FDA Expected To Approve Technique To Create “Three-Parent Babies”

[Dave-W]

It may soon be legal in the U.S. to modify embryos using mitochondrial replacement therapy (MRT). The FDA is expected to approve the procedure today, according to a press release from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and reported by Nature News.

In the past few years, MRT has emerged as a viable treatment for mitochondrial diseases, congenital conditions that a mother passes on to her child caused by mutations that prevent mitochondria from producing enough energy to fuel the body’s cells. There are a few different versions of the procedure, but in essence scientists would replace a mother’s damaged mitochondrial DNA with that of another healthy woman in an egg, which would combine with a healthy sperm to create a viable embryo that could then be implanted in the mother.

While MRT offers a treatment—or even a cure—for previously untreatable conditions, some experts have voiced concerns about the safety and ethics of the procedure. Because researchers still aren’t clear on how mitochondrial DNA interacts with the rest of a person’s genetic code, modified embryos might be at higher risk of other health problems like cancer. And any changes made to a baby’s genome can be passed on to future generations, bringing up the age-old debate of “designer” babies. Some are wary of the identity crises that would accompany children who have three biological parents.

http://www.popsci.com/fda-approves-technique-to-create-three-parent-babies

Apparently it is already legal in the UK.
http://www.popsci.com/3-parent-babies-are-now-legal-united-kingdom

 

[Loudmouth]

While MRT offers a treatment—or even a cure—for previously untreatable conditions, some experts have voiced concerns about the safety and ethics of the procedure. Because researchers still aren’t clear on how mitochondrial DNA interacts with the rest of a person’s genetic code, modified embryos might be at higher risk of other health problems like cancer.

I don't see why that would be the case. Each baby's genome is a shuffled mixture of the parents' DNA. This happens in each and every generation. However, the mitochondria is passed down vertically without any shuffling. If we start at Generation 1, and look again at Generation 8, we would see that just 0.8% of the mother's autosomal DNA in Generation 1 is still present in Generation 8, but that mitochondrial DNA is still exactly or nearly the same. It would seem to me that normal conceptions run the same risk as MRT.

As far as ethics goes, it kind of follows the Hippocratic oath. First, do no harm. It is important to establish that this treatment offers more rewards than it does risks. If it is ethical to treat disease after conception, I really don't see how treating disease before conception or during conception is unethical.

 

[Tiny Bible]

Ah Mary Shelly, you insightful woman you.

 

[Paradoxum]

It isn't really three person babies. It replaces a non-nucleus part of the cell.

I don't think actual three person babies would be bad though (whatever that would practically mean).

Seperately, while I'm not sure 'designer babies' are right, I don't think they would be terrible either. They would be a minor ethical issue, if an issue at all.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't think actual three person babies would be bad though (whatever that would practically mean).

Everyone is effectively a 4 person baby, a combination of their grandparents' alleles.

 

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

Like Loudmouth, I can't see how this process could be unethical. It allows people to reproduce without their kids having some types of genetic disorders, which sounds pretty great. I've seen a lot of hate around the internet about this, but seems to be mostly from scientifically illiterate folks who have no idea what a 3-person baby actually is. Maybe there is a legitimate complaint somewhere, but I have yet to see it.
The only moral complaint I could understand is if the process involved the creation of extraneous embryos life IVF does then pro-life folks would be upset. But I'm not sure if that's the case, and according to current ethics a 3-person baby seems entirely legitimate.

 

[Dave-W]

I am sure Catholics would object on moral/ethical grounds that any messing with the DNA is "playing god" and therefore forbidden. They are opposed on moral/ethical grounds of any kind of fertilization other than via unprotected married couple sex.

There are others that say fertilization is the same as having sex - so pulling another woman's mitochondria into the mix is the same as the father having sex with her also. (adultery)

 

[Loudmouth]

There are others that say fertilization is the same as having sex - so pulling another woman's mitochondria into the mix is the same as the father having sex with her also. (adultery)

If we are able to clone ourselves, would that be masturbation?

 

[Dave-W]

If we are able to clone ourselves, would that be masturbation?

I think in that stream of thought - yes. (but only if you are a girl and carry your own offspring)

If you are a guy - then your "stuff" needs to be implanted in a woman to carry the child. So that would be fornication. If you are a girl and someone else carries the baby, it would be lesbianism.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think in that stream of thought - yes. (but only if you are a girl and carry your own offspring)

If you are a guy - then your "stuff" needs to be implanted in a woman to carry the child.

To be pedantic, that doesn't require fertilization between two people.

 

[brinny]

FDA Expected To Approve Technique To Create “Three-Parent Babies”

The "Food and Drug Administration"?

What is UP with this agency?

 

[Loudmouth]

FDA Expected To Approve Technique To Create “Three-Parent Babies”

The "Food and Drug Administration"?

What is UP with this agency?

They are approving medical treatments since that is what they have been put in charge of regulating.

 

[brinny]

They are approving medical treatments since that is what they have been put in charge of regulating.

Thank you for your response. i had no idea they were put in charge of approving medical treatments....and in this case, wouldn't it be "experiential"?

Do you happen to know Who the head of FDA is?

 

[Desk trauma]

Do you happen to know Who the head of FDA is?

Dr. Stephen Ostroff, M.D.

Here's the agencies website for answers to other questions with little or no relevancy.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thank you for your response. i had no idea they were put in charge of approving medical treatments....and in this case, wouldn't it be "experiential"?[/quote

Do you happen to know Who the head of FDA is?

If you meant "experimental", that would be correct. I believe that the FDA is also put in charge of overseeing scientific experiments done on embryos. This may be limited to federally funded research, I'm not sure on that point.

As an aside, the Nature News article also mentions that human trials are banned by law, so the research is limited to non-viable embryos for the time being, it would appear.

 

[brinny]

brinny said: ↑
Do you happen to know Who the head of FDA is?

Dr. Stephen Ostroff, M.D.

Here's the agencies website for answers to other questions with little or no relevancy.

Thank you for the information, although the questions i asked are relevant. The bottom line being what authority the FDA has to authorize "experiential" procedures, and if so, how they got that authorization in the first place.

IZt was very kind of you to respond, however.

Thank you again.

 

[Desk trauma]

Thank you for the information, although the questions i asked are relevant.

...to what exactly? Is this procedure made more or less acceptable depending on who the current FDA commissioner is?

 

[brinny]

If you meant "experimental", that would be correct. I believe that the FDA is also put in charge of overseeing scientific experiments done on embryos. This may be limited to federally funded research, I'm not sure on that point.

As an aside, the Nature News article also mentions that human trials are banned by law, so the research is limited to non-viable embryos for the time being, it would appear.

Thank you kindly for your response and the information. I was not aware of any of it.

What are non-viable embryos?

 

[brinny]

brinny said: ↑
Thank you for the information, although the questions i asked are relevant.

...to what exactly? Is this procedure made more or less acceptable depending on who the current FDA commissioner is?

No, it is good to be aware of who to direct questions, etc. to especially regarding what the subject of this thread is about, as i was not aware of any of it.

Thank you kindly for your responses and the information.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thank you kindly for your response and the information. I was not aware of any of it.

What are non-viable embryos?

They would use embryos that are considered "irreversibly arrested":

"The group isolated thirteen surplus embryos acquired via in vitro fertilization that were deemed to have “arrested irreversibly,” meaning the blastomeres had not undergone any cleavage division for at least 24 to 48 hours after conception."
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~issues/articles/14.2_Shaikh_A_Dead_Embryos_1.html

These are embryos that have stopped dividing into new cells on their own, and would not grow any further if implanted. The initial research into this possible treatment for mitochondrial disease would start in these non-viable embryos to hone the process of introducing the mitochondria without doing harm to the embryo. Reading the press release from the National Academies of Science, the next step would move to viable male embryos since men do not pass on mitochondria to their children, if approved by the FDA.