Rabu, 13 Juni 2012

Experts on ethics back creation of babies with three parents saying it is 'amazing opportunity' for families blighted by incurable diseases

Experts on ethics back creation of babies with three parents saying it is 'amazing opportunity' for families blighted by incurable diseases

  • Critics caution against opening a 'Pandora's box' which could lead to a trend towards 'designer babies'

By Fiona Macrae

PUBLISHED: 19:56 EST, 11 June 2012 | UPDATED: 01:48 EST, 13 June 2012


The creation of babies with three genetic parents would be an ‘amazing opportunity’ for families whose lives have been blighted by incurable diseases, say an eminent group of experts on ethics in science.

The influential Nuffield Council on Bioethics conceded that while those with religious views might view the advance as an ‘abomination’, there is no ethical reason to stop it, provided it is proved to be safe and effective.

The approval comes as pressure builds on the Government to amend the law to allow the genetic engineering of eggs and embryos, creating babies free of devastating genetic diseases.

Three parents? Ethicists have decided that mixing DNA from more than two parents is acceptable if it is used to cure hereditary diseases

Three parents? Ethicists have decided that mixing DNA from more than two parents is acceptable if it is used to cure hereditary diseases

The children would effectively have two  mothers and one father. Those in favour say it would give couples who have endured the  heartbreak of miscarriages and stillbirths, and children who have died while still young, the option of having a healthy family.

But critics say the science is too risky and the safety of the baby should take precedence over a woman’s desire to be a mother.

There are also concerns about the long-term effects of tampering with the DNA at the first stages of life, something known as germline therapy and banned in most countries. Done differently, it could lead to the creation of designer babies, made to order by hair colour or eye colour.

Brenda Almond, emeritus professor of moral and social philosophy at Hull University, cautioned against opening a ‘Pandora’s box’ of problems. She said that if the new technique was allowed, pressure would build to allow  bigger genetic changes.

Slippery slope? There are philosophers who say that it could be a stepping stone to other kinds of tampering

Slippery slope? There are philosophers who say that it could be a stepping stone to other kinds of tampering

Work is being carried out at Newcastle University into incurable diseases caused by faults in mitochondria, tiny  sausage-shaped powerhouses inside cells which turn food into energy.

Each mitochondrion has its own DNA that is passed down from mother to child. Serious defects in this affect one in 6,500 babies and cause around 50 genetic diseases, some of which kill in infancy.

Women carrying diseased mitochondria often face the heartbreaking choice of whether it would be kinder to remain childless.

To get round this, the scientists are perfecting two techniques in which the mother-to-be’s diseased mitochondria are swapped for healthy ones from an egg donated by another woman.

A successful mitochondrial ‘transplant’ should eradicate disease from future generations of the family.

The amount of DNA contributed by the donor would be small and it is not thought  it would affect the child’s looks or personality.

For th is reason, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, an independent body which tries to steer public opinion and policy on advances in health and science, said it would not be right to class the egg donor as a second mother.

It concluded that the transplants would be an ethical option, provided they are shown to be safe and effective.

Here's what other readers have said. Why not add your thoughts, or debate this issue live on our message boards.

The comments below have not been moderated.

  • Newest
  • Oldest
  • Best rated
  • Worst rated

Simply another judgement to assist us on our moral downslide to oblivion...

Report abuse

The reason we humans became so successful, was because nature allowed only the strongest to live (longest). Those who lived longest, had (the most) babies. Nowadays, we overwrite this wonderful natural mechanism and forcefully create a life by injecting an egg of which nature told us it is not suitable, with sperm of which nature told us it is not suitable, into a womb of which nature told us it’s not suitable. Thus in the end making us into a very sick species. Taking all of this plus some good old common sense into account and we find that it is sheer madness to claim that every human has a right to a child, no matter the consequences. A child is not a car; a child IS a human and is therefore not A right but HAS rights. A child should have a right to health, and not willingly and forcefully be put in such an unfavorable genetic position. Women claiming their right to have a child, 'because they have so much love to give’, should adopt. After all, love does not discriminate does it?!

Report abuse

We seem to live in a society where everyone has a right to what they want, whether its a handbag, a house or a child. Its about time that reality set in: you can't have everything. And to the scientists: just because you can, doesn't mean you should. - Karen, ex pat, 12/6/2012 20:49 ----------- not that I'd wish it on you personally, but does that mean you will be saying no to blood transfusions, a heart from 1 person, liver from another and so on, should you need it ? Or was yours another post which is underpinned by "spend the money on what I may need one day" ?

Report abuse

We seem to live in a society where everyone has a right to what they want, whether its a handbag, a house or a child. Its about time that reality set in: you can't have everything. And to the scientists: just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Report abuse

and the third parent being the state no doubt of some part privatised quango !!!!! this sitnks of stalinisst filth like every other marxist pice of garbage the state dreams up laws after laws after laws what total rubbish...

Report abuse

This kind of thing could send us all stark raving mad. Just think of the implications. We should not be messing about with tiny humans.

Report abuse

Despite being the most scientifically advanced species of our time, we humans seem to have lost the sense we were born with. High birth rates reflect the vulnerability of species and compensate for loss, when other species fall out of sync we happily cull. whilst procreation the planet out of existence because we 'have a right to'. With our level of mortality and current lack of high casualty wars we should be rationing our numbers so that the future population actually have the space and resources to live here. Plain common sense tells us that two children is too many right now.

Report abuse

I Know it is harsh, but over-population is caused, mainly , because we do not allow those( that would not normally survive on their own), to die. We have removed One of Mother Nature's Control Parameters. And as we see, it will bite us in the backside. Like I said, I know it is harsh but it is true.

Report abuse

you should not mess with mother nature we do so at our peril

Report abuse

Parents who think this is a great idea, are blind to real agenda behind eugenics, which promotes a race of super humans whilst sanctioning state controlled murder of innocent people. Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, which spoke of a scientific dictatorship in the future has come to pass, we are the lab rats kept alive for the amusement of the elite.

Report abuse

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

Diposting oleh di

Tidak ada komentar:

Posting Komentar

Langganan: Posting Komentar (Atom)