:47PM
The most techy important story since the beginning of the Internet and close to 2 hours later we are talking about 3-person babies. You are really pushing the limits of why I come here.
(Score: 4, Touché) by bob_super on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:10PM
Well, it will only be the most important story of the commercial internet after another few appeals, lawsuits, and a final decision from a bunch of old robed-but-not-wigged ones.
And it's been discussed here at least five times, while the 3-people IVF is only on its second pass. :-)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by mr_mischief on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:15PM
I think overcoming a deadly disorder and allowing people to have healthy children is pretty important technology.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:54PM
It is, but I wouldn't classify this as the "most important story since the 80s.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:21PM
<sarcasm>Not more important than my ability to watch NetFlix without paying an arm and leg, no.</sarcasm>
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:30PM
This is an important science/health/ethics story.
Here's the story you couldn't wait a few hours for:
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=15/02/26/203225 [soylentnews.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by isostatic on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:10PM
That can't be it, a minor legislative move that doesn't affect 95% of the internet?
Egypt going offline in 2011, that was a big internet story. Pakistan stealing youtube's networks via BGP - big story. Heartbleed - big story.
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Friday February 27 2015, @12:51AM
"since the beginning of the Internet"
Sorry, but a ruling by the FCC that may get overturned or modified in court and won't have any impact on much of the existing net is NOT the biggest techie story since October 29th, 1969.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday February 27 2015, @12:01PM
The "beginning of the net" has several arguable beginnings. Plans for an interconnected network in the 60s, Arpanet in 1969, the 1980s which saw the introduction of DNS, IPv4, and the growth of commercial connections, the web in the early 90s, Eternal September, CIDR in 1994.
But yes, there's been plenty of bigger stories in the last 12 months than this vote, even if you look at it from a US centric viewpoint.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:03PM
Replace the nucleus of an animal egg with that of a human egg, and then fertilize it with human sperm.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by deimtee on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:56PM
Not sure why the parent is modded troll. If you are going to fix defective mitochondria it may be worth looking around for the best replacements.
Not necessarily human. And while some might go for cheetah dna for sprinters, there are other options, like longevity, hardiness, and efficiency to consider.
eg Parrots are amazingly long-lived for their size and activity level. Tortoises live even longer, but aren't as active.
200 million years is actually quite a long time.
(Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:48PM
Now 90% off.
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kbahey on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:58PM
This will have the side effect of messing up genetic analysis.
Whether this analysis is for health reasons, or population genetics, there is no way to tell that mtDNA is not from the same gametes as the sole parent.
The result may be wrong conclusions, wrong therapy, ...etc.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning [2bits.com].
(Score: 2) by bootsy on Friday February 27 2015, @08:17AM
Given the problems this treatment solves though it is worth this minor drawback. Most of these parents' children would die in a particularly unpleasent way very early one in life (usually before 25 and some a lot younger) and it causes the UK Health Service ( and therefore UK taxpayers ) a considerable amount of money and resources to try and make their remaining life as good as it could be.
The UK Birth rate is dropping even with an influx of immigrants doing their best to push it up so the argument that the parents just shouldn't have children seems a bit harsh.
(Score: 2) by AnonTechie on Friday February 27 2015, @09:18AM
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=15/02/04/0235245 [soylentnews.org]
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."