SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the Kwisatz-Haderach-breeding-program dept.
GungnirSniper writes:
The US Food and Drug Administration is holding hearings to help determine if they should allow oocyte modification of mitochondrial DNA, which could prevent hereditary diseases that cause issues, such as such as seizures and blindness, from being passed on by mothers. In layman's terms, this "three-parent IVF" would allow the mitochondrial DNA of an unaffected woman to replace that of the mother while keeping the main DNA, so the child would still look like the mother and father.
From Scientific American: "Once the mtDNA has been swapped out, the egg could be fertilized in the lab by the father's sperm and the embryo would be implanted back into mom where pregnancy would proceed. The resulting child would be the genetic offspring of the intended mother but would carry healthy mitochondrial genes from the donor."
The New York Times has a shorter version of the story, as well as an opinion column urging ethical and moral consideration of this procedure.
Is this an ethical way to prevent future harm, or the start of a slippery slope to designer babies? Is the creation of designer babies immoral?
(Score: 1) by JimmyCrackCorn on Friday February 28 2014, @02:41AM
Tweak any system and other things may change from the tweak.
I think the mitochondria are even more alien like now that they can get us to select the more likely to reproduce mitochondria for our offspring.
The more intriguing question may be: Is there a negative impact on human reproduction fitness six generations from mitochondria exchange?
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Barrabas on Friday February 28 2014, @03:23AM
"Tweak any system and other things may change from the tweak."
That can be said of any proposal for progress. In truth, there *may* indeed be unintended consequences for these changes - just as with any proposed change.
You're highlighting the probabilities without taking into consideration the risk/reward.
On the one hand, we have a damaged child in need of lifetime care and little chance for a happy existence. On the other, a perfectly normal child with a happy outlook.
Even if the probability of "other things happening" is high, doesn't the risk/reward consideration enter into it at all? Not to mention the logic of the mental "model" behind the proposed change, and the value of potentially eliminating certain diseases from the species.
Focus on the larger picture. Try to recognize these types of misdirection, it's how powerful entities manipulate public opinion to their own ends.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tftp on Friday February 28 2014, @03:50AM
In truth, there *may* indeed be unintended consequences for these changes - just as with any proposed change.
And just as with any change that was proposed and REJECTED. Humanity may have been now on the brink of extinction from plague, leprosy, cholera and other preventable diseases if at some point in alternative history the Church declared that all diseases are holy, sent to us by Gods, and medical treatment is verboten, and penicillin is work of Devil himself.
It's reasonably easy to demonstrate that there is no way to predict that $something_bad does or does not happen if you do or don't do an arbitrary action $A. You only have probabilities. Sure, playing Russian Roulette with a 1911 [wikipedia.org] is probably more risky than eating an apple. That much risk we can and should recognize. On the other end of the range, it may be that Washington Red apples, if eaten for 100 generations, cause infertility and death of civilization. The duty of science is to estimate likely risks for doing $A and for not doing it, as well as the costs (see the AGW theory.)
(Score: 2, Interesting) by glyph on Friday February 28 2014, @08:18AM
On the flip side to your hypothetical... Imagine if humanity was on the brink of extinction from a plague or what have you, and the only people immune were the ones carrying those "undesirable" hereditary traits that we just finished cleansing from the gene pool. Oops.
It occurs to me that Darwin already did the risk/reward analysis, in a manner of speaking. More diversity always leads to better chances of survival.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Open4D on Friday February 28 2014, @03:11PM
I take your point, although I think the story we are discussing proves that it is not an absolute. It's difficult to see how the diversity represented by faulty mitochondrial DNA (and an early death [bbc.com]) could ever realistically be a good thing.
But yes, any treatments like this should be highly focussed, and only reduce genetic diversity where necessary. Perhaps they should seek approaches that work by engineering increased genetic diversity wherever possible? (Different treatments for the same disease or something?)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday February 28 2014, @03:57AM
Misfortune does the even more the same. For every bold that succeeds there are countless that perish.
Let's bring this closer to personal: assume that an unknown (yet) risk is to have the your baby not only affected by seizures but, due to something about the operation of mitochondrial DNA change, the result in a clinical idiot baby; would you pay the price of taking care of this child for her/his entire life?
Assume you are the doctor to perform the operation, would you do it if the parents put you upfront the condition of paying for the care of the child in case of failure?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by tftp on Friday February 28 2014, @04:10AM
Let's bring this closer to personal: assume that an unknown (yet) risk is to have the your baby not only affected by seizures but, due to something about the operation of mitochondrial DNA change, the result in a clinical idiot baby; would you pay the price of taking care of this child for her/his entire life?
Every parent already signs on that dotted line when s/he elects to have a baby. Babies do not come with warranties; you get what you get, and from now on it's all yours to care for.
Assume you are the doctor to perform the operation, would you do it if the parents put you upfront the condition of paying for the care of the child in case of failure?
Doctors never guarantee success; they are not gods and they do not control *everything* that goes into your child. Consequently, no doctor would pay you anything in case the treatment is not entirely successful. They have their hands full with malpractice lawsuits, which have a much higher threshold (something that the doctor did that was done contrary to the prevailing medical practice.)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday February 28 2014, @04:30AM
(I can't stop myself from noticing your quick "route of escape". I asked if you would be willing to take unknown risks in two different PoV, and you slided into "every parent" and "doctors never".
No longer personal: I wonder sometimes if boldness correlates with a faltering of the empathy sense?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by tftp on Friday February 28 2014, @06:38AM
I can't stop myself from noticing your quick "route of escape". I asked if you would be willing to take unknown risks in two different PoV, and you slided into "every parent" and "doctors never".
It's just a good generalization that is nearly always true (nearly - in case if you point at some bad parent who kills or gives away their unwanted child, or at a doctor who promises specific results no matter what.) Who cares what I specifically believe in? It's not helping anyone to know; it's not even statistic. A universal formula is far more valuable.
(Score: 1) by Barrabas on Friday February 28 2014, @04:22AM
The answer is simple: Perform the operation on a baby who would *already* be subject to such limitations without the procedure.
And as has been pointed out, the value of one life is around one to two million dollars. As a civilization, we could pay for several of those against the possibility of eliminating certain diseases from the species.
Diseases which in themselves burden the civilization with a much higher cost.
You're story-telling response confuses the possibility of something happening with its likelihood. Even if you correct that flaw, it makes no consideration for the relative costs.
Consider it a gambling equation: if it works, we've won the (species) lottery. If it fails, we're out $2.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Friday February 28 2014, @04:33AM
I'm afraid it's not that simple: can't change the DNA (mitochondrial or not) other than in the egg status - once in the embryo status, too many cells to replace that DNA into.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by mmcmonster on Friday February 28 2014, @11:11AM
Or possibly the other way around.
Perhaps tweaking with the system will create babies who are superior to those who are not tweaked.
Presumably animal models are limited. But the science suggests that the babies are affected by mitochondrial DNA. Should be interesting at the very least.