Three-person babies technique voted on by MPs

[Ignitionnet]

Beeb.

MPs will hold a crucial vote later to decide whether to allow the creation of babies using DNA from three people.

They will have a free vote on the technique, which is aimed at preventing deadly genetic diseases being passed from mother to child.

The UK could become the first country to legalise three-person babies and it could help about 150 couples a year.

It has sparked fierce ethical debate and senior Church figures have called for the procedure to be blocked.

However, if there is a "yes" vote in the Commons, then the first three-person baby could be born as soon as next year.

It should be noted that the DNA referred to from the 'third' person is not actually 'their' DNA but belongs to the mitochondria borrowed from that person. These are sub-units of cells that are essentially the power plants and have their own DNA. They are believed to be endosymbiotes whose evolutionary roots were as separate bacteria and at some point, believed to be 1.7 to 2 billion years ago, survived becoming parts of larger cells.

It's the cutting edge, very much so, however it is very different from genetically engineering human beings and mitochondrial DNA is far from unique, unlike a human's DNA which is the combination of their parents'.

Playing 'God' or playing 'Doctor'? For me we routinely do transplants, this is much the same but on a cellular level.

[richard s]

Genetically Engineered humans! the master race is just around the corner.

[heero_yuy]

Coordinators

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Playing 'God' or playing 'Doctor'? For me we routinely do transplants, this is much the same but on a cellular level.

This.

Originally Posted by richard s

Genetically Engineered humans! the master race is just around the corner.

Point.

Missed.

Completely........

[tweetiepooh]

Hard question isn't it. I think that this research to aid around 150 couples per year is the worrying part. This technique is to fix a mitochondrial issue and isn't genetic engineering as most people think but what could it allow in the future.

[richard s]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Point.

Missed.

Completely........

No I understood, just expanding the issue... to another scenario!

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

Hard question isn't it. I think that this research to aid around 150 couples per year is the worrying part. This technique is to fix a mitochondrial issue and isn't genetic engineering as most people think but what could it allow in the future.

We've been able to genetically engineer humans for a little while. Lovely thought isn't it?

This technique doesn't really allow modification of the DNA in the nucleus, it's transplant of an organelle from a donor to a receiving embryo.

[Pierre]

I haven't read the science.

But as long as the donor genetic material didn't alter baby.

I.e. Hair colour, eye colour, facial features etc. then I would be ok.

I understand it is bring used to alter a hereditary genetic defect, but as long it is not taking anything else away from the genetic parents.. If you follow me.

[heero_yuy]

The (defective) mitochondria are only passed on through the female parent. Who could argue with preventing the resulting debilitating illness and early death of a child so affected?

But many see this as a step along the road of genetic engineering or selection by genotype. If it is to prevent serious illnesses that have no other cure, I'm thinking cystic fibrosis and similar here, should we really not embrace this?

But how far to go? Give everybody 20/20 vision?

Sooner or later we'll be able to select or even engineer for relatively trivial things such as eye colour, hair colour etc. No matter what the regulators say money will allow it to happen.

[Osem]

I have no problem with this on the grounds now being suggested but it's inevitable that, over time, the boundaries as to what's an acceptable use of science like this and what isn't will be pushed.