One Embryo Plus Three Parents Equals Ethical Dilemma

It is a form of genetic engineering, a subject long on controversy and rife with ethical dilemma.

Scientists at Newcastle University have developed a pioneering technique which enables them for the first time to successfully transfer DNA between two human eggs. The technique has the potential to help prevent the transmission of serious and potentially fatal inherited disorders known as mitochondrial diseases.

Mitochondria is described as being the “batteries” that power cells. There are no treatments available to cure these conditions and mothers face the risk having a child who may be affected by such a disease or not to have children at all.

In the procedure, chromosomes were removed from one zygote (the single cell formed when sperm and egg fuse) and put into another zygote that had been stripped of its original chromosomes, but that retained its mitochondria, in effect replacing defective mitochondria.

Researchers say that the resulting embryos would contain the genes from both parents and a tiny amount from the donor egg, and with correctly functioning mitochondria. That’s three genetic parents.

The genetic changes are said to be minor, but would be permanent and passed on to subsequent generations.

According to the BBC, the research was funded by the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, Medical Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust. The team used newly fertilized eggs left over from, and unsuitable for in vetro fertilization (IVF) treatment. The eggs were donated by couples attending the Newcastle Fertility Centre at Life. Follow up studies will check safety and efficiency.

Although researchers are a long way off from completing their studies, the medical, legal, and moral implications are mind-boggling. Where would the donor eggs come from? Egg donation is not a simple procedure. Would a donor be considered a parent? What are the potential long-term medical hazards? And then there is the fear of genetic engineering.

An article in Wired quotes Doug Wallace, a mitochondrial geneticist at the University of California, Irvine as saying:

“Is it fair for society to make it impossible for a woman who has a high percentage of mutant mitochondrial issues to have a healthy baby? That’s what I’m confronted with in my clinic. There’s an ethic of what’s best for the patient.”

and Doug Turnbull, a Newcastle University neurologist and co-author of the study:

“All the characteristics of the computer are stored on the computer. We’re just changing the battery.”

He may view it that way, but something tells me that most people are going to have a hard time likening the procedure to changing a battery. So what do you think? Is this a valid form of medicine.. or dangerous territory… or both?

Photo: http://www.sxc.hu/photo/696381

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

1:05AM PDT on Apr 22, 2010

THANKS!

send a green star

Tom P.

4:06PM PDT on Apr 20, 2010

Mitochondria probably were bacteria which made a symbiotic team with animal cells way back when; becoming the cells' lung-like organelles. Their DNA is separate from the human's. True: were on 'exciting' moral & legal ground here but I don't see ehtical problems with giving a baby & its progeny a normal life...YET!.

Past Member .

5:33AM PDT on Apr 20, 2010

I think that this article itself is an overreaction. If you go back in time to when you switch the zygote mitochondria your magic for the benefit of someone else's sound, and it will not change anything about who you are today. Unless, of course, you had mitochondrial disease, in which case you will have a cure.
sd card

Arvin E.

7:30PM PDT on Apr 19, 2010

Okay, we play God all the time! Every time a person takes a pill to keep disease at bay he/she is playing God. Every time a person mastrabates he/she is playing God, every time a person kills an animal he/she is playing God. Remember: the commandment says, "Thou shalt not kill." It doesn't say, "Thou shalt not kill another person"... With all these Godly behaiors around it is hard to find the un-godly ones. After all every time we drop a bomb on people we are playing God, shazam! We sure are a godly nation!
Every time I achieve the self pleasing act, I pray to God, Oh, God, oh God,... but he/she never seems to answer, yet I'm thankful.

I see no ethical or moral problem here, after all it's just a bunch of cells dividing. Happens all the time.

Paula B.

11:43AM PDT on Apr 19, 2010

Mitochondrial DNA has no part in shaping a child's personality or characteristics. It's all about powering the cells of your body.

I think it's a great advance for mothers with mitochondrial diseases that want to have kids who are healthy.

I think adoption should be the preferred method, but we can't dictate to others' hearts if they don't feel that calling.

Dianne D.

10:05AM PDT on Apr 19, 2010

Don't mess with mother nature. Today they are trying to engineer the perfect human, tomorrow it will be making half humans and half animals as the Bible discribes.

Bernadette E.

9:50AM PDT on Apr 19, 2010

This is year old news. They also can and have created live mice with two eggs and no sperm what so ever. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0421_040421_whoneedsmales.html

The advancement of evolution of the human race can be a great thing. I worry about genetically alerted, however, because I don't think we have the understanding of how genes work. Take a hairless cat, they lack the gene to grow hair but that gene also helps with bone denisty. That is why many hairless animal have poor teeth or fewer teeth. It's also why it's recommend that one of the parents have hair and one not have hair that way severe boneloss doesn't occur. Until they can probably determine how every DNA code effects another then they need to be careful with furthering humans. I am pretty sure in this case there isn't actual altering of genes. They only add the third set of DNA to help fix any mutation. This is a good thing, but it can also be a bad thing. Mutation is the key to evolution and stopping it in one generation might not be conclusive to survival of the species. That saying if these issues are not a factor then this doesn't effect the human race as a whole and it certainly doesn't effect society. I don't think people should get into another family's business. It is an individuals decision not a groups decision.

Barb F.

8:09AM PDT on Apr 19, 2010

Indeed an ethical dilemma it becomes as to how far science should be allowed to be a part of IVF, genetic engineering, as stated in one post, would depend on whose hands that is in, if in the wrong hands it could be very dangerous, if in the right hands, possibilities of being a positive thing. I would not give any parental rights to egg donors, they are donors, they are not parents of any child that resulted, this is not the premise under which they donated an egg to another so they could have children.

Alison M.

6:49AM PDT on Apr 19, 2010

There does need to be great ethical care in the handling of embryos. But what really caused this response is the reality that science and exploration brought us nuclear weapons, natural viruses as weapons, and all kind of horrors, but when technology can bring the limitless joy into a family of a healthy child, suddenly we're all caught up in an ethical dilemma? I intend no slight to science, exploration make us human, but lets celebrate when science helps people live whole lives.

Allison S.

4:22AM PDT on Apr 19, 2010

Knowledge is power and ignorance is bliss ... everything has it's advantages and disadvantages so what produces the greater good should be taken into consideration. Everyone wants to have a healthy and normal child but I think genetic engineering is not the way to go because when such 'technology' falls into the 'wrong' hands, who knows where that can eventually lead. Besides that, how would scientists find out/confirm if all this DNA transfer/replacement works? Wouldn't they have to actually produce a living person out of all this and monitor them for life, like an experiment? Who or what gives them the right to play God like that? And what about the costs involved? Would the 'parents' raising such a child be part of the 'experiement' as well? What if the educated assumptions turn out to be more than the 'parents' can handle? What happens to the child then? There are many ethical questions to be addressed before something like this become mainstream, but that is just my opinion.