General News Three-parent babies in the UK.

I thought they already did this.

 

Looking forward to hear more about this..

 

Trans-humanism and genetic modification... why do people try so hard to play God?
Abhorrent.

 

Why not? Mitochondria are so essential to a person's life process, and replacing a defective one would do wonders for people that would inherit defective mitochondria from their mothers.

It's still your child, it has mom and dad's DNA, you just don't get your mother's mitochondria.

 

Sounds exciting.

I dont see whats wrong with it... but like stem cell research and things related, the Ethics of this have yet to be determined for the GP.

 

This line of thinking is ridiculous. The same argument can be made for every other single medical intervention ever invented. Think of all the medications people take and how that's influencing human evolution, and how we might be differently influenced if we didn't take those medications. Perhaps even evolving to become more resistant to disease and infection. A fantastic example of this was the Black Death which killed literally millions of people.

Compare how we would respond to a new outbreak of the Black Death, which can now be treated with a heavy dose of antibiotics. If you catch it, and you receive treatment within the first 24 hours of the symptoms appearance you only have a 1% - 15% chance of death as compared to a 40% - 60% chance of death without treatment.

This is in effect "playing God" by not allowing nature to play out to it's natural conclusions. If this is acceptable, then why isn't it also acceptable to prevent diseases and other problems BEFORE someone is born?

Anyone who thinks this way should be required to tell the children born with preventable diseases: "Sorry that you were born with muscular dystrophy. We could have prevented that, sure, but we felt that it was more important not to 'play God'."

Of course, beyond simply the ethical imperatives we have to cure preventable diseases, there is also the economic imperatives as well. It's not as if people born with diseases are cheap on our medical system. It's better to spend money up front to prevent a disease and ensure the child being born will have a higher quality of life, than to let them suffer with a lower quality of life as a result of a disease which then costs the system bucket loads to care for and treat.

Then again, if you extend the 'playing God' thinking out to it's natural conclusion, then I guess we might as well just drop such children in the woods for the wolves. No need for medical treatment at all, since that would be 'playing God'.

I honestly do not understand the hysteria some people have when issues like this come up.

Side note: My post here isn't meant to single you out, DoriaN. It was intended to be a response to everyone who holds the point of view you expressed, of which there are many, unfortunately.

 

Fine. I hope you were born with no medical assistance and in the middle of the forest to a parent with no painkillers.

Or you could just be realistic and accept it as another advance in medical science, one which can help prevent genetic disorders if used correctly.

 

Correction. You could not have prevented that child's disability. You could have prevented that child. Any child that would have resulted if you'd taken genetic screening or assisted reproduction methods would have had a different genome from that child (not just the MD gene) and would be a sibling of that child rather than the same child.

We're not preventing future children from having disabilities, the way we'd be doing if we put a helmet on the child when they're riding a bike. Instead, we're preventing the existence of a hypothetical child with a disability, in favour of a non-disabled child.

 

This sounds reasonable on the surface, but it actually isn't. It assumes that what makes us who we are is somehow locked in our genome. This clearly isn't the case, and here is why.

If you take two genetically identical individuals, are they the same person? No, you end up with twins. If you take your DNA and create a clone of yourself, you're not getting another copy of "you" - you're getting a twin. Similarly, if you or I are genetically altered today to eliminate health risks (example: increased risk of heart disease, dementia, etc.) - does it somehow end who we are as individuals?

No, what makes us who we are is a result of thoughts, memories, emotions, and life experiences. That's what makes us who we are - not our genetic makeup.

 

I'm not saying our genes are all of who we are, but you're implying genes play no part in who we are, and that's just ridiculous. It doesn't have to be all of you to have changing it mean you're a different person.

 

I'm not saying our genes are all of who we are, but you're implying genes play no part in who we are, and that's just ridiculous. It doesn't have to be all of you to have changing it mean you're a different person.

And thoughts and emotions are definitely affected by our genes. Take Williams Syndrome, for example. It's a genetic condition (7q11 deletion) which, among other things, affects brain development. Their average IQ is 50, which in itself affects what kinds of thoughts they think. They also tend to have strengths in verbal skills and weakness in spatial skills. And most of them are very extroverted people who never feel shy around strangers, and most of them love music and react emotionally to music. Not everyone with WS has these traits, but the majority do, and that's clearly down to genetics because WS kids are born to any kind of parents.

 

Ettina -

I understand what you're saying, and your argument is certainly better than the 'we shouldn't play God' argument. There are certainly legitimate ethical concerns and debates we should be having, as this is something that should be heavily regulated internationally.

However, I think it's ridiculous to simply take any form of genetic alterations off the table wholesale. It makes perfect sense to me that we should want to, just as an example, ensure that children are born free of certain inherited diseases and health risks.

Using myself as an example, my family has a history of heart disease on both sides. I firmly believe that if I am a carrier of those genes it would have been to my benefit to have them replaced. I don't believe that would have fundamentally altered who I am as a person today, aside from ensuring that I could lead a healthier life.

You're right that when you start altering the way the brain works, we start entering into a gray area - no pun intended. We are suddenly faced with troubling ethical questions that revolve around what gets classified as a disability, and what traits are desirable and what traits aren't. We're also faced with the troubling questions that revolve around the fact that some traits likely come with a double edged sword - so if by getting rid of something we can agree is negative and harmful to an individual, it might also be taking away something that is life enhancing.

There are no right or wrong answers to these types of questions - hence why it's a gray area. It's a place we should tread carefully, and walk into with open eyes as a species only after strong international debate.

There are very real concerns with wide spread genetic alteration. However, none of them boil down to 'not playing God'. It's not a question of whether or not we should engage in preventing or reducing the risk of illness and disease - the answer here is obvious. We should do it. The real concern is that we don't want to rob a potential human of their ability to make choices about their life.

Ideally, we'll get to a place where we can start genetically altering ourselves -after- we're born. That nicely circumvents a lot of ethical questions revolving around the violation of individual autonomy.

 

And if you only had those genes changed, you would probably still be the same person. But these techniques don't change just the specific genes being screened out, but also whichever genes happened to segment with them in that gamete. The difference is as much as the genetic difference between me and my brother.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do it. But we should be honest about what we're doing, instead of pretending it's equivalent to putting a helmet on your child or taking folic acid while pregnant.

 

Ettina -

Not being a scientist or someone specialized in genetics, I can't answer with certainty. However, my understanding from reading the article is that they are only replacing certain parts of the mitochondrial DNA that lead to certain mitochondrial diseases such as muscular dystrophy. They aren't replacing the muscular mitochondrial DNA wholesale to my understanding.

However, if they're scrapping the mitochondrial DNA wholesale and going for 100% donor mitochondrial DNA - then what you write does have certain implications. However, I don't really see a good solution here, and I think this may be the most ethical path.

After all.. what's the alternative? We can either try and prevent these diseases, doom people to be born and suffer with them, or prevent the carriers from breeding all together.

We're faced with some obvious problems. I'm just not seeing any real ethical solutions other than the one being presented.

I do agree with you, however, that we should be honest about what we're doing. I don't think there is any real reason to sugar coat things unnecessarily, because these are legitimate debates that we should be having.

 

I understand both points, but I feel playing with someone's makeup before they are born is wrong. Helping a person after is fine and makes sense, but how a person is born very much plays into who they become as a person.

Let's say they find a 'gay' gene, the world roars that they finally found un-refutable solid evidence and casing for the gay community. Well now, lets say a parent doesn't want a 'gay' child, so they get DNA from a 3rd party to replace the small, super tiny almost insignificant part of the person that's 'flawed' to make them straight. I mean hey, now they can have a healthy, normal, uninhibited life.

I for one am proud of how I was born, flaws and all, they may cause issues but my weaknesses have made me stronger, and I've gained personality and character from my very being.

Sure, it's not the same thing, maybe it's a gross exaggeration, but for myself I would NOT want my genes or birth tampered with, for better or worse. The child doesn't even get a say in the matter, and you would have to live forever knowing that you were flawed before birth and were forcibly corrected before birth.

It's a touchy subject.

 

I can see how this would be a good idea. If you have the opportunity to prevent your future child from suffering why not take it. I do have a few questions though. I mean would adding a third parent change the looks of the child as well? I didn't see anything about that in the article. If so I think it would be a great way for two women who want to have a child together to do so. Then that way both women can be related to the baby, rather than just one of them being the biological mom. Just a thought.

 

Certainly, there are ethical issues involved. I've posted elsewhere in this section of the forum that this is one of my greatest fears should a gay gene ever be found. It's also why I pointed out in this thread that we need to have some type of international regulation, as well as an open and honest debate over ethics.

I don't think the question is -IF- we're going to genetically modify humans. It's just a question of when, and whether or not we're going to walk into the future with our eyes wide open or closed firmly shut.

We definitely don't want to walk into eugenics territory. That's pretty clearly a red line that we don't want to cross. So it makes sense to have international bans on modifying ones ethnicity or race. It also makes sense that we should disallow gender selection, as there are some cultures and nations (such as China) in which parents overwhelmingly favor boys over girls. Similarly, it makes sense to ban modifications to sexual orientation. On top of the bans it becomes imperative to have international guidelines on modifications to the human brain.

Having these debates openly and honestly allows us to walk into the future knowing fully what we've agreed to, but without this - with bans... it won't stop it from happening. It will just guarantee a wild west mentality, and some type of black market for those who can afford it. It will also virtually guarantee that one country will come along, decide to give the international community the finger, and go full on modern day eugenics.

Let's also not pretend that we don't have a pseudo-modern day eugenics going on for those who can afford it. Lot's of women opt to have abortions when they discover their fetus is likely to have (or certain to have) a disability of some sort. So, at least in some cases, this is a choice between being modified genetically vs not being born at all.

This is certainly true in many cases. We learn to adapt and grow from our struggles, and even in some cases love aspects about ourselves that were once (and in some cases remain) a burden.

However, there are many cases where this simply isn't going to be true. Just as an example, I watched my grandfather suffer with dementia. I watched as his personality, his memories, and even his sense of self slipped away. I watched as he spent years in a nursing home, physically restrained to a chair as there was always a risk that he'd get up and simply wander off and get lost. Everything that made him who he was died many years before his body finally followed.

I worry that I could have an increased genetic risk for dementia as a result. I can think of no worse fate. This isn't something that causes you to grow, or something that strengthens you. It's something that destroys the very essence of who you are one little bit at a time until there is nothing left. It makes sense that if I carry an elevated genetic risk for dementia that such a risk should be eliminated, not only for my sake, but for the sake of any future offspring that I may bring into the world.

Since we're talking about mitochondrial diseases in this case, let's take one as an example: leigh's disease. This is a disease that affects the central nervous system, and usually shows up between three months and two years of life. I won't go into the slow and horrible death that the child will suffer, but suffice it to say that even with extreme medical intervention they only have six to seven years to live.

You don't grow or get better from something like this - you die. You don't just die. You die slowly and horribly as your brain loses all ability to control the muscles in your body. If we weren't talking about humans, and instead talking about dogs or cats we'd view forcing them to endure such a thing as cruel and inhumane treatment.

Ethically speaking, I don't see how we can stand back and watch things like this happen and NOT find a way to intervene. In situations like the ones being talked about in the article, ethically speaking it's not very much a gray area. We can certainly get out into gray area territory rather quickly, but in this case we're actually intervening to save a life.

And yes, we can talk about self-determination. I think that's a huge issue that needs to be discussed. However, in the case of someone with leigh's disease for example, they won't live long enough to even be given a chance to be self-determining. It will be the parents who determine their fate, so what does it matter if that fate is determined before or after birth? It becomes a pretty moot point.