SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @03:39PM
i can't wait to be a useless piece of shit all day and fertilize all these eggs with three parents
FUCK I'M FALLING DOWN ALL THESE SLIPPERY SLOPES
I WARNED YOU ABOUT SLIPPERY SLOPES BRO!!! I TOLD YOU DOG!
IT KEEPS HAPPENING
I TOLD YOU MAN
I TOLD YOU ABOUT SLIPPERY SLOPES
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Gravis on Friday February 05 2016, @05:55PM
if your highest priority is to minimize the "risk to future children," then shouldn't you just avoid the whole damn thing and sterilize the person with the defective DNA? we don't need people that have bad DNA to conceive and raise children, so this is just another pursuit to fulfill selfish desires. i'm not against science, progress or genetic manipulation but let's call a spade a spade because there is no shortage of humans.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @07:05PM
It's not as though we don't have enough old people already. Shouldn't we just withhold Grandma's cancer meds? We don't need old people, so this is just another pursuit to fulfill selfish desires. Let's call a spade a spade because there is no shortage of humans.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @02:38AM
Action T4 welcomes you both!
http://www.euthanasia.com/t4.html [euthanasia.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @05:51PM
Try to keep up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @10:14PM
In both cases you're attempting to make other people's medical choices for them. Try to keep up.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday February 05 2016, @05:56PM
I can see development of these techniques for breeding better livestock, hardier crops, and even exotic pets, but why exactly does a couple with reproductive deficiency _need_ to create a child from portions of their genomes combined with third party mitochondria?
I certainly understand the desire to pass on your DNA, but if your DNA isn't fertile on its own - isn't that risking passing a heavy burden onto your offspring?
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 3, Insightful) by EvilSS on Friday February 05 2016, @06:09PM
It is not that their DNA isn't "Fertile" or is even defective. It's that there is a defect in the mother's mitochondria. With this technique the child inherits it's parents DNA but not the defective mitochondria. There is no "burden" to be passed on at that point.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday February 05 2016, @06:28PM
Why, then, the ethical concern over female offspring?
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Friday February 05 2016, @08:07PM
I would speculate that it has something to do with the fact that mitochondria is only passed down to future generations from the female. So if the created offspring here is male, it won't pass on the mitchochondria to future generations; and future generations will not be affected by the 3 person IVF that was used to create him.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Monday February 08 2016, @05:52PM
It's just an over-abundance of caution. They want to study the procedure before allowing it just in case it causes some unforeseen issue with the mitochondria. This way it won't be passed down. The odds of this are essentially nil but they are playing it very safe. Other countries have not seen a reason to impose the same restrictions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @06:23PM
there is the chance that the mitochondrial dna is acctually okay,
but that the other dna is defect and is acctually poisoning/damaging the
mitochondrial dna?
there are theories that long time ago the regular dna and mitochondrial dna
where seperate ...uhm... errr ... entities.
the spirochat(?) like mitochondria was like a seperate organism that got
incoporated into the dna-only organism and together they formed a
kind of symbiosis ("i help you, you help me. together we are stronger").
so it is possible that even though the regular dna gives the shape and size and color etc.
of what we call a person, it cannot work correctly if the mitochondrial dna isnt
present, defectif or ...isnt sufficiently compatible to form a working
"symbiosis".
the result of the 3 person solution could result in a situation where the 3 person offspring
has dna that is still poisoning the mitochondrial dna, which would lead to
having to always use 3 persons to make any future offspring?
sanctioned defectivness and good for future stock prices of vital for survival "3-person-r-us"
outlets/clinics?