In February, the Commons and Lords voted to make the UK the first place in the world where babies with ‘three parents’ can be created.
Some have said that this is a scaremonger-ing summary of a technique which is just akin to a battery change, as no nuclear DNA (that which makes a person a person), is going to be transferred during the process from the ‘third parent’ to the embryo. Indeed, it may just appear that the ‘church’, and others on the ethical bandwagon are again standing in the way of people’s fertility choices.
However, it’s not just some Christians who are deeply concerned about this ‘miracle cure’ to a terrible disease, which sees the carrier give birth to children who will die young or not survive more than a few hours. Scientists around the world are not clear as to how the mitochondrial and nuclear DNA interact. Some are concerned that the future for these newly created children may be just as bleak, in fertility terms, as for their genetic parents.
The argument can be made that the UK’s track record in this field, e.g. embryonic stem cell research, has yielded little, whereas ethical routes, such as the use of adult stem cells has produced ‘miracle cures’ for some who suffer with paralysis, sight loss and MS.
Dr Trevor Stammers, Programme Director in Bioethics and Medical Law at St Mary’s University, Twickenham and editor of The New Bioethics, discussed some concerns in his blog.
‘One only has to read the whole of the recent submissions to both Government and to the HEFA to see that those raising serious doubts about the safety of the technique far outweigh those in support of proceeding in our present state of knowledge (or more accurately ignorance) of mitochondrial function.
‘No one wants to see desperate parents deprived of hope but neither do we want to see vulnerable parents misled into thinking three-parent IVF offers a certainty of eliminating mitochondrial disease. We are galloping into genetic engineering of humans. The fact that many of its advocates are denying that it is genetic engineering at all and likening it to an ‘organ transplant’, is deeply disturbing. If the truth is not being told about what is being proposed, what trust can we have in their reassurance about the outcome?’
Further ethical questions need addressing with regard to monitoring and when the children will be informed of their conception details. The monitoring authority remained silent on these questions before the approval of the regulations by Parliament.
