Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
Updated 3.54pm
BRITISH MEMBERS OF Parliament have voted to allow the creation of IVF babies with DNA from three parents.
The technique has divided campaigners and religious leaders but the House of Commons voted 382 in favour and 128 against.
Earlier this afternoon MPs started a debate on the mitochondrial DNA donation techniques aimed at preventing serious diseases from being passed from mother to baby.
Hereditary mitochondrial diseases affect major organs and cause symptoms ranging from poor vision to diabetes and muscle wasting.
Under the now approved change to the laws on in-vitro fertilisation (IVF), as well as receiving normal “nuclear” DNA from its mother and father, the embryo will also include a small amount of healthy mDNA from a woman donor.
The vote had split opinion between experts supporting the idea and opponents who feared it would be the first step on the road to “designer” babies.
Debate
Members of Parliament held a 90-minute debate on whether the laws on IVF should be amended and at the end were given a free vote on the issue.
Experts believe that the use of mDNA from a second woman could potentially help around 2,500 women in Britain at risk of passing on harmful mDNA mutations.
In the debate, Public Health Minister Jane Ellison said it was a “bold step” for the parliament but it is a “considered and informed step”, BBC reported.
This is world leading science within a highly respected regulatory regime. And for the many families affected, this is light at the end of a very dark tunnel.
However Congleton MP Fiona Bruce warned the House that there would be “no going back for society”.
IVF pioneer Lord Robert Winston told The Daily Telegraph newspaper that the procedure was no more sinister than a blood transfusion.
International charities have written an open letter to MPs urging them to back a change in the law, saying it “offers families the first glimmer of hope that they might be able to have a baby that will live without pain and suffering”.
Meanwhile Doctor David King, director of the watchdog group Human Genetics Alert, said: “Advocates say we shouldn’t worry about ‘slippery slopes’. Yet in my experience, they are the very same people who, a few years later, push us to take the next step and the one after that.
“If we want to avoid the nightmare designer baby future we must draw the line here.”
- © AFP, 2015 with additional reporting by Michelle Hennessy.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
If babies can be designed to be quiet, I’m all for it.
Au contraire. My mother’s vocal chords have been destroyed from years of methamphetamine abuse.
It has just been passed by the House of Commons.
Up next on Iona’s puritanical hit list…
Angry Ape = obvious virgin
If we can prevent the suffering of children and reduce the occurrences of these diseases then we are obliged to. The worries about ‘designer’ babies are a bit of a red herring… We can easily regulate the use of this technique to a number of recognised diseases.
It’s a slippery slope. If we end suffering of these kids, who knows- science could eliminate suffering due to disease a together. And then what? Typical science muscling in – the church have the answer to human suffering sewn up.
was that sarcasm or…?
Don’t quite understand that comment about regulation. Once something becomes economically-worthwhile and technologicaly-possible illicit forms become probable. The market in hunan organs is academic in point. When government regulates a business it does two things. It legitimises it and it enters the market as a competitor/supplier.
We can easily regulate this??
Totally agree dennis
For every scientific advance in medicine comes the negative of over population, the worlds population has been exploding for donkeys years, in time we will have so many people the world will barely able to cope, I’ll be well dead and gone by then but the earth can only provide for x amount but when x amount keeps growing the earths natural resources gets squeezed to exhausted levels.
Will we have something like China brought in, all families restricted to one offspring to cull the worlds burgeoning population?
Okay peeps, there’s a lot of misleading biology in this article, and pretty much everywhere else I’ve seen this posted.
The main issue is the misrepresentation of mitochondrial DNA. It is often represented as being part of the human genome, which makes this sort of thing some sort of tricky genetic engineering ploy.
And I can understand why this misrepresentation is so common, to a lot of people DNA is the stuff your genes are made of and mitochondria are just “the powerhouse of the cell”. Which is fine for a lay person. However, as in all fields be they scientific, artistic or anything else, the deeper in you get the more complex it becomes. I’m going to try and explain a bit. I apologise if I fail to.
Mitochondria are kind of like a probiotic bacteria that live inside your cells. They’re good guys, with whom we have had a mutually beneficial living arrangement for about a billion years. We provide them resources, they provide us with energy. It’s win win, and it’s also one of the defining characteristics of eukaryotes (which is the group that includes all plants and all animals and lots of other stuff too).
While it is true that mitochondria contain DNA, that DNA is not generally considered part of your genome. Your genome is the DNA contained in chromosomes in the nuclei of your cells. mtDNA is contained in the mitochondria, and is used by the mitochondria for their own purposes. Most of which benefit you.
The mitochondrial donations described in the post are necessary only because the mitochondria evolve at a different rate to humans. They reproduce a lot quicker because they reproduce inside us, and if they evolve to be too different to us, they lose the ability to provide us with energy. Which is bad for both us and them.
What these mitochondrial donations do is switch out diseased or defective mitochondria for healthy mitochondria. The only reason DNA is involved at all is because the mitochondria have their own genome.
The human portion of the genome is not modified, at all, by this procedure, it stays safe in the nucleus. The donor of the healthy mitochondria contributes nothing to the human genome of the developing baby. Speaking technically for a moment, this is not genetic engineering as no manipulation of the genome takes place. The scientists are just allowing the embryo to use the egg of another woman as a probiotic yoghurt to fix it’s mitochondria problem.
So there isn’t really a good case to have a moral or ethical worry in this instance. This technique can’t make designer babies, it can only prevent sick ones and the whole “third parent” thing is a misinterpretation/misrepresentation of whats actually going on.
The TL;DR is that a mitochondrial donation is a cellular level analog of a probiotic yoghurt, not a freaky threesome.
Would you ever hold yer whist .No one is interested in the actual science around here.We just want play god and make frankenbabies. ;-)
Pat, fantastic explanation. I heard a fantastic radio interview and it echoes what you’ve said: the 3 parent bit is v misleading.
Thanks Pat especially for putting it in easy to read language for the less sciencey* amongst us. (* technical term)
Thanks Pat, it is refreshing to see a comment on this site from someone who actually knows what he’s talking about and is contributing positively to the reportage.
In your opinion is there any reason why mitochondria from the father could not be donated to the mother’s ovum, thereby removing the (spurious) arguement about 3 parents? The article states that the mitochondria must come from another woman, but from my basic understanding of cell biology, I can’t see why that must be?
Wow, what a great response!
To answer Martins question, afaik this procedure is actually carried out with unfertilised egg cells, and the father obviously can’t donate an egg. The donors nucleus is removed entirely and the mothers nucleus is transplanted in its place.
As such for this method to work the mothers DNA would have to be being transplanted into another ovum, or the end result wouldn’t be an egg cell able to be fertilised.
This probably isn’t the only ‘workable’ method, but I would think it is probably the best way to ensure the eradication of the defective mitochondria. And it would be a lot easier and safer to perform due to the large size of the nucleus. Until someone figures out a better way of doing it anyway :)
Incredible, and thank you. In essence it os an mitochondrial DNA transplant and nothing to do with our own genetic makeup or parentage. Not that some people will be able to comprehend that.
@ Pat Ryan, although the donor egg may contribute 0.1% of the genetic make up of the child, when you examine the genetic material of these children there are still three identifiable genetic parents. Similar with GMO even if only a small percentage of the genetic material varies from its original source, its enough to have legal implications – that can open up questions in ownership, parentage, rights, responsibilities, and so on. I’m not saying I’m against the technology but I do think there are valid concerns especially regarding the commercialisation of it, and in my opinion that deserves further consideration and investigation before we start saying there is no need for any concern.
Thanks Pat
Pardon my lack of scientific understanding but am I right in saying that this does not involve destruction of an embryo at any stage?
Yes Michael, the embryo is only modified to remove the broken mdna
Next someone will claim parenthood after a fecal transplant.
I don’t think you can say that an embryo is being modified here Frank. An ovum (egg) is being modified, and even then effectively only the organelles are being exchanged and nothing is being done to the nuclear material. The ovum only becomes an embryo after it is fertilised by a sperm and it has a full set of genetic material to develop into a foetus.
The reason no one takes religious arguments seriously is because the always entirely rely on slippery slope logical fallacies,once-off anecdotal examples (usually from the Daily Mail),misrepresent research findings (Iona,Child First who later criticised the distortion of it’s research). Any child being given an opportunity to live a healthy life should be celebrated by everyone.
Until something goes wrong – divorce, loss if income and other such issues. Custody battles. Illness and other maladies are a huge unknown in a case like this. Let’s design a baby with one blue eye, one brown eye… Let’s abort that baby cos he has red hair. A Lind slippery slope.
The reason not one takes religious arguments seriously is because they are bunkum
Thanks for providing up to 6 speculative downfalls,because we do A it follows that B will happen,what on earth does divorce have to do with? As with all medical procedures there will obviously be legally binding consent forms and waivers for claiming parenthood. Using partial DNA to avoid disease in a child is not the same as using a surrogate mother who will develop a bond on some level over the course of the pregnancy. Fear-mongering and hypothetical scenarios are not a reason to leave things as they currently are.
“Until something goes wrong – divorce, loss if income and other such issues”
Ummm what?
Are you suggesting third DNA contribution would lead to divorce and loss of income more often than cases where there are only two contributors? Non-sequitur much?
MPs vote, Iona institute shite themselves
God was made man in his own image. God was a trinity – why can’t man be a trinity. Mitochondria being the the holy spirit. I’ll fight you with your own mumbo jumbo!
What has the Iona institute got to do with this article? Iona on the mind around here.
There are also serious concerns. Three-parented babies would have major implications for international soccer.
So, about 20 years before a it’s mentioned here then?
The time gap between English implementation and Irish aping has narrowed. I mean Grafton street has become like any provincial English city in a lot less than 10 years. Henry street even quicker.
That’s true. What I’m referring to is the time it takes our government to address issues such as these eg 8th amendment. I’m sure it’ll be *mentioned* soon but actually addressed much later. Couldn’t go upsetting the church now could we.
Sher don’t bother looking after your health or
lobbying for better quality food, less pollution, better quality drinking water etc.
Don’t bother having children in your child rearing years.
Never mind developing your parenting skills.
Just freeze your Eggs and sperm and have a Frankenbaby on demand.
Just phone 1800 FRANKENBABY or email sales@frankenbaby.com.
Special rates for OAPs.
I wonder who would need a facility like that?
http://media4.popsugar-assets.com/files/2012/08/31/4/192/1922398/addea682132f2afa_FFN-CHP_John_Harris_080212-50848591.xxxlarge/i/Elton-John-David-Furnish-Neil-Patrick-Harris-David-Burtka.jpg
http://www.celebritydiagnosis.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/jolie-pitt-family-e1311356706552.jpg
It’s nothing to do with Frankenbabies it’s about people with life limiting genetic conditions being able to have children without the fear of them living short lives or having no quality of life. I’m not advocating “designer babies” but I’m sure there’s plenty of people out there that have sick babies and would have loved the chance to ensure they live long happy lives
Quite right poison ivy, plus these children will be able to have children without these horrific genetic disorders.
@ Poison. Oh, so there GMO Frankenbabies?
My mistake sorry.
@Jeanette
“plus these children will be able to have children without these horrific genetic disorders”.?
and without parents by the sounds of this cyborg technology.
May God bless the babies that will suffer from this eugenicist experiment.
David. You don’t understand this article if that’s your answer
Can see benefits and risks of the technology in general.. but personally would have biggest concerns re the “ethical commercialisation” of it. Its not something simple you can do in a small lab. Would be concerned about companies like Monsanto et al getting involved as this grows. Seems like a suitable fit and progression for companies like that. And with humans how would they then protect their patents etc?
When ya start talking about ethics you really should consider the decision of people that know they carry/genetic disorders to have kids which have a considerable risk of a life of suffering.
There is no need to involve a 3rd person in this fertility treatment, men and women have this mDna but only women pass I to so all they have to do is use the dads
Hail science. The great liberator and path to true enlightenment. It would get my vote.
Wanted: two hot girls to join me in making a three-person baby.
I wonder how many people who rush in to castigate the Church and its agents for their opposition to this will also rush in to castigate Monsanto and others for “foisting” GMOs on us. For the record, I have no problem with either of these forms of genetic manipulation.
The article has nothing to do with Monsanto,plenty of criticism about Monsanto on Monsanto articles.
Point doesnt need to be “monsanto corporation” specific then, but concerns re how this technology is commercialised and regulated commercially are directly relevant to the discussion in my opinion. And people can comment whatever they want. Replace “monsanto” with “large commercial interests involved with gene related technology” if you wish.. i think most people get the point.
Yes Gaius but I am sure you will agree there is a lack of logic in supporting the genetic manipulation of human gametes and opposing the genetic manipulation of goat or corn gametes.
Excellent comments, Gaius. E pluribus unum couldn’t be more apt.
Everything is commercial exploitation. Do nurses and doctors work in A&E for free. If the receive a salary are they not just exploiting people in emergency situations?
Jeez Hitler eugenicists would just love this technology.
There will soon be no need for parents at all.
Just baby factories churning out clones.
In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if some of this research links back to old Adolf’s Labs.
Who’s the mommy?
Or do we apportion responsibility according to the amount of DNA donated?
Could raise issues re birth certs and parentage. Remember Joan Burton wanted to legislate for compulsory naming of fathers.
Yeah, if only they were discussing it first…
The woman giving birth. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/feb/02/three-parent-babies-explained
Less than 0.2% of the donor DNA will be present in the newborn.
Sounds like a legal mess. Very difficult legislation!
And this is why there is always so much controversy when it comes to anything a bit different in medicine or science.. It’s not actually three parents here.. Its almost like donating blood, doesn’t mean the persons who blood you receive is now somehow your parent.
The mitochondrial DNA has nothing to do with your genes, your genes come from both your parents, I.e. mother and father in YOUR DNA not from the DNA found in the mitochondria.. This will not change who your parents are in any form, it just means it gives parents hope in having a healthy child, all mitochondrial DNA is passed from mother! Genes are passed from both parents!
The fact they have this technology is brilliant and a step forward. I’m sure when the first blood transfusion was done people thought that was weird, someone else’s blood inside you.. Look how important that is now. Headlines like this make it seem like theres a man and two women who all want a claim on a child or vice verse.
The only people are who would have rights to the child are the biological parents, not the person who basically donated a few mitochondria! Seriously, can people not get that!
To say “three-parent” is to totally misunderstand and to misrepresent what is intended. Shame on you!
I’d love to have three parents! On my birthday three presents instead of two!
This is the reason why we need a no vote I btge marrauge referendum
Try that again Gary….
Oh right, so people criticise the Nazis for eugenics, which came from UK, US and Sweden etc, but now it’s ok
You Sir are a scientifically ignorant muppet.
The gas used on the Jewish was zyklon D and was first used on mexicans crossing the border. The United states developed it and it is documented. Romo book concerning border issues in which carmelita refused the baths which is known now as the bath riots. Eugenics was developed here in the u.s.as well. I think science has a place but more research should be done and ethical considerations more thorough before jumping into this…and as always shouldn’t it be considered as to who has access to this technology? As far as what couples qualify. Is money an issue or is it a true anthropogenic effort. ..
People complain when a child has too few parents, any they complain when it has too many. Surely there must be some way to average it out?
What a misleading headline. Donating mitochondria as no different than donating a liver.
What is this fetish for destroying the concept of family?
The headline to this article annoys me greatly and is awfully tabloid.
have your say