Three parent cellular fiddling a bad idea

A slippery slope to human germline modification

I've been meaning to post about the amazing lack of detailed media attention on the strange decision of the UK government to move ahead with trial of "three parent babies", by which parents who can tell they may well have babies with serious mitochondrial disease could create (with any luck) a healthy baby by completely mucking around with the insides of human egg cells.

This immediately struck me as absurd.  

Here's a simple solution, folks:   if you stand an extremely high risk of passing on serious and crippling diseases to your own genetic children - don't make your own genetic children!

Furthermore, there has been ongoing controversy for years as to the effects on IQ of test tube babies made using sperm injection.  Here's a 2005 story saying it has no effect.  Here's a 2013 story saying it does.  As well as a greater risk of autism.

OK, then.  Let's go on to not just inject a sperm cell, but rip out the nucleus of one woman's egg and insert DNA from another woman and see how that goes!

Isn't it pretty bleeding obvious that if the very mechanics of merely helping a sperm cell get into an egg increases risks significantly, it's extremely likely that the "three parent baby" process could only be worse in comparison?

Anyway, finally I see a article in a science journal (linked at the top, and in Nature, no less) in which someone makes the case against it.   After explaining this is to help a small number of women who have the problem, the article goes on to explain that even the process used to encourage approval for further trials is dubious:

Although proof of safety is, by definition, impossible in this situation, the evidence submitted up to now on mitochondrial replacement is far from reassuring. Most of the work has been on early-stage embryos; basic research on epigenetic and other interactions among nuclear and mitochondrial genes is lacking; animal studies are preliminary. The HFEA, which had originally asked that the mitochondrial-replacement technique being developed in the United Kingdom, called pro-nuclear transfer, be tested in non-human primates, later dropped that requirement — after US researchers found the technique to be unsuccessful in macaques.

Those opposed to green-lighting mitochondrial replacement have been described in some quarters as religious objectors, against all types of IVF. In fact, many secular and actively pro-choice scientists, bioethicists and women’s-health advocates have voiced grave and detailed concerns about the safety and utility of mitochondrial replacement, and about authorizing the intentional genetic modification of children and their descendants.

The HFEA, for its part, has made questionable claims of favourable public opinion about mitochondrial replacement. In 2012, the agency carried out a public consultation, which it said found “broad support” for the technique. Yet the consultation report shows something quite different. Of more than 1,800 respondents to the largest and only publicly open portion of the exercise (the element that in past consultations has been presented as the most significant), a majority opposed mitochondrial replacement.

The HFEA points out that the consultation included other “strands”: workshops of 30 people each; a public-opinion survey; two meetings with preselected speakers; and a six-person patient focus group. The sentiment in these strands tended to be more favourable, but this sentiment was encouraged in various ways. When a reference to a study caused uncertainty and concern, for example, it was dropped from subsequent discussions on the grounds that it was not relevant. The report noted that “some participants’ trust in the safety of these techniques is relatively fragile, and easily disrupted by new information”.

I feel entirely vindicated in my initial gut reaction.