Britain becomes first country in world to approve IVF using genes of three parents

babyhopes2010

one boy one girl.perfect!
Joined
Jul 26, 2010
Messages
17,818
Reaction score
0
The technique transfers nuclear material from the mother’s egg cell into a donor’s egg


Britain is set to become the first country in the world to allow a controversial IVF technique that produces embryos with DNA from three people in an attempt to rid some affected families of serious genetic disorders. If Parliament gives the go-ahead, it would mean that Britain would also be the first nation to allow a form of “germ-line gene therapy”, where the DNA of all subsequent generations within a family is changed in order to eradicate inherited diseases.

The Government’s Chief Medical Officer, Dame Sally Davies, said that legislation to allow the use of mitochondrial replacement could be passed by Parliament at the end of next year with the first IVF babies resulting from the technique being born within two years.

“What we are starting to do now is to develop the regulations, consult on these regulations and then to take them into Parliament… I hope then to go forward and we’ll be the first country if we do,” Dame Sally said yesterday.

Inherited defects within the mitochondria – the tiny “power packs” of the cells – affect about one in 6,500 people. Most have mild forms but between five and 10 babies a year are born with a severe form of the disease and it is these children whose lives could be transformed by the technique, Dame Sally said.

“Mitochondrial disease, including heart disease, liver disease, loss of muscle co-ordination and other serious conditions like muscular dystrophy, can have a devastating impact on the people who inherit it,” she said.

“People who have it live with debilitating illness, and women who are affected face passing it on to their children. Scientists have developed ground-breaking new procedures which could stop these diseases being passed on,” she added.

The technique involves transferring the nuclear material of an affected mother’s egg cell into the donor egg of an unaffected woman, whose healthy mitochondria will then be passed on to the IVF baby.

This means that the baby will inherit DNA from three biological “parents” – the mother, the father and the donor woman – but scientists emphasised that less than 0.1 per cent of the baby’s genes will come from the donor in the form of mitochondrial DNA.

Children born from the technique will not be given the right to know the identity of the woman who donated the egg as she will not be officially recognised as a parent, Dame Sally said.

The technique will also mean that all subsequent generations of children born to girls resulting from the procedure would also carry the mitochondrial changes. In Britain, such germ-line gene therapy has been banned and Dame Sally emphasised that there are no plans to lift this ban in the case of nuclear DNA.

“It is the germ-line of your mitochondria that goes down [the generations] but that is quite separate from the DNA of the nucleus which is what makes us what we are… There is no intention of doing anything with the nuclear DNA,” Dame Sally said.

“I am comfortable with this. I think we will save some five to 10 babies born with ghastly diseases and [to an] early death without changing how they look or behave, and it will allow mothers to have their own babies, which at the moment they cannot.”

She added that all children born from the technique will be closely monitored by doctors during their lives for signs of any ill-effects resulting from the IVF procedure, although she emphasised that there is no evidence from animal studies that it can cause medical problems.

“I have to rely on the advice of scientists and what I hear from scientists whom I can trust is that this looks pretty safe. We have no evidence that it is unsafe,” she said.

“There are clearly some sensitive issues here and I’m not trying to avoid them, but since researchers first approached the Health Department in 2010 we’ve been taking views in different ways and it is clear there is general support for these techniques to be used, subject to strict safeguards.”

An extensive public consultation on the procedure by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority found widespread support for the technique but some critics suggested that it will increase the risk of unforeseen health problems as well as raising the prospect of “designer babies”. “These techniques go far beyond anything existing in both invasiveness to the embryo and complexity, so it’s not surprising that they pose serious health risks to the child,” said David King, director of the pressure group Human Genetics Alert.

However, Alison Murdoch, professor of reproductive medicine at Newcastle University, which is pioneering mitochondrial replacement in IVF procedures, welcomed the decision to introduce legislation to allow it.

“This is great news for UK science and gives hope to women who just want a healthy baby. The UK government has made a moral decision,” Professor Murdoch said.

“Our research is leading to a pioneering IVF technology to reduce that risk for mothers who have abnormal mitochondria. There is still more research to do, but this decision means that we could eventually be allowed to offer it as a treatment.”

Mitochondrial replacement has resulted from a revolution in IVF technology and the manipulation of eggs and embryos.

It involves two techniques. One, called maternal spindle transfer, involves switching the nucleus from the mother’s egg cell before fertilisation while the other, called pro-nuclear transfer, involves switching after fertilisation, which results in the destruction of the donor’s embryo.

whats ur views on this?
 
Honestly............I'm on the fence.

On one hand I seriously think - wtf? We are crippled as a country yet are funding research into something unecessary as this? The human species has survived long enough being able to reproduce, and whilst I think IVF is great, I think this is too far. Why don't we make it much much easier for a loving couple/family to adopt? I also would be very wary that 'children will be closely monitored' .... so does that mean an increased risk of disability, surely even the monitoring would affect the childs life? I often think just because we CAN do something like this - really doesn't mean we should.


But then I flip the coin and I think, this is science to try and ensure a mother with a genetic risk to a biological child does not pass it on. The 'third parent' isn't really that, just providing some cells to allow the Mother's DNA to be carried safely and produce a healthy child.

But I do think now isn't the time. Money is needed in this country elsewhere. If we ever got to a position where we hada stable and growing economy then I wouldn't mind more research into the practice.
 
Honestly............I'm on the fence.

On one hand I seriously think - wtf? We are crippled as a country yet are funding research into something unecessary as this? The human species has survived long enough being able to reproduce, and whilst I think IVF is great, I think this is too far. Why don't we make it much much easier for a loving couple/family to adopt? I also would be very wary that 'children will be closely monitored' .... so does that mean an increased risk of disability, surely even the monitoring would affect the childs life? I often think just because we CAN do something like this - really doesn't mean we should.


But then I flip the coin and I think, this is science to try and ensure a mother with a genetic risk to a biological child does not pass it on. The 'third parent' isn't really that, just providing some cells to allow the Mother's DNA to be carried safely and produce a healthy child.

But I do think now isn't the time. Money is needed in this country elsewhere. If we ever got to a position where we hada stable and growing economy then I wouldn't mind more research into the practice.

I'm on the fence too!

But to play devils advocate here. Have you considered the savings to the NHS that this will result in which could potentially cover the cost of the research and then some?


I can understand that they will closely monitor any children. To be fair they did with Louise Brown and it was said that Robert Edward (the ivf pioneer) only got recognition for what he did after Louise had a baby of her own because they didn't know if there would be any long term effects from being created in a test tube.

I'll step away from the adoption instead of ivf comment because that is quite insensitive and a whole other debate! :winkwink:
 
I think its great. It will prevent children being born with severe disabilities and that will in itself save the NHS millions. The nuclear DNA is not being messed with, its only the mitochondrial DNA. The baby will still look like mum and dad but will be healthy. Whats not to like? I think anything that will give a child a chance of a normal life is worth funding. The NHS spends money on a lot of other things that are far less important imo.

The comment about adoption is sensitive. I think until you have been in that position its hard to understand how people feel about never having a child thats a little bit you and a little bit your husband's.
 
I didn't mean to be insensitive with the adoption comment, so I apologise if you have taken it that way :flower: I have friends who wanted to adopt due to infertlity but instead were practically forced into trying IVF beforehand. I appreciate this is something not everyone goes through but they just wanted a child and therefore my comment about making it easier for adoption to occur would have really helped them. Again, sorry if it came accross as insensitive :flow:

I battled with completely unexplained infertility for 2.5 years, and it broke my heart and I to would have turned to adoption before this practice, but again that's a personal choice so fully understand we all wish for different things. Still completely baffled as to why one month was the right month for me... :shrug: but I still wont ever be trying for anymore biological children.


Like I said though, I am actually for the practice as to irradicate some genetic diseases would of course be nothing but great, but I do still believe we should be using money elsewhere within the NHS/country until our economy has shown some significant growth as I think at this moment in time we do have some more important things to be spending money on.
 
I think it's a dangerous area.

One side of me thinks it's wonderful, that, potentially, we could eradicate some illnesses. It could mean some great things for carriers of certain diseases. For example, a mum I know, if she falls pregnant with a boy there is a 50/50 chance he will get this disease and won't live more than 12 hours. But it's hard to detect with out putting the baby at risk until birth.

If it could give parents peace of mind about carrying a healthy child then I'm all for it.

However, I also think it's dangerous territory. It's one step closer to a 'designer baby'. And that worries me. No matter how well monitored something is there will always be one that will push these boundaries with or without permission. Or will find a way to practice it.

So I'm on the fence.
 
Honestly............I'm on the fence.

On one hand I seriously think - wtf? We are crippled as a country yet are funding research into something unecessary as this? The human species has survived long enough being able to reproduce, and whilst I think IVF is great, I think this is too far. Why don't we make it much much easier for a loving couple/family to adopt? I also would be very wary that 'children will be closely monitored' .... so does that mean an increased risk of disability, surely even the monitoring would affect the childs life? I often think just because we CAN do something like this - really doesn't mean we should.


But then I flip the coin and I think, this is science to try and ensure a mother with a genetic risk to a biological child does not pass it on. The 'third parent' isn't really that, just providing some cells to allow the Mother's DNA to be carried safely and produce a healthy child.

But I do think now isn't the time. Money is needed in this country elsewhere. If we ever got to a position where we hada stable and growing economy then I wouldn't mind more research into the practice.

I'm on the fence too!

But to play devils advocate here. Have you considered the savings to the NHS that this will result in which could potentially cover the cost of the research and then some?


I can understand that they will closely monitor any children. To be fair they did with Louise Brown and it was said that Robert Edward (the ivf pioneer) only got recognition for what he did after Louise had a baby of her own because they didn't know if there would be any long term effects from being created in a test tube.

I'll step away from the adoption instead of ivf comment because that is quite insensitive and a whole other debate! :winkwink:

I agree with RF. Whilst I am on the fence, I don't think the potential benefits can be ignored.
 
I think it's a dangerous area.

One side of me thinks it's wonderful, that, potentially, we could eradicate some illnesses. It could mean some great things for carriers of certain diseases. For example, a mum I know, if she falls pregnant with a boy there is a 50/50 chance he will get this disease and won't live more than 12 hours. But it's hard to detect with out putting the baby at risk until birth.

If it could give parents peace of mind about carrying a healthy child then I'm all for it.

However, I also think it's dangerous territory. It's one step closer to a 'designer baby'. And that worries me. No matter how well monitored something is there will always be one that will push these boundaries with or without permission. Or will find a way to practice it.

So I'm on the fence.

Unless, it escapes me atm, I don't know of a mitochondrial disease with that outcome, so it's important to keep in mind that this therapy will be for a (comparatively) small subset of very specific diseases. It's not really into designer baby territory. They're not altering any genes and peptides encoded by the mitochondria (I think there are 13? it's been years...) are all for a very specific pathway-- so there's not much creative freedom in terms of altering child outcomes. They will either have a properly functioning oxphos pathway or they will not.
I never paid much attention before, but it's definitely made me read the mtDNA-nDNA interaction papers with more interest. Super fascinating!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,650,307
Messages
27,144,892
Members
255,759
Latest member
boom2211
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "c48fb0faa520c8dfff8c4deab485d3d2"
<-- Admiral -->