3 person embryos - genetic narcissism?

[Wellwell999]

Ok. So a provocative aibu. But interested in replies. I am fully supportive of advancements, stem cell research etc but am disquieted by this. I know fully how much these families want children. I get it. But why when people all over are accepting their fertility limitations and starting wonderful donor conceived, adopted , fostered , step child based families do we feel their needs to have 'genetic' offspring are so paramount and so pressing that they take precedence over long, considered, wide ranging debate which I dont believe has taken place.

I don't agree with it at all.

Yabvu, op. Its only being done in this country for the most compelling medical reasons.

I'm totally fine with embryo with genetic contributions from three people.

And I do think, having had a bio child myself, but coming from a family with a wide mix of bio and acquired relatives, that (in places where conception is a choice) you could call any any bio birth "genetic narcissism". This is just the same as any other bio birth, but with the resulting child not having a dreadful life-limiting condition. I'd call that a win.

Also, there are always arguments against IVF/preimplantation genetic diagnosis/ICSI/use of donor gametes etc - so many people think that couples/individuals "should just adopt".

Well, that is all very well, and yes there are large numbers of children who are heartbreakingly waiting to be placed with their future families. But the process is not that easy. Not everyone who wants to adopt is eligible to do so. And there are far, far more people undergoing treatment than there are children placed up for adoption.

Wow, OP. I suggest you educate yourself on the differences between chromosomal DNA and mitochondrial DNA.

I recommend starting here!

Oh, and just in case you hadn't realised YAB V U

All I know is - if I had a genetic disorder from which a mitochondrial donor would save the lives of my future offspring, I'd be all freakin for it.
It's often the case that people who hold such views as the OP are unaffected by genetic disorders & infertility, and do not consider adoption as their first choice to expand their family - mightily hypocritical.

When medical advances have gotten to a point where future lives can be saved through medical intervention I think we should be celebrating what this means for affected families, instead of sitting on our ridiculous moral pedestal.. A moral pedestal that may not have been possible if not for the medical interventions these people have received over the years since their birth.. Such as, interventions needed in their births, mass vaccinations, antibiotics for chest infections, emergency services input in a significant car crash.. The list could go on. We can do everything possible to save your life, but not the life of a future person? Very bizarre logic.

So I would suggest that those who hold any views similar to the OP fully immerse themselves in the lives of those who will be positively affected by mitochondrial donors, and create a more rounded, better informed opinion.

Much love to those on this thread who've been affected with genetic disorders

Mitochondria are basically bacteria that have had a had a symbiotic relationship with us since way before our ancestors were amoeba.

People share bacteria all the time - its just these are inside our cells.

YABVU and goady. Glad to see the Mumsnet massive are suitably educated on the scientific reality of this, rather than the Daily Mail Headline style approach

Yabu.
A less severe (but life affecting) genetic condition affects my family. If there was a way to cure that defect at the genetic level, I would be very supportive of it. Currently the option with many serious conditions is roll the dice and test using CVS or Amnio, and abort fairly late in pregnancy. The nhs is happy to offer that option but ivf with preimplantation screening (except for a tiny number of conditions), won't be funded. I declined the offer to screen/terminate, although I fully understand why others make that choice.

YABVVVU
Another referral to The Lily Foundation

Three parent families is such a terrible way to describe what is a hugely positive scientific advancement. I have friends who have watched their child die over a number of years. They have them gone on to have healthy children but this step forward would take the lottery out of that decision.

But why when people all over are accepting their fertility limitations and starting wonderful donor conceived, adopted , fostered , step child based families do we feel their needs to have 'genetic' offspring are so paramount and so pressing that they take precedence over long, considered, wide ranging debate which I dont believe has taken place.

Fostering and stepchildren are in no way substitutes. (Stepchildren? So people who can't conceive should swap their partner for one who already has?) Many people would say adoption isn't. Getting an egg donor isn't an available option for most infertile women, they would need to be to have fertility treatment abroad, in a country where paying donors isn't illegal. The law here makes donors unavailable to most, even if they can afford fertility treatment in the first place.

So for most people who know they have a problem, the only option is not to have children.

The reason the debate wasn't longer is because it was so obvious what the answer should be. If it isn't obvious to you, that's most likely because you haven't understood the issue.

'Three-parent embryo' is a very misleading description. For those struggling with the ethics of it, can I suggest an alternative viewpoint?

Let's say you have a serious medical problem, one that's going to kill you. You can be saved by someone donating an organ so tiny it lives inside cells (a mitochondrion). I assume there would be little resistance to this idea - it's organ donation.

It's quite difficult to get that mitochondrion inside your cells though. You've got bazillions of cells and they all need a donation. Much easier if it had been donated when you were only one cell, then all the cells that are made afterwards will contain this mitochondrion. I assume there would also be little resistance to this idea - it's early organ donation.

So how to get this mitochondrion into your single cell embryonic self? Well, we've got one cell with the tiny organ in it and one cell with the essence of you in it. The essence of you - the nuclear genome - is much bigger (miles and miles bigger) and, importantly, is a single entity. Because we should note that one tiny organ transplant isn't enough - you actually need many mitochondria transferred. So, it's far easier to move the essence of you into the cell containing the multiple mitochondria, than move multiple mitochondria across to the single cell embryonic self.

The cell isn't a mystical entity - it's a bundle of chemicals. And while essence of you will reside, for a short time, inside a cell made by someone else, very quickly you will take over and soon replace all those chemicals with your own (they're exactly the same chemicals but their production will be dictated by you). But those tiny mitochondria, they don't need you to keep them going, they won't be replaced by you. And that's good, because they are your tiny little donated organs keeping you alive.

If you take a chicken egg and a duck egg, remove the chicken yolk and put the duck yolk in its place, what animal will grow? It's not a half-chicken half-duck, it's not a chicken, it's a duck. The cellular environment supporting the yolk (nuclear genome - 'essence of duck') makes no difference to the growing embryo.

I'm not sure how anybody can watch the videos on the Lily foundation website and then use the word narcissism.

OP, I'm assuming that this was a genuine mistake on your part, to have not done your research before you posted something that must be so hurtful & insulting to any parents affected by this disease.

"Afraid for all of us"

FFS, what exactly do you think are the implications? Or do you get a vague sense of unease from a completely uninformed viewpoint on an issue of which you have zero comprehension?

Maid what a fabulous post - point perfectly made

Round of applause for Maid. Very nicely explained.

OP YABU (in case that's still not clear)

It's interesting to note that it is the ignorant who are afraid. And I don't mean that as an insult- I mean the ones who don't understand and are merely reacting to emotive headlines.

I have a couple of followup questions for those who are objecting here:

1. Mitochondria are simple structures and their DNA is short. Scientists have been floating the idea of synthetic mitochondria for a while. Would you feel more comfortable if the mitochondria used to replace the defective ones were made in a test tube?

1. Given that DNA is just a chemical and that it is possible to synthesise long stretches of it in a clever machine, do you feel differently about synthetic DNA than you do about DNA from a biological source? Just to remind you - Gene X purified/extracted from a human donor would be exactly the same both biologically and chemically as Gene X synthesised on one of these clever machines. Do you feel that there is an ethical difference?

1. How do you guys feel about gene replacement therapy? This might mean inserting a working copy of Gene X into a person that has a mutation in Gene X. The working version of Gene X might have been made synthetically, or it might have been lifted from a biological source. Do you feel that there is a difference? Would you consider someone who has undergone gene therapy to be a "hybrid" organism, to have multiple "parents" or have a mixed genome?

1. If it were possible to synthetically recreate a nuclear genome that was a perfect match for Female A (for the scientific among you, let's assume we can also recreate the specific epigenome of Female A), and insert this synthetic genome into an egg containing their mitochondria, implant this egg in Female A and have her give birth, would you consider her to be a true genetic parent?

I think a lot of the issues in this area are based on a rather romanticised and false view of DNA as some kind of magic ingredient. It's not. It's an alphabet. It doesn't matter where the letters come from, it only matters what they say.

Oh, and thanks for lovely comments.

I have a feeling that the people who are up in arms about this are having visions of mashing together the gametes of three people to create some sort of monster clone embryo All this "three person embryo" discourse in the media doesn't help.

Completely agree, seaoflove

OP YABVVU, and I hope it's through lack of understanding rather than a belief that this is somehow 'wrong'.

Maid's posts are fantastic - I hope anyone that doesn't understand why this is such a monumental and positive leap forwards reads them and learns something about the science behind it before making uneducated claims that it will be detrimental.