SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A new mitochondrial donation technique called spindle nuclear transfer has been successfully used in order to prevent a child from inheriting a mitochondrial disorder:
It's not the first time scientists have created babies that have DNA from three people - that breakthrough began in the late 1990s - but it is an entirely new and significant method. [...] The US team, who travelled to Mexico to carry out the procedure because there are no laws there that prohibit it, used a method that takes all the vital DNA from the mother's egg plus healthy mitochondria from a donor egg to create a healthy new egg that can be fertilised with the father's sperm.
[...] Some have questioned whether we are only now hearing the success story while failed attempts could have gone unreported. Prof Alison Murdoch, part of the team at Newcastle University that has been at the forefront of three person IVF work in the UK, said: "The translation of mitochondrial donation to a clinical procedure is not a race but a goal to be achieved with caution to ensure both safety and reproducibility." Critics say the work is irresponsible. Dr David King from the pro-choice group Human Genetics Alert, said: "It is outrageous that they simply ignored the cautious approach of US regulators and went to Mexico, because they think they know better. Since when is a simplistic "to save lives is the ethical thing to do" a balanced medical ethics approach, especially when no lives were being saved?" Dr Zhang and his team say they will answer these questions when they presents[sic] their findings at a meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine in October.
Also at The New York Times and NPR.
First live birth using human oocytes reconstituted by spindle nuclear transfer for mitochondrial DNA mutation causing Leigh syndrome (open, DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.08.004) (DX)
As far as I can tell, what you see in the above Fertility and Sterility paper is all that has been released.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday September 29 2016, @12:57PM
This kind of research should be strictly restricted. It does not further any useful goal and has a huge set of potential downsides that need to be addressed before allowing the research to continue.
I do think it's rather ironic that there are strict controls on this and few controls when it comes to conducting genetic testing on crops that are then planted where the genes are then able to spread in unpredictable ways to other plants.
(Score: 2) by computersareevil on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:17PM
That is because this doesn't (yet) have a megocorporation buying congressmen to make sure it's allowed. Give it time.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:22PM
There should be no restrictions on this kind of research whatsoever. Restricting this is a waste of time and money.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday September 29 2016, @09:06PM
so you have no problems with researching biological weapons?
Bottom line here is that Some lines of research are so dangerous that there needs to be careful consideration over the results. Once research is done, you can't undo it. For example, nuclear bombs are out for good, so are chemical weapons.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday September 29 2016, @11:05PM
Biological weapons can't be effectively controlled in the long run, unlike nukes which require enriched nuclear material. The best offense is a good defense, and making the research more difficult with unnecessary and burdensome regulations does not help.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]