Should three people be allowed to make a baby?

2

By Arielle Duhaime-Ross

For more than a decade, scientists have been developing a fertility technique that involves combining DNA from three parents to make a child. The technique, which has yet to be tested on humans, aims to help women who suffer from mitochondrial disease conceive a baby to which they are genetically related. But as the science inches closer to the human trial stage — some say that might happen in as little as two years — the scientific debate surrounding “three-parent babies” grows louder, and more polarized.

Just last week, for instance, a British scientific panel decided that the fertility technique is “not unsafe” for patients who suffer from mitochondrial disease. The decision hints that British government may soon amend legislation that currently bars the procedure, called mitochondrial replacement (MR), from entering human trials. Yet an American scientific panel reached a different conclusion in February when it decided that the science supporting MR was inconclusive and lacking. Thus, the first baby with three genetic parents will likely be British, and the two countries that are seriously considering human trials are unlikely to reach a consensus before its birth.

DNA MANIPULATIONS AND ‘DESIGNER BABIES’

Mitochondria are tiny cellular subunits located within the cell’s cytoplasm, but outside of the nucleus. They generate the energy that cells need to carry out their functions. But some people — an estimated 4,000 people in the US each year — are born with faulty mitochondrial DNA, which can cause a range of health problems, including seizures, blindness, heart problems, and liver disease. Furthermore, because this type of DNA is only passed on by women, potential mothers with mitochondrial disease often live in fear of passing down what occasionally turns out to be a fatal health condition. For affected couples, MR therefore represents a welcome solution that could allow them to have a healthy child to which both parents are genetically related — and the fact that the technique involves using genes from a third person might very well be worth it.

“It’s a splendid way of relieving the threat of a life-limiting disease for which there is no alternative intervention available,” says Alastair Kent, director of Genetic Alliance UK, a national charity that supports people with genetic conditions. But “I think the question now is “is the science there yet?””

On the surface, the science that powers MR is deceptively simple. To avoid conceiving children with faulty mitochondrial DNA, scientists simply take a donor egg from a woman with normal mitochondria, remove its nucleus, and insert the nucleus of an affected mother in the egg instead. The affected mother still contributes 25,000 genes to the fertilization process, but a small quantity of genetic material from the cytoplasm — 37 genes, to be exact — is provided by a female donor. Once the embryo is created, the affected mother can carry it to term herself (although carrying a child can be risky for some women with mitochondrial disease).

But those considerable advantages don’t change the fact that any child conceived through mitochondrial replacement will be carrying genetic components from three people. Understandably, the idea has captivated the public’s imagination, and even led to explanations about why this won’t give rise to “lesbian designer babies” (MR will only be offered to couples dealing with mitochondrial disease). But most scientists assert that the procedure is actually more akin to organ donation than an experiment produced in Frankenstein’s lab. “It’s no different from somebody who has received a bone-marrow transplantation,” says Evan Snyder, a human geneticist at the Sanford-Burnham Medical Research Institute in California who chaired a meeting of the FDA’s Gene Therapies Advisory Committee in February, “because every organ and your blood now also represents a third individual.”

Furthermore, many argue that the number of genes an egg donor would contribute is too small to warrant debating a child’s parental origins. “I wouldn’t say that the ‘third parent’ has much of a contribution,” says Shoukhrat Mitalipov, a developmental biologist at the Oregon Health and Science University who used MR successfully to breed four rhesus macaques in 2009. But Kent puts it more bluntly: “The woman who provides the mitochondria won’t be a parent, because mitochondrial DNA isn’t the part of the DNA that determines who we are.”

Yet these kinds of arguments can also be used to critique the push for human MR. “Keep in mind that it’s a very rare condition and being severely affected is not the standard, so they are targeting a tiny number of women,” says Katharine Wenstrom, a geneticist at Brown University in Rhode Island. That view might not hold much weight with British scientists, says David King, director of Human Genetics Alert, a UK-based public watchdog group. “There exists a dogma that nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of a high-tech medical benefit, however minimal that benefit is expected to be.”

Of course, the arguments for MR aren’t purely medical. “This deals with not only the medical urgency, but also the elective desires of parents who want the kids they raise to have their genetic components,” Snyder says. There are many other strategies that can help these couples — including adopting and conventional egg donation — but they don’t allow women with mitochondrial disease to have children that combine their own genetic makeup with that of a male partner.

2 COMMENTS

  1. Given that the “third parent’s DNA” is actually the DNA of endosymbionts from a former prokaryotic species rather than our eukaryotic ancestors makes it hard for me to consider “X is the third parent” true enough to argue, “Well, that’s not OK”. Mitochondrial donation is just a minor software patch.

  2. There is a subtext of essentialism, I think. I’m reminded of films where a patient receives an organ from an evil donor… and starts to become evil!!!11! They HGA guy sounds to me like he is projecting wildly, and that it’s not that “nothing may stand in the way” it’s that they wish to stand in the way of everything, presumably concerned about our precious bodily fluids. Perhaps that’s unfair, but that’s how they come across. Which would be a shame, because we do have to take care when considering modification of the template for building humans. Which this is not.

    The thing is, even if you think like that, even if it were possible to combine the whole of the genomes (iteratively, say) with three or four parents (so 1:1:2 or 1:1:1:1 on average), provided that process could be shown to have no side effects, I’m not clear on the objection. The potential difficulties in having a four-parent family? Wouldn’t that be the participants’ business? Isn’t it generally more of a problem having insufficient parents than having too many?

    This isn’t about manipulation to achieve a desired change in operation or some kind of eugenic selection. Aren’t those the claimed concerns of those who oppose deliberate human genetic changes?

Leave a Reply