Last month, it was published that Newcastle University successfully created an embryo..with three parents. DNA was taken from a man and two women. The theory behind this endeavor is to eliminate mitochondrial-related disorders (such as epilepsy, liver failure, muscular dystrophy, etc) which the mother passes onto the child. The nucleus from an already formed embryo was transplanted into another donor egg. The scientists claim that the donor egg does not contribute DNA which affects the babies appearance--but what else will it affect? So far only minimal after-effect tests have been conducted in mice.
There are certainly ethical issues to be considered in this case. Should we be manipulating the process of life in such a manner? Since the formation of the first human beings, one sperm and one egg have united to form the zygote which leads to new life. Has this new manipulation of mother nature gone too far? The ethicist Josephine Quintavalle in the article worries that the procedure will be "risky" and is a "step towards designer babies." I too agree that since this is such a novel procedure that the risks will undoubtedly be tremendous. What if the babies are born with extreme deformities? What are their rights? Also, psychologically, I believe that there are issues present. How will a child react to knowing that he or she has two mothers and a father? Will he or she feel like an outcast? Practical implications arise--who is the biological mother? I found this article interesting since its research findings are quite novel and unprecedented. As with any unprecedented process, we must come up with a new protocol. This seems as if it will be easier said than done in this case.
source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7227861.stm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think this procedure is revolutionary and simply reflective of the progress in medical technologies we have made to date. While one could argue that there are ethical issues at stake, from a purely scientific perspective it is a wonderful procedure. I personally don’t see anything wrong with using another egg cell as a host for a fertilized nucleus if it will make the individual healthier. Using evolutionary theory as an argument, we are making a more fit species, and ourselves selecting against this bad mitochondrial DNA. Humans are simply using the resources they have at stake to make their chances of surviving in the light of evolution. Just as a more fit tiger will survive in the wilderness using the natural talents he has at hand and will pass on his genes, humans are using their natural talents, brains, to make themselves a healthier and more fit species.
Secondly, in response to the argument of how to define parenthood for this child, I feel like that is a more cultural question than a biological one. In our society, a parent is defined as the person that raises the child from birth, cares for them, provides for their upbringing and moral code, etc. An adopted child may not share genes with his parents, but he still calls them his parents. Likewise, even if a child is created using a donor egg, the parents that contributed the DNA, the ones that will be raising the child, shall be the parents. Some kids have two sets of parents, because their biological parents divorced and remarried. Yet others have the Ross, Susan, Carol situation as in the television show, “Friends.” Ben in fact has two mothers and one father.
Post a Comment