Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Thursday February 26 2015, @07:59PM   Printer-friendly
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.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday February 26 2015, @08:10PM

    by ikanreed (3164) on Thursday February 26 2015, @08:10PM (#150065) Journal

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Thursday February 26 2015, @08:19PM

    by bob_super (1357) on Thursday February 26 2015, @08:19PM (#150067)

    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

      by ikanreed (3164) on Thursday February 26 2015, @08:25PM (#150070) Journal

      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

        by Freeman (732) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 26 2015, @08:40PM (#150080) Journal

        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: 3, Interesting) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Thursday February 26 2015, @08:42PM

    by Rosco P. Coltrane (4757) on Thursday February 26 2015, @08:42PM (#150082)

    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

      by MrGuy (1007) on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:47PM (#150177)

      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

      by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:00PM (#150185) Journal

      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]