TAG of the Week:
Complete your responses by Friday 11/21 at 5pm (EST).
Thank you to one of our HS320 students for tweeting this NPR clip.
As we had studied in class, genomics has the potential to prevent and treat many chronic diseases. DNA transplantation can be possible option as a part prenatal care testing and screening.
Listen to the NPR clip here, and discuss ethical issues that this type of 'prevention' strategy can have in our society? Are we ready? Is the general public ready ? How could we (as health science professionals) prepare the general public about these options for 'prevention'?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/11/10/360342623/combining-the-dna-of-three-people-raises-ethical-questions
I agree with England's Chief Medical Officer's statement that replacing mitochondrial DNA is similar to "changing the battery of a car," and wouldn't greatly change the offspring's traits from those of the original parents. However, I do not think the world is technologically nor mentally ready to begin using this strategy.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, there is the issue of making a mistake. While it sounds like British scientists have a good procedure in place, even the scientist interviewed for this segment acknowledged the problem. This type of DNA transplantation raises the stakes even higher than regular genetic engineering because the change will be passed down for future generations. Therefore, I do not think it should be used until the process is more refined and the outcomes more certain, although I understand it will never reach 100% accuracy.
Another major ethical implication is that people may use this technology for other, less medically centered, purposes. As they discussed in the clip, DNA transplants could end up being "disastrous for society" if people begin to alter the DNA of their future offspring to eliminate any trait deemed undesirable. The scientist interviewed referred to this as "consumer eugenics" culture, in which people could pay to have their future offspring engineered to have the genetic predisposition for traits such as athletic ability. While I would like to believe that this is unlikely, unfortunately it is a very possible outcome. With the emphasis on perfection in today's society, I would be surprised if wealthy families didn't jump at the chance to alter the DNA of their offspring to create a genetically perfect child. Unfortunately, the widespread implementation of the mitochondrial DNA transplant procedure could likely spark the interest to profit on this technology by using it for non-medical purposes. It may be necessary to put laws in place prohibiting DNA transplants for non-medical reasons before the procedure is approved for widespread practice.
However, right now there is also an issue of uncertainty from consumers. Many people are a bit disturbed by the idea of a child technically containing DNA from three individuals, and feel that it goes against the principles of human reproduction. In contrast to the ethical dilemma I discussed above, I think this tentativeness can have negative outcomes for society. While I think there is a long way to go until DNA transplants should be implemented, the public should be open to the idea of it for when it can be used to prevent or even eliminate disease. I think public health professionals should begin to make the procedure more commonly known, so that people can get more comfortable with the idea. Additionally, it should always be stressed that DNA transplants are only to be used for serious diseases and not just as a way to alter characteristics. I think the public will be much more open to the idea when it is framed in the context of preventing life threatening diseases.
This DNA altering 'prevention' strategy does seem to inherently raise many ethical questions. The most significant seems to be the danger of an accident in the DNA transplant. As explained in this clip, any change can be passed down through generations and could possibly create new health issues instead of preventing others. Therefore, the thought of a mistake is absolutely terrifying because of the grave and long lasting consequences. The other major issue brought up is the idea of "designer babies and consumer eugenics" which I think is absolutely a realistic worry, knowing today's society. I agree with Rachel in that we would absolutely need laws to prevent DNA transplants for cosmetic use or other non-medical reasons.
ReplyDeleteHowever, despite these risks I think that DNA transplanting is a good idea and could have huge benefits for conditions that are otherwise unalterable. When we think of changing DNA unnaturally like this, it invokes a kind of emotional reaction. But the DNA we are thinking of is really the kind that produces tangible characteristics that can make a family feel closer. Looks, intelligence, and other characteristics like these are important to us, but these are also the kinds of variables that are unaffected by mitochondrial DNA, which is the DNA in question in these transplants. Since these different kinds of DNA are unrelated, I think that altering mitochondrial DNA raises less ethical concerns than the entire concept does at first glance. The risk of non-medical uses mentioned earlier is actually quite preventable, because the characteristics that families would want to choose to perfect their children are not actually controllable through mitochondrial DNA.
I am not sure that the public is ready for this new prevention strategy just yet, but once scientists confirm a very safe way to carry out these procedures I don't think it will be long before it is a socially accepted practice. It will be important to inform the public about the differences between DNA as they know it and the mitochondrial DNA that will actually be altered. Once the public understands that the characteristics of an individual are not being changed, this procedure can be presented as a strictly medical advantage to prevent diseases in those who are genetically prone.
Catie brings up a great point when she explains that mitochondrial DNA is not actually the DNA we think of when worrying about whether an individual or family might want to design a baby that looks a certain way or has certain characteristics. Specifically, it is crucial that the public is better educated on this information, because even the genetics research watchdog use referenced in the NPR story is using lack of public understanding of this topic to create fear that mitochondrial DNA transplantation will be a direct descent into "consumer eugenics." Furthermore, there are certainly legal strategies that can be implemented to prevent such eugenics and designer baby policies from taking effect. Since many of the diseases that could potentially be helped by this procedure currently have no other treatments, further research into this topic is absolutely necessary to make any progress towards developing a viable intervention. For diseases of this type and severity, only allowing researchers to move on to the next phase of research and actually try to transfer the modified embryo into a woman's womb will improve our ability to combat these conditions.
DeleteI can understand how this type of procedure is very valuable for those who do not want to risk of transferring genetically defective mitochondrial DNA to their child. It seems like that is one of the few options that these mothers have. But based on the current state that this type of procedure is in right now, the risks seem too high and the ethical problems are significant.
ReplyDeleteThe article states that the child be the same as if were to be born without this procedure; the only difference is that the child will have mitochondrial DNA which consist of 37 genes. But those 37 genes are distinct in that they are the unique genetic connection between the offspring and the mother. By breaking this genetic connection, it seems unnatural. This seems like a step towards the direction of genetically creating babies. How much does a baby’s gene have to match his or her mother’s to be considered a natural offspring? There is a possibility that if this procedure were to have a very high success rate and gains in popularity, the next step will to improve other defects and eventually move away from preventing diseases, but to creating physiological advantages.
The obvious, and very significant problem with this procedure is the risks. Based on this article, it seems that this procedure is in it very early stages, and one cannot judge the success of the procedure until the baby is born. I think that this risk itself makes the procedure unethical. The purpose of this technology is to prevent disease, but it may in face have the opposite effect. Because of this problem, I think that the general public is not ready for this procedure. Even if, ethically, people approved of this type of procedure, the actual “microsurgery” has to have a high success rate. More research would have to be implemented and there would have to be another way to judge success other than seeing if the baby is born disease-free.
Danny makes some great points that I hadn’t realized. It’s very difficult to judge this technology this early on. Considering the risks to the mother is necessary, and we also have no way of knowing how this could affect the baby as well. This is especially important to keep in mind considering that there is already discussion of the possibility of using this technology for consumer eugenics.
DeleteSince this DNA transplantation technique involves the addition of mitochondrial DNA— a type of DNA that is not phenotypically expressed in terms of traits like hair color and eye color, which we typically associate with biological relatedness to other family members—the primary ethical concern is that which was already expressed in the NPR clip. The main issue raised by genetics watchdog groups is the idea that these initially medical types of DNA interventions will be a slippery slope to “consumer eugenics” and the creation of “designer babies.” While it is certainly possible that some people would look at the transplantation of mitochondrial DNA and maliciously envision a world where they could generate new babies with only the characteristics they prefer, there are certain measures that can be taken to prevent this from happening. In genomics, we often discuss “ELSI” issues, and there is a reason that ethics goes hand in hand with legal and social topics. As a society, we already understand that the use of DNA technology to practice eugenics in the creation of new babies is simply unacceptable, so it is necessary for health science professionals to advocate for bolstering and updating the existing laws banning the use of scientific technology for the use of genetic selection for vanity purposes.
ReplyDeleteThe majority of the public is probably ready to accept and welcome the transplantation of mitochondrial DNA as a technique that potentially prevents incurable mitochondrial diseases. Honestly, what is more concerning about this DNA technique is the fact that any errors the scientists made in the procedure would most likely get passed down to offspring of the originally modified embryo. The general public— especially people like Victoria Collins who have a family history of mitochondrial genetic disorders and no other viable solutions – are definitely ready to accept the use of this procedure before it has been proven efficacious in other organisms. So overall, it may be possible that the public is ready for this medical breakthrough and the ethical issues surrounding this topic may not be as great as they were initially perceived to be. However, as health science professionals it is also our responsibility to point out the possibility that perhaps the technology just has not undergone enough testing yet to be acceptable for immediate human use, especially since so many people have placed high expectations on its successful implementation. Therefore, while it is beneficial for mitochondrial DNA transplant research funding to be deemed legal and given more funding, it is also important to ensure that the individuals who eventually participate in this research to truly understand the many possible positive and negative outcomes of using mitochondrial DNA transplantation to modify an embryo.
I think Anupriya immediately brings up a very good point regarding DNA transplantation—that the DNA being transferred is mitochondrial DNA. Many of the ethical concerns regarding this process would be due to the idea of people “designing” children. By this we mean using the ability to alter genes not related to medical issues so as to choose your child’s appearance, abilities, or intellect. While these concerns are understandable, they are not exactly valid regarding the procedure discussed in the article. The procedure in question replaces defective mitochondrial DNA, which does not affect such things as appearance or athleticism. Thus, many of the ethical issues may not be issues at all if the public is properly educated on the process and what type of DNA and genes are involved.
DeleteThat being said, I still do not believe we are ready to legalize this process yet. It does not seem to be foolproof yet, and prior to implementing the process on humans we should be sure of its implications. A mistake could be fatal, or, if not fatal, could have negative consequences. Because this mistake would be in the individual’s DNA, it would be passed down their lineage from then on. Ultimately, I think the risk is still too great for this DNA transfer process to be implemented on humans.
While ethical problems are prevalent in using this type of prevention strategy, I think that this is a definite step in the right direction in terms of using our screening methods to implement a prevention plan. In the article, the two main ethical issues that were introduced were that scientists could potentially make a huge mistake in this entire procedure and create worse health problems that can get passed down to future generations, and that this new invention can lead to the creation of “designer babies” and the urge for genetic enhancements. I think that this first ethical issue is actually huge- especially since we do not know what kind of repercussions these changes can create. We do not know if somewhere along the line, this replacement of DNA can have a detrimental effect on future generations, especially since this technique is brand new and hasn’t really been tested out enough times. Further, adding more health problems to our society could not only put that baby at risk, but other people in the population at risk. I do not think, however, that this new technique will lead to the need for baby genetic enhancements. I think that scientists are strictly honing in on how to change lives for women with genetic disorders and their future generations. It is apparent, however, that reproduction is created only by a man and a woman, adding a third party sort of changes the way we see reproduction, which can be troubling for some families and the general public. Many people see a baby as the creation of the mother and a father, so replacing 37 genes from the mother with another woman may take away from the emotional significance that reproducing holds. Since we are essentially creating genetic changes in a person’s DNA that will get passed down to people’s descendants is a new idea that may be difficult for many people to accept since is it not the norm.
ReplyDeleteI think that we are ready for this type of prevention strategy to be implemented. At this point, given all of the resources and technology that we have, we should use our knowledge and collaborate to help try to eliminate these genetic disorders from seeping into our population. If we are able to screen we should use the information from the screenings in order to prevent. While we don’t know what health implications this technique holds for the future, we should at least introduce the idea and do more research and get more opinions from other doctors on it. I think that if we propose this technique to the public in a way that we describe what mitochondrial DNA does and how it effects the embryo, then people can see what sort of difference this replacement will be making. I think we need to really emphasize the fact that we are not changing the baby’s phenotype, but rather, we are changing what is sort of going on “behind the scenes.” It is sad that many women are unable to procreate due to these awful genetic disorders, so, if we familiarize the general public with this problem, then maybe people would be more open to these sorts of options. I think that in order to entice the general public we need to exercise the idea that these types of techniques will make a huge difference for many families who carry genetic disorders and will allow for many lives to be saved.
Though there could be some ethical issues with DNA transplanting, I think overall it could give a lot of parents with known histories of genetic disorders peace of mind when planning to conceive and child. If mitochondrial diseases are passed down in the maternal lineage, it is completely understandable that a woman with a history of genetic disorders to want to take all available precautions. The main concern most have about DNA transplants is that it could open the door to “designing a baby” with desired traits. I do agree that it would be difficult to approve DNA transplanting in certain cases, but not in others. However, I do think there is a clear distinction between using DNA transplants to ensure healthy babies, and using them for “designer babies”. With this prevention strategy, the transplants would simply replace defective mtDNA with healthy DNA from a donor. The rest of the DNA (pronuclei DNA), which is responsible for the phenotype of the child, would be left as is (from the mother and the father). As England's Chief Medical Officer stated in the NPR clip, the procedure would simply be like “changing the battery of a car” to make sure that everything runs smoothly. As long health science professionals informed the public of the restrictions of using DNA transplanting, making it clear that DNA transplants as a way to make a child more attractive or intelligent or athletic (etc.), then this method would be a useful scientific innovation for helping decrease infant mortality rates.
ReplyDeleteThere are two main ethical issues presented in this article— making changes in human DNA presents a potential risk of making mistakes which could lead to new health problems that would then be passed down in future generations, and the possibility of “designer babies” and genetic enhancements is introduced. This first issue is a very big one and one that needs to be highly considered before accepting this type of prevention. I do not think that this technology and process has undergone enough testing in order to assure people of success. It is extremely important to make sure this procedure is implemented carefully, especially since these changes will be carried through multiple generations. The other issue deals with natural offspring and generating babies with certain characteristics, which could ultimately lead to a social disaster. Some people could look at the transplantation of mitochondrial DNA as an opportunity to create an “ideal” child. However, I think laws could be enforced to prevent this and health professionals would need to highly advocate and stress that this procedure is only an option for those with serious mitochondrial diseases. Overall, it seems as though this procedure is a very new idea and this type of prevention needs to go through much more testing before it can actually be used and available to the public.
ReplyDeleteThe thought of any sort of genetic modification often stirs controversy to the public. For example: genetically modified organisms, despite not having any negative effect and providing a solution to feeding an exponentially growing population, still stirs fear in some.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't completely unreasonable, genetic modification is relatively new and the possible negative impacts are unknown. For this reason, there should be more research -- and that's just what these scientists are trying to do. The benefits of genetically altering damaged mitochondrial DNA (which would save lives) -- which would not affect height, hair or eye color (the primary concerns for designer babies) greatly outweighs the improbable risk of opening the doors to designer babies. The approval that these researchers are waiting for is a specific approval using mitochondrial DNA purely for a medical benefit -- this specific clearance is far from a company trying to alter DNA to match the baby's phenotype to the babies wishes.
The science and medical community is ready for such research advances -- and the technology is there as well. The public, as usual, may resist such changes -- but these controversies usually always exist. It is important to make sure that the research is very transparent and that the public is educated on genetic transplants to further instill trust in the public for this potentially life-saving procedure.
I thoroughly agree with Veronica in the sense that the idea of “designer babies” is much more of a made-up threat then it actually poses. However, I don’t think the primary concern is simple physical traits such as hair and eye color, but more along the lines of genes linked to athletic ability, intelligence and likeability. Luckily though, there is much research that reveals that these factors are often not controlled by a single gene, and thus it makes it less likely that technology would be able to snip and cut tiny fragments of DNA instead of reinserting the entire parental cell into a new egg with safe mitochondria. It is also important to keep in mind that technology develops and is approved slowly, giving the public time to adjust to the new standards and enforce new laws and safety measures to protect equality and fairness.
DeleteAfter reading the article, I thought that the mitochondrial DNA transplant process would be the perfect opportunity for parents carrying mitochondrial disease to not worry about passing the disease down to their children. If we have the scientific knowledge and technology to allow the procedure to work, we can move forward in medicine. Replacing defective mitochondrial DNA in an egg with healthy mitochondrial DNA from another women’s eggs seems like a complicated, yet opportunistic procedure. Every individual needs the 37 genes in the mitochondria, which is the power station that allows the cell to function. If the mitochondria in the body are not functioning properly, the cells will not be able to survive. The only change in the composition of the embryo is the 37 genes.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this mitochondrial DNA transplant can give parents carrying the disease an opportunity, I think that this procedure can bring up several ethics arguments. The “microsurgery” might be viewed as unethical because researchers and doctors are replacing the mitochondrial DNA of an early embryo. The egg has already been fertilized and implanted. The woman will then have an embryo with healthy mitochondrial DNA. People may argue that since the egg has already been fertilized, it is unethical to change the genetic makeup of the embryo. Genetic changes are made to change the DNA of an individual. This is a problem because parents in the future might see this procedure as a way to modify the phenotypes of their unborn child. This includes eye color, hair color, height, athletic genes, and so on. Parents should not have the choice to change the genetic makeup of their children. Scientists also have the potential to make mistakes during the transplant that may affect later generations in the family. It is not worth risking future generations to replace the defected mitochondrial DNA with healthy DNA. It is also uncertain whether the concept of three individuals contributing to the genetic makeup of a child is ethical or not. The father, mother, and woman with healthy mitochondrial DNA that all contribute to the child’s DNA. I do not think that we are ready for this prevention strategy. The research and techniques of the procedure are still uncertain. I think there is potential for this strategy to work, but I do not think it is the right time. The general public is also a concern. Will people take advantage of this strategy for their own benefit? I think that health care professionals need to look into the best methods to convey this medical information to the public. It is important that they know how serious mitochondrial disease is and how this prevention strategy can provide hope for future parents carrying this disease. There should be policies implemented regarding the reasons to have this procedure done in order to protect embryos from parents’ decisions about changes in phenotypes.
Whether or not the public is ready, I think it is in incredible time for innovation and research that is proven and credible should certainly serve their purpose and be put to use. The utilization of genetic methods has always been controversial, beginning with even the discovery of the human genome to the use of direct-to-consumer genetic testing and everything in between. This is is an understandable controversy; genetic material belongs to SOMEBODY, and therefore brings along a new meaning to the concept of ownership. However it is important to acknowledge more than just the fact that DNA is genetic material, and look at exactly what parts of the DNA are being used. In this particular instance, the focus is on utilizing DNA transplantation to combat mitrochondrial diseases. The mitochondria is the “powerhouse” of the cell, where the energy is stored. This is in an entirely different location from that of genetic information that gives you your physical and traits. The argument made by the opposing side is that having the ability to genetically transplant DNA from one individual to another in order to receive a better, more desired outcome (in this case, a baby free of mitochondrial disease) would eventually lead to the desire and practice of creating “designer babies”. This could take away from the whole concept of two people and only two people being involved in reproduction, and may even have psychological effects on the child after it is born if such procedures became norm. The British medical authorities however insist that there is no way that this will be allowed, and reiterate the fact that the genetic material that will be transplanted is the mitochondria as this is where the disease is located. To quote "the mitochondrial DNA does nothing but changing the energy level in the cells. It’s about the power pack, it is not creating a designer baby, it is about creating a healthy baby.”
ReplyDeleteOne point I did find particularly interesting was the idea that mistakes might be made during this very new process and these mistakes could in turn, lead to new never before seen diseases. Though this is a very valid point and one that inevitably needs to be addressed, with practice and precaution, I think this process could be very effective and rewarding. In my opinion, if the knowledge and implementation techniques exist, then i think it is important to put these to use and create a world with less disease and healthier babies.
I do agree with Deepti that it is worrisome knowing that DNA transplantation could result in new diseases as a consequence of modifying genes. I also believe that more long term research and experiments should be conducted in order to see if any problems arise from the method. To back up my own post, I think that eligibility regulations should be limited to only life-threatening genetic disorders. If these regulations are put in place, if something were to happen, it would be more containable and easier to address since the treatment won't be openly accessible or allow for potential abuse through modifying genes related to aesthetic traits. Although it is risky, I still believe that this technology should be used. DNA transplantation saves lives!!
Delete
ReplyDeleteThe ethical issue with this prevention strategy is that this is the gateway to manipulating the genes for our future children. In my opinion I believe we are ready for this information for some reasons. The fact that women are afraid to have offspring because of diseases that run in their genes is a real problem that we face today. If we have the possibility to be able to cure this and enable women to have babies that are disease free, we should pursue it. We are ready as a community because we have found this information and placed it into our material. The general public is not ready yet, but once the information is out there, the general public will understand and use it to their advantage. These are wonderful uses of prevention. They allow individuals to be less susceptible to diseases and ensure a better life. I think this is a great development in the science field.
Being selective for such high risk genetic disorders can change medical practices that are involved in the early stages of reproduction and life. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis is performed in the early embryonic stage before implantation. Due to the timing of the diagnosis, a woman can easily avoid elective abortion, which usually occurs after the detection of a birth defect during pregnancy. Not only does PGD save healthcare costs, but also prevents any emotional and psychological stress a woman may have if elective abortion becomes an option. The decision for elective termination is commonly the result of either an abnormality of the fetus or risk of maternal complications. If couples decide to use PGD, they will be able to figure out what genetic diseases they carry or portray, thus allowing them to find physicians and specialists that can further advise them in their family planning decision.
ReplyDeletePGD is an amazing tool that can help couples who have a high risk of passing down their genetic diseases to their babies improve the survival chances and increase their quality of life. Although PGD has its benefits, the process also poses moral conflicts. The use of PGD can be defined in two different categories: therapy, in which the procedure will prevent a disease, and enhancement, where the baby is healthy but given functions beyond normality. If a baby is most likely to develop a life-threatening disorder, using PGD in order to save the baby’s life is a viable option since it would increase the baby’s chance of survival and quality of life. This would be considered a therapeutic use of the technology. On the other hand, if a baby is already predicted to be healthy, and the parents wish to genetically modify their baby to increase IQ, musical or athletic abilities, this situation is considered an enhancement treatment. Where is the line drawn in deciding which situations are allowed for the use of this technology? The enhancement aspect of designer babies is morally challenging since there are no issues in regards to health; enhancement treatment is carried out to make already good genes even better so that the baby has superior qualities. If PGD were to become a common treatment and used by most of the population, individuality would cease since many desired traits would be readily available at the parents’ disposal. Not only would uniqueness slowly disappear, but there would also be a creation of a “superclass,” where those who can afford the treatment are gifted with an opportunity to make their children have superior genes and talents. In a society highly populated with designer babies, prejudice would arise, separating those who could and couldn’t afford to create designer babies.
I do believe that the public is ready for genetic modification. It's an amazing tool that can improve the chances of survival and increase the quality of life of babies who may have inherited a genetic disease. However, with that being said, I do believe regulations should be placed on eligibility requirements. In order to prevent the creation of a "superclass" with superiority through greater aesthetic traits, couples wishing to genetically modify their babies must have some sort of family history/screening indicating that they are at high risk of genetic disorder or low chance of survival. Genetic modification being used for enhancement reasons should be prohibited.
As health science professionals, we should definitely introduce this "prevention" method as another family planning resource. This could help couples facing infertility or high rates of passing down genetic disease to their offspring. It could also help with having a clearer predictability factor. I think we just need to be aware that abusing this treatment could leave society with irreversible results.
While there will be concerns about the use of DNA from other people to correct faulty genes in potential babies with genetic disorders, the argument against it is largely based on it being used for eugenics, and is a slippery slope argument. There is line initially seems very clear when comparing traits that humans would regard as non-diseased, such as height, versus something like Huntington's disease but it gets blurrier when you consider the societal benefits of certain characteristics. There is a definite benefit to some of these characteristics because they tend to increase one's status in society and can influence their success in life.
ReplyDeleteThis argument gets very complex because one could argue that the natural birth lottery that humans tend to accept is not the fairest to people and influences their success in life and ultimately contributes to discrimination in humans. The question becomes would letting genomic modifications occur cause a society that is more discriminatory then the one that currently exists. In the distance future this would not be a problem, at least theoretically, if we were able to give out altruistic traits such as empathy and love that would prevent this, but it could lead to second class citizens in today's society. The problem is that we would really not know if discrimination would increase or the negative effects of designer babies unless people did start to select against non-disabling traits.
I think it is ultimately up to those arguing against the implantation of genetic information to prove that genetic discrimination would occur and a slippery slope type argument is not convincing enough to me for that.
Although this “prevention” strategy could very possibly have successful health outcomes, it raises many ethical issues. Modern technology would allow the process of replacing defective DNA with healthy DNA to likely be successful. The goal of this scientific process would be to provide the healthy mitochondrial DNA necessary to prevent passing along an incurable disease or condition to one’s offspring. However, regardless of the possible health benefits, I do not believe that today’s society is ready for these kinds of advancements.
ReplyDeleteThe first issue that became evident to me upon reading the article is the fact that the process in question would ultimately involve the DNA from three different people contributing to the DNA of the offspring. Of course, this is far from the natural way reproduction happens. Naturally, DNA from the mother and the father would contribute to the offspring. Replacing the defective mitochondrial DNA from the mother would mean using mitochondrial DNA from another woman, a third party. Many people would see this as unethical and as going against nature or religion, and thus would denounce the DNA transfer process.
Furthermore, the scientific process behind this concept does not seem to be flawless yet. British scientists still do not have governmental approval to complete the process, and in the United States the process is far from approval with humans and has only been tested on monkeys. The possible consequences of a mistake here are immense. A mistake in the DNA of a child would be a mistake that would be passed down from then on in that family chain. The repercussions of even a small mistake could be huge.
While the scientists in the article want to use this procedure as a way to prevent diseases, it opens the door to far more than that. It would soon make it possible to choose certain genes for your offspring, such as those controlling appearance, intelligence, or athleticism. “Designing” your child seems highly unethical, yet it would almost undoubtedly be of interest to some people despite the major controversies it would cause.
In the end, preventing a disease or disorder is a highly respectable goal, and saving a human life is priceless. However, the possible repercussions of DNA transfer at this point seem to be too great. Ethics immediately come into question, and it opens the door for far more unethical practices to follow. Altering and experimenting with human DNA is a very delicate process, and is perhaps one we as society are not ready to tackle just yet.
I agree that religion and the laws of nature would disagree with this idea of a "third party" contributing to the offspring. Offspring are meant to be contributed by two people; who knows, maybe the third party contributing mitochondrial DNA might cause mutations down the road after the DNA is put in place. As for the "Designer" aspect, I personally never liked the idea of choosing features for a child, as if it were a doll or some sort of toy. Whatever the child's features are when they are born is what should be given to the child. Like you said Scott, it is a delicate process to tamper with human DNA; leaving the features up to chance is what makes humans human.
DeleteAfter listening to the NPR clip I was amazed that scientists have found a way to allow women who have a mitochondrial disease to have healthy babies, and allow their kids to also have healthy babies. There are about two ethical issues that I found with this type of prevention however and it was discussed in the NPR clip briefly. The first being that making changes to the human DNA can have a potential risk of the scientists making a mistake leading to new health problems which can then allow these health problems to be passed down to generations. The second ethical issue is the possibility of couples wanting to design their own babies. The first ethical issue is one that can lead to a serious health outcome and needs to be considered before allowing more women to undergo this type of procedure. It is great that they can have a way to allow a women with mitochondrial disease to have healthy babies however more testing and procedures need to be done to ensure that the scientists wont make a mistake and a child with a serious health outcome is born. The second ethical issue is one that has been discussed before and there needs to be a fine line for women needing the procedure and women wanting the procedure.
ReplyDeleteI think we can be ready to allow women to have healthy babies if they have a mitochondrial disease but I do not think we are ready to have genetically designed babies. I believe that laws need to be put in place if they want this procedure to happen worldwide. These laws need to state that women with serious mitochondrial diseases are only allowed to do this procedure. They also need to be warned about the health outcomes that could arise if the scientists make a mistake. I think that they need to do a lot more testing as well to allow women to feel more comfortable with the procedure. I do think we can be ready for such prevention if laws are put in place and more testing is done to ensure the safety of the procedure
This advance in technology is incredible and speaks volumes of the commitment of medical professionals to preventing horrible genetic conditions. However, I think changing mitochondrial DNA sounds like it’s too good to be true. At first glance, it looks like the perfect solution, but the arguments against it are valid and very concerning. I definitely do not think that the world is ready for something like this. This kind of technology is amazing, and can be used for good, but also could easily be manipulated for things like designer babies and consumer eugenics, as David King pointed out. Genetic technology can easily start as something lifesaving, and quickly become marketed to the general public and used for some of the things that King was mentioning. It would be great if there was a way to limit the way this technology could ever be used, but there’s no guarantee. As health care professionals, we should work on teaching about these options under the pretense that this technology is to save lives and limit diseases, and do our best to prevent any shift in public mindset to using it for consumer eugenics.
ReplyDeleteSuch a technology, if successful and accepted, will create a world of people without genetic disorders. Although this sounds like a great world, we need to think of the possible repercussions of such a utopia. There is no way of understanding what this will look like. What will this mean for the few people who are still born with genetic disorders? Will they be severely discriminated against? What else will change in society? Predicting what will happen in such a world is very difficult to do.
ReplyDeleteNo parent wishes for their child to have any type of disease or disorder, but investing in expensive reproductive technology seems silly and not cost-effective when there are millions of orphans in the world. If successful and accepted by society, this technology will reduce adoption rates. Being a parent is not about passing on genetic information; it is about raising a child. Similarly to IVF, unnatural reproductive technology is not necessary and is selfish in a world full of parentless children. The main ethical concern of this technology is that one would rather spend a large amount of resources, time, effort, and money instead of providing a home and love for a suffering child without parents. Such a technology implies that one can only love a child who has his or her genes. Do you not love your spouse or best friend? This is a horrible idea for a society to hold.
That being said, this technology isn’t a concern for creating designer babies. Like the Chief Medical Officer's said, replacing mitochondrial DNA is similar to "changing the battery of a car." It does not affect the traits of the baby. Ethically, it is comparable to IVF. As long as strict laws preventing this from going further to creating designer babies are put in place, the slippery slope argument is not valid.
One cannot ask if a society is ready for a technology. Society must accommodate to available technology, not the other way around. For those who absolutely insist on having their own children for whatever reason, this is a great prevention strategy. If the technology works as planned without complications, it will be a great way to prevent genetic disorders from being passed on and will possibly eliminate them in the future.
I do think that we are ready for this sort of genetic manipulation. There are a few reasons behind this. First, it’s a medical technique that will not only improve the quality of life for many people, but save the lives of countless children. There shouldn’t be any limitations on a doctor’s ability to save someone’s life. Second, if the parents are consenting, so don’t worry about the fact that there will be another set of genes in there, then I see no reason to limit it. This is entirely under the autonomy of the parents what to do with their children before they’re even born. Third, I believe that “designer babies” is a bit of a stretch for what will actually happen. David King must have watched Gattaca too many times as a kid and gotten the idea in his mind that the future is heading in that direction. We are still a long way off from unlocking the secrets to the genome; so picking out which ones will make your child more athletic, for example, and modifying them is a bit far fetched. And if they are truly worried about people genetically engineering their kids like that, then the government can simply make a law prohibiting that sort of tampering with DNA. Furthermore, I think if the world were heading in that sort of direction, we would already be seeing people trying to become “bionic” people, with prosthetic limbs so that they don’t tire as easily, are stronger, etc. But thankfully we don’t see anyone looking like Darth Vader walking around. The only argument that has some merit that I can see thus far, is that since it hasn’t been done before we don’t know all the potential risks and may not know the risks/side effects for decades to come. But as a lover of science and someone who believes in the technological progression of mankind, I have to say that progress is not made without taking some risks.
ReplyDeleteWhile the idea behind this new technology, replacing damaged mitochondrial DNA with DNA from a donor egg, seems to be in the right place, it is easy to see how this could be misconstrued. Part of what is so unnerving about this technique is that it deviates from society’s current ideals about what “preventive medicine” is. In most other cases(barring genetic and reproductive counseling) preventive care attempts to keep the individual from being affected by the condition. This takes it back a step further and creates the person in the frame of not having the disease to begin with.
ReplyDeleteThus, it raises ethical issues similar to those involving stem cell research and abortion. Ethically, there is a slippery slope argument that this technology could lead to “designer babies”. The possibility of designer babies brings about difficult questions relating to equality, justice and health disparities.
As medical professionals, I believe that laws could be put in place to allow only alterations to mitochondrial dna involving life-threatening conditions. I believe that this technology is fragile and inaccessible enough that I cannot see it being a threat to the common public as it would only appeal to those in extreme situations with a family history of deaths related to damaged mitochondrial DNA. Currently, it appears that the issues of feasibility and cost pose more of an issue than the ethics of what’s actually possible. Because of this, I do think the general public is ready as this technology is relevant to such a small population to being with.
Important steps, such as strict regulations and more extensive research need to be done before this type of technology can actually be put in place though. The long-term consequences and side effects of this procedure are still unknown, and there has not been any published success with this technique so far, and so I think that by the time this is actually ready, laws and ethical principles will have caught up as well.
I think that this is a great step towards eliminating preventable problems that can occur in humans, and I think the public is ready for it as long as there are enough regulations set to prevent abuse of this research, the procedure, and the power that comes along with it. There must be a large amount of research and successful trials done before it can be implemented in humans since changes to the DNA would be passed down and would therefore be affecting not only the baby itself, but future generations. Strict regulation would also prevent abuse of this power, such as creating designer babies. While it seems like the stuff of science fiction now, it could be a possibility in the future, especially if consumers are willing to pay large sums of money for it. Furthermore, there regulations need to be set on how the healthy DNA and affected eggs are acquired, protection for those involved in regards to insurance plans and job security, and also how or whom this is being tested on.
ReplyDeleteI think in order to prepare the public for this it is important for those in the healthcare field to provide as much information as possible in layman's terms to help people understand what is going on. Informing the public is a big way to reduce the amount of fear or skepticism created by such a procedure.
I think that this is a very interesting and seemingly plausible way to eliminate horrible genetic diseases that don't have cures. The baby has healthy DNA from its mother and father, and healthy mitochondrial DNA from a donor. However, as mentioned in the article, it seems like ultimately consequences of this would be unknown until the baby is born and growing, which could lead to significant problems. I also feel that strict regulation would have to be taken to avoid usage for non-major diseases-- But then again, people have varying opinions on what is a "major disease." Some people might opt for this procedure for a non-life threatening, but seriously disfiguring, disease- And is that a choice they have a right to make? And if not- does anybody? Although benefits could emerge from this procedure, its hard to tell whether more harm than good can come from it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOriginally, I thought this sort of “prevention” of using mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) implantation to correct the DNA of another couples’ embryo was a groundbreaking solution for mitochondrial diseases. It would help families with a predisposed lineage to certain fatal diseases and relieve the stress and anxiety that comes with knowing your baby is most likely fated to die. This could even potentially be the permanent solution to preventing mtDNA diseases, a possible cure perhaps, or at the least leeway in the development of other preventions, treatments, or research. It’s clear that the technology is sound and positive genetic effects are established. Both Dr. Irving and Dr. Turnbull, respectively, explained the intricate process of “micro surgery” with mtDNA and the replacement of DNA would only involve a number out of 37 genes, which most would consider a miniscule, trivial change in terms of tens of thousands of genes a baby will have. However, I don’t believe the negative consequences of this implantation method have been completely addressed and without such research, this will only further increase the skepticism and opposition of the public.
ReplyDeleteThe researchers emphasized the different possible positive outcomes of mtDNA implantation, but they only skimmed the adverse effects. The “green light controversy” is the main issue at hand, as many people in society have are against using this mtDNA implantation on an embryo and then transferring it into the womb of woman attempting to have a healthy baby. The combination of three people’s gene is very strange and untraditional to what society believes is a “correct baby,” where most view reproduction and life as a coupling of only two people and their genetics. Irving described this process as “precious,” that the person performing this procedure should be steady and careful like with any other surgery. There’s always the possibility of mistakes. A mistake in the embryo’s genes could possibly bring upon genetic defects, fatal outcomes, or other negative consequences instead of the predicted outcome of a healthy baby. Research needs to be done to have a plan in case such mistakes happen as this would definitely stir up the public’s emotions. Overall, I believe that this technology has a promising future but for right now, with the number of genetic problems that have not been surmounted and the strict traditional perspectives of the public that will be difficult to turn, I don’t think society is ready for this implementation.
I believe that this groundbreaking research is a great way to tackle diseases that previously had no cure. There are so many tragic diseases that could be cured by this new research. These diseases are so tragic for families that have children that are affected, and if there is a viable solution to fix these disorders then it should be considered. I understand why people are concerned with the ethical implications, with the creation of a super baby and this research spiraling out of control. I feel like these concerns are unfounded, because all of the regulations that are in place for scientific research would not really allow that to occur. With people so concerned with the possibilities of this research, the regulations that are already in place will most likely be revamped and updated to reflect this growing concern and continued research. If there are regulations in place, then continuing down this line of research can save so many children, and so many families from the heartbreak of living through these diseases. If there is a way to save these children then researchers should do all they can to find a cure. If families are not confortable with a third person’s DNA in their child then they can opt out of the treatment, and families that feel confortable with it then they can do the procedure. Either way, they is a cure available for these children that had no real chance of long term survival.
ReplyDelete"Designer babies" has been a futuristic buzz word for some time. With this new research, it's taking a firm step into our reality and raises some pressing ethical questions. My main concern with this type of procedure is that it could very easily be a slippery slope and lead to misuse of the technology. If this procedure becomes widespread, I think it's important for health systems to create strict regulations about when parents can and cannot utilize the procedure. While this may seem restrictive, nothing good will come of parents being able to genetically enhance their children for no valid health reason. Adding to the complexity of this issue is that the parents who can elect to do the procedure will more than likely be of a higher income bracket. This will create more disparities in health and perhaps other realms as well.
ReplyDeleteThis unprecedented technique of replacing defective mitochondrial DNA with healthy DNA may, for some people, cause fear and anxiety at the prospects that this breakthrough might lead to a future in eugenics. If this DNA transfer is approved by the British government, there is a real possibility that it could lead to manipulation of genes to create a superior baby. However, although the possibility is real, I can’t say that it’s also likely. As the England’s chief medical officer said, this procedure is much like changing the battery in a car. The technique replaces mitochondrial DNA, as opposed to nuclear DNA. It doesn't change the characteristics or traits of the baby. The biggest concerns, I think, with this procedure are the unknown risks and complications that could arise from this procedure that we do not yet know about. However, for people like Victoria Collins who have a genetic disease, this procedure might be her best bet at having healthy children. I think we as a society are ready for this new prevention strategy, but like anything else, I think we need to educate the general public and make it clear what it is that we know and, more importantly, what it is that we don’t know.
ReplyDeleteInitially after listening to this NPR clip, I thought it was really interesting that scientists have developed a mechanism to manipulate DNA as a measure of prevention. Scientifically, this is an incredible advancement, but even scientists have some reserves about using this prevention strategy. There are several ethical implications which causes me to question whether our society is ready for such a medical advancement. The most important one to address is the potential outcomes that this type of manipulation will have one our society. It may be difficult for society to consider the possibly of creating a baby from 3 different people, which effectively could change, and cause complications with, the traditional American family. Opening the door to medical DNA manipulation, society may start to even view this as not only a medical intervention, but also as a means of creating "designer babies", which of course is illegal. The general public may not have the scientific knowledge to distinguish between mitochondrial DNA and nuclear DNA, which is why they may continue to view the manipulation of mtDNA as a means of designing a baby. Based on these implications, I do not think that that as a society, we are currently ready for this kind of development. As public health professionals, I think that we need to educate the public on the science behind these options, as well as the risks and benefits. It's important to acknowledge that even scientists make mistakes, and that as a result new adverse health outcomes could result and subsequently be passed on from generation to generation. In light of these implications and subsequent social outcomes, I think that the ethical implications that surround this kind of prevention method are so severe that extreme caution and guidelines need to be developed before our society can even consider implementing it as a standard of prevention.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that there are some ethical issues surrounding this procedure, however I also think that this is a reasonable outlet for people to use if they want to have a child. As that one doctor explains this could open the door for other genetic manipulations when it comes to having kids. I think that science is far away from any gains like that, however it does open the door for such options. I think it's fair that a couple where one or both of them are a carrier with a genetic disease would want to find a way to have kids this way. But my only argument would be that they could adopt a child. Granted they won't know the genetic make up of that child but then again if the main focus is genes then that kind of defeats the purpose of having a kid. Also there would be no more uncertainty that having a kids this way would be sick than one of their own. I think that the general public could be open to this method of having kids but there is going to be a big backlash. Not so much because of how "reproduction" should work but because if you're putting the emphasis on genes it might seem like you don't actually care about the kid.
ReplyDeleteI also think it's important to note that point made about if the scientists make a mistake it could cause other genetic problems and disease that weren't before seen. If a child is born where they develop a disease never before seen we could possibly be taking steps backwards. We don't know if this would put other people in risk of the disease or if this person is a carrier they could pass it on.
Ways where we could help the general public prepare is by explaining to them that this is a safe way for people who can't have healthy kids to have kids. I think we are far along enough that people can understand that having kids that aren't fully genetically yours is acceptable but it would need to be explained that this isn't going to turn into people manipulating genetics in all kids. Having a super baby or something like that. This is purely just for people who can't have children to have kids. Need to explain that all the intentions with this science is in good nature.
While I do believe that this type of Mitochondrial DNA treatment will have many positive health benefits, I do not think that our society is ready for it. There are still a number of problems that need to be addressed. I agree with the Chief Medical Officer in that switching the mitochondrial DNA is like changing the battery of a car, the child will still have the DNA of the mother and father, and all of the traits that will make it their baby, but it will have different DNA responsible for energy production and consumption.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, there are a number of problems that remain. First, there is the chance of making a mistake. A mistake in this type of procedure could prove disastrous. As they stated in the segment, a mistake could cause some type of new health problem that could be passed down for generations. Furthermore, there is the problem with the future implications of this type of treatment. Although this is a mitochondrial DNA transfer, there is a possibility that in the future this type of treatment could be implemented for non-therapeutic purposes. People and researchers could go as far as designer babies, which is something the world isn't ready for and should never be ready for because it goes against so many ethical laws.
I think, that as health care professionals it is difficult to distinguish between doing good, and crossing a line. I am not sure how to make the public ready for this type of treatment; there will probably be a lot of anxiety about the possible outcomes. After successful trials, the research can speak for itself. Over time everything changes, and maybe that is how we as health professionals can make the public see the possible benefits. Take the time to publish research and show how this type of treatment will benefit society.
I think that recombination of mitochondrial DNA is a very interesting idea and something that should be considered for use. At first I was skeptical of the technology when I heard about it. However, after the distinction was made that it would only be done with mitochondrial DNA I changed my mind. These is a great difference between altering characteristics within your nuclear DNA and ensuring that certain defects within your mitochondrial DNA doesn't kill you before you have the opportunity to live a fruitful and happy life.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I think that this technology needs to be practiced and tested many times before it is applied across a larger population. This is where ethical concerns come in. How do you ensure the safety of a biological procedure that involves creating life? You should have to fertilize an egg with the DNA already recombined in it in order to see what types of defects might arise after conception. You could only possibly do this with a human subject and in that case you would be creating life for a scientific purpose--not to create a new life. This raises concerns across many different interest groups and I predict that not many people would be happy. In all, the best way to prepare the public for this type of advancement would be through more research. That exact research would cause ethical issues to arise.
Furthermore, I believe that a bit of a slippery slope does exist. Creating recombination DNA of this sort may lead to other groups of people wanting to combine DNA to create children. One cohort of individuals that comes to mind is the LGBTQ population that cannot have biological children with a same sex partner. This technology would allow two men or two women to combine their DNA in a way that would mimic a heterosexual couple. Once again, a myriad of ethical issues comes along with undertaking research that might make this possible.
After listening to the NPR clip, there are a few ethical issues that this type of “prevention” strategy can have in our society. One would be the idea of “designer babies” – it would be unjust for parents to decide that their baby should have certain traits that could be more favorable or advantageous in society. Having a child is supposed to be a natural and beautiful experience, and playing with fate kind of ruins that essence. Another issue would be that babies that are produced from this DNA transplant process would have a combination of DNA from three people. What if errors occur? What if harmful characteristics are passed on, therefore continuing this negative effect for future generations?
ReplyDeleteI do not think that we as the general public are ready for this type of technology. However, I think that with any new innovation, understanding and accepting it simply takes time. What makes this invention any different from organ transplants? We as health science professionals can prepare society about these options for “prevention” by continuing to conduct more research and confirm evidence and statistics that are successful. Once this is done, communication is key – explaining the process in simple layman’s terms through brochures, pamphlets, and discussions with physicians must happen to ensure that people comprehend the risks and benefits.
Something to take into account is that mothers who are at risk of having unhealthy babies deserve a chance. I agree with Ramsey, who commented, “After successful trials, the research can speak for itself. Over time everything changes, and maybe that is how we as health professionals can make the public see the possible benefits. Take the time to publish research and show how this type of treatment will benefit society.” The uncertainty surrounding this topic requires time and patience in order to provide clarity and confirmation. I was thinking that perhaps animal testing could be conducted, which is something the NPR article mentioned, as U.S. scientists have used a similar DNA technique in monkeys.
There are many ethical issues that this can have for society. As the report discussed, the idea of having a baby with three different genes. One of the interviewees was saying this goes against normal ideas of reproduction in society. Also this could possibly strain parent-child relations down the road. Another ethical issue is that this could lead to gene altering that it is notnecesary in the future. The interviewee remarked that parents may want to alter children’s genes such as athletic traits, and others and could lead to designer babies. Finally, for this families that are prone to genetic disorders such as Collins, to use this technology for their advantage or not use it even thought it could help them.
ReplyDeleteI think the public is ready to be helped if they have genetic disorders. However, I do think it may lead to designer babies and even a bad business with multiple companies emerging. I think that would happen very soon after it is first introduced, within 10 years. The public can try to inform those families with genetic disorders about the idea, and discuss the pros and cons such as the risk that it could even worsen genetic disorders. Also, public health professionals can have a say in determining if this technology should be available for business purposes that could lead to designer babies.
I support the use of this genetic modification for helping parents have healthy babies. This research is amazing, and as long as it is correctly monitored, and not used for the DNA in our nucleus, will be a wonderful innovation.
ReplyDeleteThis research will let couples become parents, something most people consider a right. Not having this inherent ability must be painful for these couples. They could have a child, but knowing there is a high chance that their baby would live a short, painful life, is hard to grapple with. It may even be less ethical to force these children to live these short and painful deaths, when there is a potential solution being invented in labs.
As mentioned in the clip, Mitochondrial DNA and the DNA most people think of, are not the same thing. Mitochondrial DNA lets our cells create and use energy. It doesn't decide anything about our personalities, looks, or character. However, there may be an ethical issue if this difference is not as black and white as we think. What if Mitochondrial DNA does play a role in the key features that make us who we are? The first time a baby is born from this procedure, it will be very important to see the affects from the third parties DNA on the child.
I do not consider the fear of designer babies something that need to be worried about, as long as the use of this technique is strictly monitored. As long as we do not let it be tested in this way, then babies who are genetically engineered to look or act a certain way will not exist. Being able to use this to cure diseases that are caused by other genetic defects, may be something that could be looked into in the future. Overall, as long as we keep this well monitored, and do not let frivolous experiments be done, there should be no ethical issues of having designer babies.
With all of this said, I do not think the world is ready for such technology yet. The point brought up about babies being created from two people, and only two people, is valid. Some parts of the USA and the world have not accepted Gay rights, or single parenthood. These areas would react very strongly against a child technically having three parents. I am not sure that our world is open and educated enough to understand the use of this research. I am not sure what Public Health Professionals could really do to alleviate this. I think these trends are something that will diminish thorough the generations, the same way racism is (hopefully) doing right now. We can explain the procedure in simple terms, and that this DNA does not effect character, but I do not think all people will really understand and accept it. This is something that only time, and larger movements of accepting people unlike ourselves, will have to do.
At first, I condemned this type of research. DNA, mitochondrial or nucleus in nature, serves as blueprints for our creation. It defines each of us and is unique to our character. There is a blurred line between what biologically separates humans from one another. However, DNA serves as the most important biological marker in deciphering individuals. If we begin to take this molecule from here and there and combine it to form another set of instructions, then we have made a leap in ethical debate on what we are inherently entitled too. Our body is our sole property and the set of instructions; DNA that gave rise to our uniqueness is also ours. Thus, if this research was to further develop and prove successful, then everyone has the right to our DNA.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this was merely my first consideration. As I thought more on the topic, I realized the world is increasingly becoming more alike. In the melting pot that we now inhabit, our DNA has never been more similar. Around 99.9% of our DNA is identical; the other 0.1% is unique to us. However, this research aims to transfer nucleus DNA to an egg, while maintain the solidarity of the mitochondrial DNA. Thus, it seeks to eliminate genetic disorders that stem from the circular DNA inhabited within the mitochondria.
From an ethical standpoint, we are transferring the DNA of one human and facilitating with the DNA from another. Though most would find this unethical, stating that the DNA is inherently the property of another human. Thus, by combining them, we cross the line between utilizing two unique sequences of genomic sequence, each with their own sole proprietor. However, it is important to note the function of both these unique DNA molecules. The nucleus DNA is responsible for our biological function, while the mitochondrial DNA serves to facilitate functionality within mitochondria. Since both strands play very different roles in biological function, there is no actual harm being done. The benefits outweigh the risks associated with the research. Thus, I believe the research is very promising and should be pursued.
The type of prevention this research offers us will allow for a reduction in genetic disorders. It will also help women that are experiencing trouble in producing a health child, the ability to do so. However, there maybe some controversy primarily in the issues assessed above. We can prepare the general public by leading media campaigns and information sessions that will highlight the benefits of this research. Also using real life success stories, we can further enhance the support needed to push for more funding. When an area of research begins to be stigmatized, there is only one solution: to re-portray the image of the study in a healthy beneficial manner. Thus, good propaganda and sufficient support will facilitate the approval of this research.
This new technology offers an interesting new change. However, there are numerous ethical issues with this that raise red flags for me. First of all, how can we let the mother choose to change the babies DNA? What is the baby does not want its DNA changed? Also, how does a pregnant woman get this "healthy" DNA? Would they have access like a women has access to a sperm bank? If pregnant mother's could pick parts of their child
ReplyDeletes DNA how do we know that they won't pick certain changes that they want in their child, rather than only for health reasons?
Although I believe that this technology has the potential to cure chronic disease which is an incredible accomplishment, there are significant restrictions that would have to be put in place to make this ethical, safe, and plausible. I do not believe the public or us as a generation is ready for this because of the potential for designer babies. There would be pregnant women that would use this for healthy babies, however, I believe that the majority of people would try to use this for designer babies. Even if that is illegal, some doctor will find a way to provide that service. If it is simply equivalent to "changing a battery" like the last woman in the clip suggests then it would be a medical breakthrough for the better.
After listening to this clip, I have to say that I think that we are ready for this sort of genetic manipulation. Although there are ethical concerns, I have a few reasons for thinking this technology is ready to be introduced. To start, it’s a medical technique save the lives of so many children, and also improve the quality of life for many people. In an age with so many life-saving technologies, we should not be limiting a doctor’s ability to save someone’s life by withholding this technology.
ReplyDeleteSecond, as long as there is an extensive informed consent process that parents undergo, they will understand what they are signing up for. Therefore, I see no reason to limit this technology. It is up to the parents to make decisions about their unborn child's health. As long as the doctor explains all the options and different risks and benefits, they should have this option to make.
Finally, I think it is a bit of a stretch to compare this technology to creating “designer babies”. While there is a legitimate concern to the ramifications of designer babies, this technology is not intended to be used this way. Furthermore, we still do not understand everything in the human genome, so one cannot assert that people will be able to select different qualities for their children based off of gene selection. Additionally, if we were to advance to this point of genome understanding, I believe we would see more regulations placed on the type of genetic manipulation allowed as well as the process for it. As a future health professional, I think this technology can only advance and help to better human life and the healthcare field.
I am a full supporter of DNA research, and think that with the proper approach and regulation, it should be used in any method possible to help
ReplyDeletereduce the risk of genetic disorders.
This discovery is groundbreaking and important, and should be given proper consideration. As outlined by this article, mitochondrial DNA is different from what people typically think of when considering DNA. It does not play a huge role in 'deciding' the type of person we are, but rather facilitates the proper functioning of cells. Once this is fully understood by the general public, I think it may change the perspective that many may have on this research.
While there is always a large margin for questionable practice and development of research such as this, I think with tight restrictions and proper regulation, any questionable or unethical practices could be avoided. Instead of creating 'designer babies', as this has the potential to lead to, we are instead altering the course of development simply to avoid disorders. If this is strictly enforced and followed as the sole purpose of research, I do not think ethics would be in question. What would be unethical however, would be to restrict this sort of research if it could eventually lead to the elimination of genetic disorders that so many people are forced to live with.
ReplyDeleteGenetic engineering and gene therapy is a hotly debated topic in medicine today. Though these techniques can have very positive effects on the patients who need them, there is a lot of push back from society about the negative effects and dangerous precedent this could set. Many people believe that if we have the ability to replace faulty genes, as in the case of mitochondrial disorders or other chronic illness then the next step would be to create “designer babies,” handpicking eye color, hair color, athleticism, and intelligence. This claim is not even close to possible in the near future, and also extremely unethical. What is more unethical, however, is preventing the treatment of patients whose lives could be saved by this sort of treatment because of fears of a future that will most likely not even happen.
I think that if our society realizes that promoting health by screening and treating these conditions even before birth is more important than ludicrous fears, then we are ready for these life saving techniques. As health science professionals, it is our obligation to educate the public about the benefits of these treatments and how they grossly outweigh the risks.
Initially, my response to this NPR clip was amazement. It is truly incredible how advanced our society has become and this technology will surely change the face of medicine. Like most of my classmates, I believe that this technology is surely ethical because it is only altering the mitochondrial DNA which does not affect our personal characteristics. If this is made explicitly clear to the ethics committee, I believe that it should be deemed ethical. This technology will easily be strictly regulated; it’s not like people can exactly do this in their backyard. Refusing to let this amazing technology develop is truly a disservice to all those suffering from a genetic disease. This technology has the power to possibly eliminate some genetic mutations that have cause families a great deal of suffering. It will allow those who are carriers to become parents free of worry that they will be passing down a gene that could kill their child. Because of this I thought of course society is ready. However, after reading Alanna’s comment I would have to agree that some areas of our country and other countries would have major issues with this technology especially if it was not fully understood. In fact, I believe that the idea of combining three people’s DNA may be as controversial as abortions and LGBT rights. The same people who have strongly protested these two topics would absolutely have large issues with the new technology, which could lead to discrimination and violence towards people who are recipients of this gene replacement.
ReplyDeleteI am in support of genetic engineering and DNA research. This NPR clip speaks about transferring one woman's healthy DNA to a woman's egg with defected mitochondrial DNA. Many of these disease cause devastated defects. The mitochondrial is very specific and carry 37 genes. These diseases are when the cells run out of energy. Since passing down mitochondrial DNA is only passed down by the mother a DNA transplant would completely fix this issue. However, the DNA will be passed down for generations, meaning the initial offspring will have the DNA of 3 people. The plus of this is that the child will not have hereditary devastating mitochondrial disorders.
ReplyDeleteI think the reason why this is so controversial because scientists are actually changing human DNA and can lead to a future of designing babies with genetic enhancement. Another fear would be that the child would have 3 peoples DNA. However, it is not like the children will have hair, color, eye color etc from another person. It is only mitochondrial DNA, which causes cell energy. Also when discussing this fear I think it is also important to mention that when people have difficulty having children, they don't care where they get a baby from as long as it is healthy. This could mean adoption, using a surrogate, or egg/ sperm donor. These options are not very different from changing the mitochondrial DNA, in fact in some cases these children would be more like their parents than in some of the options listed above.
I believe that this technology should be passed by parliament and deemed ethical because it could help many people. However, before it is passed I believe there should be very strict regulations in place to ensure that this technology will not be overused or used for the wrong purposes.
The NPR clip discusses the new idea of combing DNA of three people in order to produce a healthy embryo. There are many ethical issues that this type of ‘prevention’ strategy can have in our society beginning with the moral question of whether or not it is okay to manipulate DNA of cells that do not have a choice. However, I believe we are ready for this type of scientific work as long as it is regulated and done for the right reasons. By manipulating and combining DNA you can control the genetic make up of your child. Therefore, ethical issues arise of whether or not it is morally right to do this as it is so controlling. The family the NPR interviewer visits is in the North of England. Victoria Collins is a perfect candidate for the new work in combing DNA of three people. Her family has had lots of trouble having healthy babies as she carries genetic mutations that can cause mitochondrial diseases. She hopes that she will be able to have her defective DNA in her eggs with healthy DNA from another woman’s eggs. This would mean combing the DNA of two women and one man to further complete creating an embryo or fetus that will form into a healthy child. Making these changes in human DNA would eventually be passed down from generation to generation with genes that come from three different people, which is why some people are against doing this combination. This act of manipulating DNA triggers a big debate that by doing this it could be socially disastrous as the child would have DNA from three different people without it having a choice. I believe we, as health science professionals, could prepare the general public about these option for ‘prevention’ by regulating this type of work and combination and making it only available for those carrying defective DNA. Unless this work is regulated it would not work.
ReplyDeleteI can definitely understand how this type of procedure is very valuable for those who want to reduce the risk of transferring genetically defective mitochondrial DNA to their child. This is currently, one of the few options for these mothers to have biological children. Regardless of the possible health benefits, I do not believe that today’s society is ready for these kinds of advancements. The potential ethical problems are significant.
ReplyDeleteThe article states that the child be the same as if were to be born without this procedure; the only difference is that the child will have mitochondrial DNA which consist of 37 genes. But those 37 genes are distinct in that they are the unique genetic connection between the offspring and the mother. It seems unnatural to break this genetic connection. How would this effect future generations? The child’s ability to track their family medical history?
The main ethical issue expressed in the article is the idea that these initially medical types of DNA interventions will be a slippery slope to “consumer eugenics” and the creation of “designer babies.” For mothers who cannot have children, however, it is simply a way to have children and ensure their health.
How much does a baby’s gene have to match his or her mother’s to be considered a natural offspring? There is a possibility that if this procedure were to have a very high success rate and gains in popularity, the next step may be to improve other defects and eventually move away from preventing diseases, but to creating physiological advantages.
I think we could potentially be ready to allow women to have healthy babies if they have a mitochondrial disease but I do not think we are ready to have genetically designed babies. I believe that laws need to be put in place if they want this procedure to happen worldwide. These laws need to state explicitly that women with serious mitochondrial diseases are only allowed to do this procedure.
Besides ethical concerns the medical risk is currently huge. British scientists still do not have governmental approval to complete the process, and in the United States the process is far from approval with humans and has only been tested on monkeys. The possible consequences of a mistake here are immense. A mistake in the DNA of a child would be a mistake that would be passed down from then on in that family chain. The repercussions of even a small mistake could be huge.
I think that this risk itself makes the procedure unethical. The purpose of this technology is to prevent disease, but it may in fact have the opposite effect before perfected. Because of this problem, I think that the general public is not ready for this procedure. Even if, ethically, people approved of this type of procedure, the actual “microsurgery” has to have a high success rate. More research would have to be implemented and there would have to be another way to judge success other than seeing if the baby is born disease-free. The problem, however, lies in the fact that this could create a potential slippery slope. Who says this starting point wouldn’t lead to other changes in fetus DNA and potential designer babies?
ReplyDeleteThe procedure Irving is currently working on acts to replace abnormal DNA with healthy DNA in the mitochondria. The transplant procedure hopes to one day cure unborn babies of genetic disorders.
It is important to remember that science aims to improve and extend lives. These scientist's goals are to improve the lives and health of these unborn babies. Nevertheless, it is still chilling to me that DNA transplants are being preformed on early embryos and that a donor's genetic information is being introduced.
I wonder if this procedure will present legal issues, like is the donor considered a parent? What if they decide they want a say or a part in the life of a baby carrying around their genetic information.
Furthermore, what are the ramifications of having genes from three different people generations from now? The scientists are only human, what if they make a mistake, or the procedure is unsuccessful. Suppose they perform the surgery unnecessarily, because the unborn child would never have been sick. Lastly, when old enough to understand the procedure, the child may be frustrated or confused, causing emotional trauma from the controversial transplant.
One reoccurring ethical issue in genetic advancements like this is the issue of "playing God". Is it morally okay for scientists to have this power over the future lives of unborn babies? I think the general public is not ready for this progressive type of procedure. However, as health science professionals one way to prepare the public for these types of prevention strategies is to be completely transparent. We should be publishing accessible articles on this type of research. By normalizing the idea of advancing science and curing genetic diseases, the public will be more open to these types of procedures in the future.