I subscribe to Gene Watch, a magazine published by the Council For Responsible Genetics. The latest issue explores current efforts to begin direct manipulations of the human germline in what would "constitute the first cases of large-scale human genetic engineering." Various names are being employed to describe the technique that is discussed in this issue of the magazine. Among them are: "mitochondrial transfer;" mitochondrial replacement;" "nuclear genome transfer;" and "three-parent/three-person IVF."
Of course, the intentions are all good, but it should be noted that if the techniques now being talked about are ever actually authorized, and put into practice, those doing the manipulations would probably make a lot of money. This is relevant because we know that self-interest often gets in the way of objectivity.
In terms of the "good intentions," the effort, initially, is to deal with "mitochondrial disease." The more skeptical articles in Gene Watch, however, raise a concern that the technique might quickly end up being used for "designer babies." Incidentally, the technique being promoted is sometimes called "three-parent babies" because genetic material from three different persons is manipulated in the process, and is eventually expressed in the new human being that is produced by the technique.
You can read the various articles discussing the technique online. Some are highly critical; others much more favorable.
In an article called "Manipulating Embryos, Manipulating Truth," Dr. David King, a former molecular biologist and now the Director of Human Genetics Alert, says this:
The key piece of scientific misinformation that was crucial to the ethical misunderstanding of these techniques was the statement, endorsed by major scientific institutions, that mitochondria act as mere "batteries" for cells, and that mutations in mitochondrial genes have no effect on an individual's identity. The statement made an analogy with a laptop computer; its batteries do not affect the programs or data on the laptop. The purpose of this endlessly-repeated statement was to minimize the ethical significance of the changes to the germ line involved. (In these discussions, 'identity' was never clearly defined, but the general impression given was that it referred to visible physical differences, and perhaps personality.)
This piece of scientific nonsense is a classic example of the reductionist models of biology which dominate public debate and are clearly used by advocates of new technologies to manipulate the debate. Living organisms are simply not like computers: they are complex, whereas computers are merely complicated.
This discussion strikes me as revealing. What is the difference between "complicated" and "complex" in the context of what Dr. King is saying? One key difference between computers and living organisms is that computers are made by human beings. In other words, when we use references to computers as a way to understand living things we are comparing things that WE have made to living beings that we most emphatically have not made (and can't make).
Living organisms (including ourselves) are not things that human beings can make. Certainly, "complex" is a better word than "complicated" as we search for a word to describe living things. However, living things are even more than "complicated."
They are mysterious.
We are almost always on the road to a big mistake when we assume that WE are able to create, or replace, the living and mysterious World of Nature with the works of our own hands.
Image Credit:
http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v12/n9/full/nrd4111.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comes under the category of "Too Clever for Our Own Good."
ReplyDeleteGenetics is far too complex to be manipulated in such a way by human beings. Nature has spent millions of years getting the human species right. How can hasty humans hope to better Nature?
Genetic engineers forget the principles of "You can never do just one thing," and "What happens next?" In human affairs, the Law of Unintended Consequences rules even more firmly than the law of Thermodynamics.
Genetic engineering, in any living thing, is fraught with immense potential to do great, irreparable harm. Tinkering with genetics is similar to giving a two year old child a hand grenade and a hammer. The consequences of error far outweigh the potential for good.
Let's leave genetics and evolution to Nature, and concentrate on improving our societies, governments and institutions, so as, first, to do no harm.
Sounds like you've smoked a little too much weed, Michael, you're getting paranoid. Next time you go to the hospital, I hope the doctors don't turn you away, fearing "unintended consequences". Doing nothing to help donor cell IVF patients will have the certain consequences of increased risk to the mother and child. TPIVF can reduce this risk, and also allow women with mitochondrial disease to have their own children without passing on the disease. If you're going to commit the appeal to nature fallacy, at least get it right and admit it's unnatural for a woman to give birth to a child that doesn't have her DNA! And next time, think of other people before you spew ignorant, cruel nonsense.
DeleteGary, this post is contemptibly ignorant and profoundly immoral. I can think of no worse hypocrisy than denying medicine to others because you don't share their disease (talk about "self-interest"). Women with mitochondrial diseases deserve to raise healthy children with their own nuclear DNA. We can suck out their nuclear DNA and put it in a cell with healthy mitochondria. Why should this be denied to would-be mothers?
ReplyDeleteTalk about "designer babies" is a laughably foolish slippery slope fallacy and complete non sequitur to the issue of curing mitochondrial disease.
"If we let grandpa get a replacement hip, soon everyone will have metal
bones like Wolverine!" -- yeah, right. Hope you never need a hip replacement. But if you ever do, I'm sure your anti-medicine attitude would fly right out the window.
Stuart Newman's little conspiracy theory is that "mitochondrial transfer" is an intentionally deceptive term. He argues that the whole cell is transferred, not just the mitochondria. But the donor cell its self only ends up being one cell in the child's body. The only biological legacy of the transfer are the mitochondria. So Newman is wrong by a factor of some 37 trillion! Quite the lie!
ReplyDeleteDavid King's little tirade about the analogy of mitochondria to computer batteries is also dead wrong. Mitochondria can, in fact, be replaced like laptop batteries, and the only biologically relevant effect is curing mitochondrial disease. The hypothesis was raised that "unmatched" nuclear and mitochondria genomes could pose some risk, but the evidence shows otherwise [1]. On the contrary, donor cell IVF poses an immunological risk to mothers which would be eliminated using mitochondrial transfer [2]. The matter of "identity" based on personality and physical appearance is totally beside the point. Curing disease and providing safe care to mothers are the "ethically significant" points. King's key piece of scientific misinformation is an utter reliance on the genetic fallacy. It doesn't matter where the mitochondria ultimately comes from or how they got there, so long as they're healthy.
ReplyDelete1. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043276013001550
2. http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/6/704.full