SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(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]