Designing Babies with 3-parent DNA
My son has mitochondrial disease. Mitochondria is maternally inherited. My other two children do not have mitochondrial disease which means that my oldest child's mitochondria deficiency/deletion was atypical, sporadic, a random occurrence. The technology that is being considered by the FDA to prevent mitochondrial diseases in embryos would not apply to our situation, so why am I so worked up by this?
Yesterday, the FDA concluded a two-day hearing on the science of 3-parent embryos. The process would take the DNA from the egg of the mother and that of the father and insert it into the embryo of a donor egg with healthy mitochondria that has had its nuclear DNA removed.
In an interview I heard with Dr. David Prentiss, who spoke out against the technique before the FDA Tuesday, he said that though this has not been attempted in humans, about four years ago, it was accomplished in monkey embryos; thus far, the animals seem to be healthy, though we are uncertain as of yet how it has affected their fertility and life expectancy. He cited that one of the ethical questions raised in this experiment that was not brought before the FDA was the fact that several embryo were destroyed in the process. Even once the process was successful at least two embryo were destroyed for each monkey embryo designed.
Art Caplan, the director of medical ethics at New York University's Langone Medical Center agrees that it is the "humane ethical thing to do": "These little embryos, these are people born with a disease, they can't make power. You're giving them a new battery. That's a therapy." (http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/health/ivf-mitochondria/)
The mitochondria are the power houses of cells. Without his daily dose of idebenone and leucovorin, my son is lethargic, quiet, and seems to regress mentally from the progress we have encountered since he began his mito-cocktail a little over five years ago. In fact, the atrophy of his cerebellum, a result of his mitochondrial malfunction, has slowed considerably since the beginning of his treatment.
Had I known his fate and been able to prevent him from being affected, would I have? Of course. But does this new process have any bearing on his situation? Not at all. So for us, improving treatment, finding a cure. That is what we want the FDA to explore.
But for those with known diseases who may want to have children without the danger of passing on a debilitating disease like muscular dystrophy, what about the possibility of the 3-parent embryo?
The safety of the procedure is unknown. And although some scientists claim that since the mother and father's genetic material is generally unchanged, this process is different from cloning and not a reason to fear the impulse to produce designer babies.
I don't know what to think.
Psalm 139: 14 the psalmist asserts that we are "fearfully and wonderfully made" and how many times have I heard the statement, "God doesn't make mistakes." The problem with the idea of perfect creation is while God is not capable of doing anything contrary to His holy will, we live in a fallen world. It's not difficult to look around and conclude that there are real problems here. God allowed my son to have a degenerative disease, but that does not mean that it is not God's will for me to try every therapy available to make my son's life as full and as rich as it can possibly be.
The question then is whether this is indeed a therapy or therapeutic procedure or something more disturbing. Embryos are destroyed in this process, and though embryonic stem cell research is limited, it is still allowed in most states in our country and in many countries around the world. Embryos are also destroyed in in-vitro fertilization which is, for the most part, an accepted practice in this country; in fact, 93% of the embryos harvested for the IVF are destroyed. So it can't only be the destruction of embryos that is in question.
My knee-jerk opposition to this 3-parent embryo business was that it sounds like genetic engineering, modification, playing God, tampering with Mother Nature, but is it in reality, simply a therapy, a treatment with miraculous consequences?
Again, I don't know.
3-parent embryos. . .what do you think: eugenics or the ethical thing to do?
Yesterday, the FDA concluded a two-day hearing on the science of 3-parent embryos. The process would take the DNA from the egg of the mother and that of the father and insert it into the embryo of a donor egg with healthy mitochondria that has had its nuclear DNA removed.
In an interview I heard with Dr. David Prentiss, who spoke out against the technique before the FDA Tuesday, he said that though this has not been attempted in humans, about four years ago, it was accomplished in monkey embryos; thus far, the animals seem to be healthy, though we are uncertain as of yet how it has affected their fertility and life expectancy. He cited that one of the ethical questions raised in this experiment that was not brought before the FDA was the fact that several embryo were destroyed in the process. Even once the process was successful at least two embryo were destroyed for each monkey embryo designed.
The UK has already taken the first step in this innovative in-vitro technique and plans to present it to parliament as early as next year. The UK's chief medical officer, professor Dame Sally Davies asserts that because scientists are armed with the "ground-breaking new procedures" to prevent maternally inherited diseases: "it's only right that we look to
introduce this life-saving treatment as soon as we can." (http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/28/health/uk-health-dna-ivf/)
Art Caplan, the director of medical ethics at New York University's Langone Medical Center agrees that it is the "humane ethical thing to do": "These little embryos, these are people born with a disease, they can't make power. You're giving them a new battery. That's a therapy." (http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/health/ivf-mitochondria/)
The mitochondria are the power houses of cells. Without his daily dose of idebenone and leucovorin, my son is lethargic, quiet, and seems to regress mentally from the progress we have encountered since he began his mito-cocktail a little over five years ago. In fact, the atrophy of his cerebellum, a result of his mitochondrial malfunction, has slowed considerably since the beginning of his treatment.
Had I known his fate and been able to prevent him from being affected, would I have? Of course. But does this new process have any bearing on his situation? Not at all. So for us, improving treatment, finding a cure. That is what we want the FDA to explore.
But for those with known diseases who may want to have children without the danger of passing on a debilitating disease like muscular dystrophy, what about the possibility of the 3-parent embryo?
The safety of the procedure is unknown. And although some scientists claim that since the mother and father's genetic material is generally unchanged, this process is different from cloning and not a reason to fear the impulse to produce designer babies.
I don't know what to think.
Psalm 139: 14 the psalmist asserts that we are "fearfully and wonderfully made" and how many times have I heard the statement, "God doesn't make mistakes." The problem with the idea of perfect creation is while God is not capable of doing anything contrary to His holy will, we live in a fallen world. It's not difficult to look around and conclude that there are real problems here. God allowed my son to have a degenerative disease, but that does not mean that it is not God's will for me to try every therapy available to make my son's life as full and as rich as it can possibly be.
The question then is whether this is indeed a therapy or therapeutic procedure or something more disturbing. Embryos are destroyed in this process, and though embryonic stem cell research is limited, it is still allowed in most states in our country and in many countries around the world. Embryos are also destroyed in in-vitro fertilization which is, for the most part, an accepted practice in this country; in fact, 93% of the embryos harvested for the IVF are destroyed. So it can't only be the destruction of embryos that is in question.
My knee-jerk opposition to this 3-parent embryo business was that it sounds like genetic engineering, modification, playing God, tampering with Mother Nature, but is it in reality, simply a therapy, a treatment with miraculous consequences?
Again, I don't know.
3-parent embryos. . .what do you think: eugenics or the ethical thing to do?
Comments
Post a Comment