Three-Parent Baby Technique Could Create Babies At Risk of Severe Disease (technologyreview.com) 48
MIT Technology Review has revealed two cases in which babies conceived with the three-parent baby technique have shown what scientists call "reversion." "In both cases, the proportion of mitochondrial genes from the child's mother has increased over time, from less than 1% in both embyros to around 50% in one baby and 72% in another," they report. From the report: When the first baby born using a controversial procedure that meant he had three genetic parents was born back in 2016, it made headlines. The baby boy inherited most of his DNA from his mother and father, but he also had a tiny amount from a third person. The idea was to avoid having the baby inherit a fatal illness. His mother carried genes for a disease in her mitochondria. Swapping these with genes from a donor -- a third genetic parent -- could prevent the baby from developing it. The strategy seemed to work. Now clinics in other countries, including the UK, Greece, and Ukraine, are offering the same treatment. It was made legal in Australia last year. But it might not always be successful. [...]
Fortunately, both babies were born to parents without genes for mitochondrial disease; they were using the technique to treat infertility. But the scientists behind the work believe that around one in five babies born using the three-parent technique could eventually inherit high levels of their mothers' mitochondrial genes. For babies born to people with disease-causing mutations, this could spell disaster -- leaving them with devastating and potentially fatal illness. The findings are making some clinics reconsider the use of the technology for mitochondrial diseases, at least until they understand why reversion is happening. "These mitochondrial diseases have devastating consequences," says Bjorn Heindryckx at Ghent University in Belgium, who has been exploring the treatment for years. "We should not continue with this." "It's dangerous to offer this procedure [for mitochondrial diseases]," says Pavlo Mazur, an embryologist based in Kyiv, Ukraine, who has seen one of these cases firsthand.
Fortunately, both babies were born to parents without genes for mitochondrial disease; they were using the technique to treat infertility. But the scientists behind the work believe that around one in five babies born using the three-parent technique could eventually inherit high levels of their mothers' mitochondrial genes. For babies born to people with disease-causing mutations, this could spell disaster -- leaving them with devastating and potentially fatal illness. The findings are making some clinics reconsider the use of the technology for mitochondrial diseases, at least until they understand why reversion is happening. "These mitochondrial diseases have devastating consequences," says Bjorn Heindryckx at Ghent University in Belgium, who has been exploring the treatment for years. "We should not continue with this." "It's dangerous to offer this procedure [for mitochondrial diseases]," says Pavlo Mazur, an embryologist based in Kyiv, Ukraine, who has seen one of these cases firsthand.
Help out a friend... (Score:2, Insightful)
... at the risk of child support.
Yes, totes cool splicing genes and all that. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Baby clearly has 2 parents. Child support case wouldn't go anywhere.
Re: (Score:3)
Baby clearly has 2 parents. Child support case wouldn't go anywhere.
I tend to agree with you in this case, but we live in a strange world. https://www.boydlawlosangeles.... [boydlawlosangeles.com]
I give a fair chance that there will be a test legal case at some point. As well, if the resultant child develops some medical issue because of the third "parent", there might be a civil suit against parent number 3.
Re:Cancer (Score:4)
Re: Cancer (Score:2)
Is this a possible technique used for genetic males wishing to be pregnant? I'm sure I remember something like this mentioned.
Re: Cancer (Score:3)
Wow (Score:1)
Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, why? If I have a congenital disease, my goal would be to have it die out with me.
Re: (Score:3)
They want biological inheritance to rationalize an increased emotional attachment, it's rather arbitrary but what isn't.
Re: (Score:1)
Well said.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. I think putting somebody else at high risk of getting such a disease is the height of immorality. Pretty much on par with torture-murdering somebody. Slowly.
Re: (Score:3)
Up until this report, parents likely believed they were doing the exact opposite of putting the kid at risk: they were removing the problematic DNA. I don't fault the ones born prior to this discovery. Going forward is a different story.
Re: (Score:2)
On the side of the prospective parents, I agree. They are non-experts and have to rely on what the experts say. On the side of those selling this procedure, obviously before it was really ready and understood, this is a very different matter. They are messing with human lifes and risk massive pain and suffering and death to others, and hence have to be extra careful. It looks very much looks they were not. That puts them on the moral level of Mengele and other unsavory characters in the medical field.
Re: (Score:2)
That puts them on the moral level of Mengele and other unsavory characters in the medical field.
Nice Godwin.
You're of course correct but... (Score:2)
Reproduction is not an intellectual act. Beasts must fuck and make babby, end of story.
We don't expect other apes to consider ethics when breeding. In that respect humans are no better or different than my rooster when it seizes then mounts a hen.
Re: (Score:2)
Thi is not "beasts must fuck". This is "advanced medical procedures involved in the process" and "for-profit approaches being offered" that is a completely different game.
Re: (Score:2)
We have developed tools and methods to ensure that fucking can continue uninhibited without spawning.
Re: (Score:3)
This ( if it worked ) would actually allow most of your genes to continue minus the defective part ( and the fix would be passed down to your progeny and theirs etc)
Re: (Score:2)
I have noticed an inverse correlation between someone's desire and the someone's desirability to continue their genes.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good rule of thumb though. If your life and goals are supportive of the goal of furthering your genetic legacy, then it is likely that will gratify your physical and mental needs. The behaviors you need to have, and the stimulation you receive from the universe and the challenges you face will comprise a human-style life the human biomachine is adapted for. You might like paperclips but devoting your life to making more paperclips will probably not holistically meet your needs as a human being. T
Re: (Score:2)
With some people, it would still be an improvement compared to breeding.
Re: (Score:2)
It appears there's something outside the mitochondria coding for mDNA.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, why? If I have a congenital disease, my goal would be to have it die out with me.
Procreation is literally the point of evolution. I wouldn't look down on someone for trying to follow through on one of the most fundamental instincts we have.
And the point of this treatment is to both have children and not pass on the congenital disease.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work as well as expected.
I found the summary somewhat vague on a) how it could happen, and b) how prevalent it was but the article has a bit more info:
When you scoop out nuclear DNA, it is difficult to completely avoid taki
Four parents (Score:4, Funny)
The obvious solution is to add a fourth parent. God prefers an even number of parents.
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious solution is to add a fourth parent. God prefers an even number of parents.
Going from 3 to 4 worked for razors, it should work for people too.
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious solution is to add a fourth parent. God prefers an even number of parents.
And he want's them to be of different genders too. /s
So it's lucky we have a lot more of them to choose from now. Perfect timing, God obviously knew what he was doing
Where does the 1% come from? (Score:2)
Are there some stray mitochondria clinging to the nucleus during removal or something?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who's your daddy? Due to the free market, we'll never know.
Re: (Score:2)
More like "who's your mommy?"
Re: (Score:2)
Who's your daddy? Due to the free market, we'll never know.
Genetic testing shows that is true.
To the point where some countries ban genetic testing. It appears that many women do not stop banging bad boys after marrying the "nice" one.
Adoption? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Beside legal problems it seems a more rational solution for almost all fertility problems (why spread sterility inducing genes in the population?).
Not even wrong. This particular case is not even an issue with fertility, but an attempt to fix an issue that would have arisen with a near 100% certainty if left untreated. The problem is that the fix didn't work 100%. Also infertility is almost never purely a genetic problem. There has been a sharp increase the recent couple of decades in infertility that is impossible to explain primarily as a genetic problem. Environmental and to some degree lifestyle problems are mostly likely to blame. While we attem
Re: (Score:2)
Wish I had points to mod you up.
As an adoptive parent, it is nice to see a thoughtful answer that is neither irrationally enthusiastic about adoption, nor irrationally critical about adoption, as well as putting some perspective on being birth parents.
Myself, I have huge concerns about where genetic therapies will eventually take us as a society. But there is no putting finger in the dike, because I am not going be the one to tell parents no, in these situations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This particular case is not even an issue with fertility, but an attempt to fix an issue that would have arisen with a near 100% certainty if left untreated.
If your offspring is not viable (short or long term), the outcome is the same as being sterile. I extended the subject to a more general fertility problem, details about this specific technique are of no importance.
Adoption is most definitely NOT the default answer. What if there's not orphans "enough"
This is not the current situation and is unlikely to happen. Current increase in infertility rate is far too low to lead to this situation. Birth rate decreases in some part of the world is driven by society not biology. Adoption having its own issues doesn't make this kind of fertility treatme
We know (Score:3)
We learned that a three-body-problem is a nightmare to solve.
Re: We know (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, there's no physics and we need to rehydrate, dehydrate, etc.
Gods but for the wisdom (Score:2)
n/t
3 Parents (Score:2)
Is this where the non-binary gender comes in? (Presumably trinary)
Dr. Mazur knows danger (Score:1)
Babies at Risk of Severe Disease (Score:2)
Instead of the normal babies that are and become increasingly better incubators and transmitters of said severe diseases until late puberty-ish?
Three parent baby technique? (Score:2)
I have an idea on how we could name this technique in which three consenting adults mingle together to conceive a child. How about a "threesome"?