OK we have made it through midterm exams and our second blizzard in a week, so we can now get back the business of studying biology!
Below please find a link to an article about "Three Parent Babies". Please read the article and watch the embedded videos and then post what you think about the procedure or comment on one of your peers posts.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11386151/Three-parent-babies-the-arguments-for-and-against.html
I think that three-parent babies definitely have advantages. However, the drawbacks, the extent of which are currently unknown, need to be considered. Because the subject is still relatively unresearched, it would not be reasonable to create a three-parent baby if the outcome is unknown. Until enough research can be done so that we know all the possible risks of this method of fertilization, it is not ethical to have it available as an option. If this procedure’s risks can be verified and whittled down, then it should be an option. The percent of DNA from a second mother is very small and would only have control over one part of the child, a part that would not function properly if it was controlled by the original mother’s DNA. Three-parent babies could be very beneficial to many families in a situation with mitochondrial genetic diseases.
ReplyDeleteThis whole process seems a little too unethical. I understand the advantages of the three-parent babies and how it can help better the lives of future children, but it's never been done, so how are we supposed to know if its going to work? It seems simple enough, but the fact that this process has never been done before is just a little iffy. I just don't see how this process would be able to take place if no one really knows what's going to happen to the kid - the kid could either be perfectly fine or unexpectedly, be worse than what was expected to be. And just the realization of having three parents instead of two is weird to me, so I would say I am against this process overall.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of getting rid of this disease seems like a really great idea, but I think it may have to wait a little longer. I understand that many people with the disease may want to give birth and have a child and I see nothing wrong with having a third mother, however this process should not put the child in danger. There seems to be quite a bit of uncertainty and concern about what would happen to the child. Getting rid of the disease does not seem worth the risk of getting cancer or some other dangerous condition. Sometime in the future when this process is perfected I will be in full favor of it. Even children with different characteristics from their parents seem okay to me, plenty of kids are adopted and there are no problems with that. This is definitely a promising path and if it ever becomes safer and more understood it could be a good option for people with the disease.
ReplyDeleteAfter hearing you bring up the three parent babies idea in class I was really excited to read more about it. At first I was worried about the idea of being raised by three parents, but after reading the article it became very clear that the baby will be raised by two parents. This is much like having a surrogate mother carry a baby— it is just surrogate mitochondria. Though my classmates so far have been a bit skeptical about this idea, I completely support it being tried. Cole said “how are we supposed to know if its going to work?” well, how do we know if anything is going to work really? We have to try it to know for sure! I know humans aren't meant for trial and error but if we were to do a bit more research and a couple were willing to have this done with their child, I don't see a problem with it. Anyways, the main fear is that “developmentally disabled or deceased babies will be produced” but aren't the babies born with “Disorders involving defective mitochondria” already at risk of “death during infancy?”
ReplyDeleteI believe that this operation could be significantly beneficial to the world of medicine. I do feel a bit of hesitation due to the fact that the risks haven't been properly weighed in my opinion, but I also feel as though these children have no where to go but up. As Lizzy said, these children are already at risk of premature death. These mitochondrial disorders are very painful and can lead to horrible lives. If these babies are able to even have the chance at a "normal" life, I don't see why they should have to suffer. I do understand some people's hesitation, thinking you are "playing God", but the truth is, none of the genes or the DNA is being changed, the only difference is the lack of a debilitating illness. I think that with a bit more research and testing, this could be one of the most beneficial medical finds in history.
ReplyDeleteAlthough good on paper and in theory, and quite a marvelous addition to the scientific expansion in the medical field, I don't think using a second mother in efforts to support the birth of a child to one who has this awful mitochondrial disease is much of a good trade-off. In return for not taking the risk that the child may or may not have the genetic trait, they must be monitored for almost their entire lives for things such as cancer, premature aging, and other disabilities. As cold-hearted as this may sound, I would rather see a woman or married couple content with her condition and adopting a child in need rather than try to test fate and see what happens if they try to have either one of their own, or use the three-parent method of transferring mitochondrial DNA. Agreeing with many of my classmates, I think there are just too many things about this process that are not narrowed out or made certain to be more successful than the original alternative.
ReplyDeleteIt is very interesting how scientists have developed this technique for a child to have genes from three different parents. As absurd as it may sound to some, this sharing and transfer of DNA during fertilization can allow women who have mitochondrial-based diseases to have the chance of having a child without the worry of passing on their disease. If enough of these procedures occur, many of these diseases may dwindle in the population.
ReplyDeleteThere are many fallbacks to having a three-parent child, though. This child would have a higher risk of other health issues such as cancer and would have to be closely watched his/her whole life. The parents of this child would have to think about what situation would be better: their child having a mitochondrial disease, or a child that’s more at risk for others.
There is no doubt that if the procedure had no or very minimal risk, its intended consequences would be very beneficial to those who wish to have a child but fear passing on a mitochondrial disease, which is almost always fatal at a very young age. However, I see two places in which there is cause for concern.
ReplyDeleteThe first is unintended side effects. Although I am sure that extensive testing has been done on animals before this procedure was proposed, the effect on humans will not be certain until it is tested on human embryos. The article did not go into specifics about how this procedure may lead to higher susceptibility to cancer and premature aging, so I cannot give any opinion as to whether or not that seems to be true, but almost all new developments in science and technology have had unintended side effects. Whether or not the side effects will have an adverse effect on the child or its offspring should be carefully researched before this procedure is even considered to be carried out.
The second is the tricky area of the ethics of manipulating human embryos. Although this procedure is intended to be beneficial, that does not mean that the technology cannot be abused. An example of that is genetically ensuring a child is a certain gender in the early stages of its development as an embryo. The technology was developed as a way to prevent sex-linked diseases, but it is easily twisted to let parents create their "perfect child." If this procedure, or any other procedures involving the modification or manipulation of human embryos, is ever used, strict and clear guidelines must be put in place to ensure that the technology is not misused. It is also important that the correct precedent is set. With the direction and speed in which scientific, specifically medical, technology is progressing, it is inevitable that more and more advances into the field of genetics will be occurring. As it is an ethically gray area, the better it is regulated from the start, the better the future of the field will be.
In terms of this specific procedure, I think that it may be best if the discussion about it continues for a longer time before it is an option for people. More information given to the public about the technology and its benefits and potential pitfalls, as well as more testing and research done, is likely to lead to a better understanding all around of the implications of such a procedure and how the community should proceed in handling the situation.
Although some may argue that creating three-parent babies is unethical, I believe that it is an incredible idea. The article states that, “Even if these babies are born they will have to be monitored all their lives, and their children will have to be as well.” This may be true, but it comes as a miracle to many women who are affected with mitochondrial diseases. They had previously thought that it would be impossible for them to have children, and now, they are able to safely have children.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, as Caroline mentioned, it is also important to discuss possible risks, such as abusing the technology to create a “perfect child” or having new genetic problems crop up in these babies. Once the risk factors are weighed, then it is up to the parents to decide whether the process is right for them. If they truly want a child, then this process will be great for them, giving them the child they have always wanted. And if some parents don’t believe in the process, that’s fine, too.
After reading through all the benefits and disadvantages, I believe that three-parent babies, when needed, are a good idea. It’s clear that the parents are rather desperate for their child to be healthy and so far the benefits are very clear, a happier healthier baby. It’s clear many of these mitochondria diseases are devastating and this procedure as stated could help “1,500 women”. All of the against arguments are due to the fact that the baby would have to be monitored their whole lives, as well as the risk of premature aging and cancer. However, I think this is a matter of would you rather your child have the mitochondrial disease or be monitored most of their lives? It’s really up to the parents. I didn’t see anything in the article about Animal testing and I believe that would have to do some significant animal testing before trying it on humans. However, these parents are desperate and I can’t help but compare this to the AIDS crisis in the 80s. People wanted a cure so badly they were willing to try and do anything. They pushed for drugs to be produced faster. However, when the first drug came out, it didn’t work well at all and it was rather unhealthy. I hope the same mistakes are not made with this treatment. I hope they have foreseen the consequences and are prepared to adjust their treatment and help more if need be.
ReplyDeleteI also just read over Cole’s response and I think his response is similar to what a lot of people are feeling about the treatment. The concept of a baby having three parent biological is very weird. It’s something out of science fiction. But we are in that day and age where science fiction is rather just science itself. I voted on the poll at the bottom of the page and it said most people who voted didn’t want three parent babies. I hope they voted against it because of the health disadvantages rather than the ethical dilemma. While it seems strange, the mitochondrial DNA is only 0.054 of the total and the woman is a donor with no attachment or hold on the child. It seems unfair to not give this child an advantage it could use.
I support the notion of three parent babies. I think that as we begin to understand genetic disorders it is increasingly important to come up with solutions and treatment to fix people's lives. The idea that someone with a severe disorder, or a carrier can have a healthy baby would be extremely important to parents who are afflicted. However, it is easy to see that some people don't understand how beneficial this science could be for humanity, and nature in the state that the process is in. Currently, the method is deemed 'unsafe.' However, if the testing continues and the process is refined and practiced it could be an extremely safe alternative for parents. Once this setback is resolved, it should be up to the afflicted parents to decide whether it is ethical or not. I don't think that it is fair that someone without the disorders involved should decide whether the process is right or wrong.
ReplyDeleteThree-parent babies are more shocking than and unusual than genuinly unethical. Clearly more research needs to be done into the possible risk factors for children of this procedure, but, assuming everything is fine, I see no problem with this. Obviously if problems result from this prosedure, then it should not be done, but many children now grow up in complex families, with surrogates or additional parent figures, and if having three parents can prevent a debilitating disease without harming the child then I fully support it.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article, and evaluating all of the given information from a completely unbiased perspective, I have concluded that mitochondrial DNA transfer is an extraordinary advancement, not only to the scientific community, but to the world as a whole. Any discovery that can successfully promote human life is, in my opinion, a brilliant one! I can understand why people are skeptical; the notion that humans are “playing god” will always raise red flags and I believe exaggerated phrases like this are the main reason why the majority of opposers carry these opinions. Even the title of the article instantly arouses readers’ emotions before they begin to read the article; while this tactic may have simply been used to increase the article’s popularity, the main problem with this advancement is that these mitochondrial disease free babies are labeled as “three parent babies”. While I understand people’s skepticism, I believe this discovery is not in the interest of scientists trying to devise their own humans, but it is for the common-good of mitochondrial disease carriers who would like to have healthy children of their own.
ReplyDeleteI personally think this procedure is a great new discovery that we should definitely consider using. If it truly can eliminate chances of a infant being born with life threatening diseases then we should use it. And when it comes down to some people being sketchy about having three parents then it is up to them. If they think they would rather have their child possibly die at an early age then fine. Which brings me to another argument, I do not think this procedure should be pressed on anyone, a simple suggestion of it but no more. I understand why a couple would feel weird having a third party's DNA in their child. But on the other hand I think it'd be very beneficial to children everywhere. And perhaps if people carrying these diseases use this method enough, then just maybe these dangerous and sad diseases will be eliminated from our gene pool one day.
ReplyDeleteTo me this is quite a fantastic discovery. The idea that life threatening diseases could be eliminated from a child that would otherwise have to suffer them is incredible. Although many people probably question the ethics of the idea, I would weigh that against the value of a kids life. However, it should most definitely be up to the parents. I don't think designing the perfect child, and other fairly mad ideas will come to pass from something such as this. This is saving a child's life, where as genetically engineering your kid is where horror meets sci-fi.
ReplyDeleteThree parent babies are an example of a scientific advancement that happens to cross paths with ethics. The fact that doctors can replace the unhealthy mitochondrial DNA of the mother with healthy mitochondrial DNA from a female donor is amazing in itself. I see why people do not agree with mitochondrial DNA transferring, due to the ethical issues which arise in having 2 mothers; however, the medical benefit of the procedure greatly outweighs the ethical issues in my opinion. The mitochondrial DNA transfer has the potential to stop a child from being born with a range of debilitating conditions that come with defective mitochondrial DNA. From an ethical standpoint I don't see many issues with the procedure as long as the donor female does not interfere with the family. I feel the ultimate decision should be left to the parents because I can understand both sides of the argument; preventing a child from having a chronic condition, and the fact that the child would technically have 3 parents.
ReplyDeleteMany scientific advancements have greatly improved the lives of couples seeking to have their own children who cannot or should not due to biological constraints. When there is a chance of a child having a serious genetic disorder, and the parents wish to conceive a child with both of their DNA, this seems like a valid option given the consent of all three parties and the understanding of the risk involved. However, I am hesitant to say that it should be promoted for a couple of different reasons. First, the doctors against the procedure are questioning not only its ethics, but legitimate biological dangers that may or may not arise. The fact that the egg cell will contain DNA from two different people may pose very real risks if the nuclei and cytoplasmic organelles of the child are unable to communicate. This, among the other risks involved, makes me hesitant to support the decision to apply this procedure.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I am hesitant to condone the procedure because in reality, it is not curing anything; the mother herself receives no medical benefits. The procedure helps only one disease-carrying egg at one specific time. As it is likely impossible to replace every egg in the mother's ovaries with new, 2-mother eggs, this one-time benefit does nothing to prevent a genetic disease in a child conceived naturally. If there was a way to monitor many potential mothers who may potentially pass on genes for a genetic disorder, and through careful procedures the conception of all such at-risk children could be controlled, then this procedure would be more viable, but because of its one-time, one-person benefit, I doubt it would do anything in the way of helping to eliminate genetic disorders from the population.
When scientists say that they've discovered or created a way to make "designer babies," that's where there's a problem. Picking an eye color, hair color, or sex is where I think science needs to draw a line. Altering a baby's appearance before it's been born is something that I find incredibly unethical. I'm absolutely not an advocate for elective plastic surgery, but at least the patients had the opportunity to make the decision to alter their own bodies. With designer children, they don't even get to make a choice based on whether or not they like the appearance they have based on their genetics. When it comes to appearance, it's almost a no-brainer that it's not right to alter a child before it's been born.
ReplyDeleteHowever, when a couple decides to conceive a child, the first thing they worry about is whether the baby will be healthy or not. Genetic alterations to improve the health of offspring are definitely more ethical than aesthetic changes. Provided that the mitochondrial transplantation leads to no complications for the child or for the mother, this is an incredible scientific advancement. Children could be born healthy, which means their parents could be more focused on raising them and less concerned that they have a lifelong, debilitating disease. Ideally, the healthy mitochondria would be passed on through sexual reproduction to the next generation, but that seems unlikely and remains to be seen.
Unfortunately, it's probably not the case that it would be so simple and effective. Of course, there needs to be much more testing done with this treatment, which creates more ethics problems because of animal testing. Like Emilie said, scientists need to be concerned about cell communications, since the mitochondria and nucleus have different DNA. But, if we can pull this off, it'll be a pretty swanky development.
I think this procedure should be allowed and practiced because the parents involved all accept to be part of it and it could help some diseases. The parents must be fine with their child going through checkups and possible other unforeseen condition to outweigh the negatives of the damaged mitochondrial DNA of the mother. Without putting this to test, we will never know what the outcome will be. It is human nature to push the boundaries and we wouldn't be anywhere near where we are today without pushing the limits. With the failures comes knowledge and eventual success. The best way to learn how something works is to test it, not just sit in a room thinking. The process may be dangerous, but humans do very dangerous things all the time just for fun sometimes; this time is for knowledge. I think that the process seems sound enough for trial if the parents are willing participants.
ReplyDeleteTo start, I think the philosophy behind three parent babies is remarkable and heading in the right direction when it comes to stopping mitochondrial diseases, but we need to be careful not to advance in technology too quickly. More tests should be done before they began testing on humans. We can not “play God” no matter how much our species wants to at times. I believe that the researchers testing this aren’t taking into consideration the consequences. Not only could it disrupt natural evolution, but if a child is born and is destine to die because of this procedure, what will that life be like? The mental repercussions could be devastating to someone who is born as a lab rat; born to live a short life. We cannot forget that the end result is the creation of a human. This procedure should not be attempted until it’s success rate in other organisms is proven.
ReplyDeleteThis is quite amazing that scientists are able to do such a thing. medical advancements have come so far. I think that this is great and people should definitely do this if they have a mitochondrial disease. It could totally save their babies'. however I beleive they should keep in mind that we do not know if this may cause problems later on in the child's lifetime. I personally would not do this until it has been tested on a bunch of other animals and it has been proven to be safe. It is however up to the parents and can save precious lives.
ReplyDeleteI have two opinions on this that vary based on how I look at it. On one hand, It is nice to be able to help your child live a more abled life. I’m trying not to sound ignorant or rude, but there’s no question that a child without Muscular Dystrophy is more capable of doing things. Don’t get me wrong, it by no means means that the child will be happier, or more loved than the other, it just means they will be able to do things that a child with MD wouldn’t. I think it’s innovative and impressive that we have the capabilities to remove this disease, and maybe someday it could be eradicated entirely.
ReplyDeleteOn another hand, I agree with Cassie and others, I am a firm believer that a mother’s love can trump any disease. This is similar to the ability for people to create their own custom child. I am someone who believes that everything happens for a reason, and if while it could be cool to give your child opportunities that s/he otherwise wouldn’t have, I’m not sure I agree with the costs it would also come with. I also agree with Cole, there are so many other things that could go wrong even if this one part was cured. Is it worth curing one problem for possibly multiple others to arise?