The UK is considering legalizing "three parent" IVF treatment to minimize the likelihood of children being born with mitochondrial disorders. (Please see link/explanation in comments.) Should it be legalized?
If you have ever known a child with mitochondrial disease (there are many, I am referring to 'mito'), you know how devastating the disease is. It robs them of every function. My friend's little boy just died of mito. He was 3. This news is amazing.
I'm kind of a science nerd so I think this is really cool.
The way it's being reported in the media is a bit misleading. The "third parent" only . . .
. . . actually just check out susanr's comments below that I just spotted, she explains it better anyway.
I think Susan posted this the other day. I would have to know a lot more about it I think healthier children are good but I'm just a little on the, I don't know, side yet but leaning towards yes.
Yes, I reposted it for user Tyrianpike.
Is it just me or did tony or someone else do a poll like this?
Yes but I cannot remember who.
Really? I don't think I saw that poll...
I know for a fact someone did, but im not sure who. It might have been someone who I follow that you don't. Maybe. Or you just forgot. No worries rlands.
Susan reposted a user's poll.
Really, damn how did you know.
There's so much poll overlap its not even funny. Well, maybe it is. Hehehe.
Whoa I don't even follow Susan. But I will be following her in like 20 seconds...
I know because I follow Susanr and saw her post the question.
I can't believe you remembered. And rlands, why weren't you following her?! She's awesome!
I don't know! I figured she was one of those users that don't post polls, just comment. But now I am
She does post questions, but not often.
Uhhhhhh*sigh. Rlands, she has over 600 followers she's one of "those people", so no of course she doesn't write polls. Hundreds of people just follow for funzzys.
Make that over 700. She even follows you!! How rude!! ;)
What do you mean, I'm one of "those people"? Lots of people with a lot of followers post a decent number of polls, if not a lot. I happened to gain a large number of followers because I was a beta tester & had my name offered when 2.0 was released...
Well sorry pipes
And sorry Susan, didn't know I was repeating one of your polls...
I want to know too. I think I post even less. What's wrong with that?
I post very few polls, not because I'm one of "those people" (whatever the hell that means), but because I seldom think of an interesting question. Believe me, I would post far more if I could.
And yes, I re-posted this recently for another user.
Ha ha. Susan is "one of those." :-)
Huh? I don't see how beta testing gave you any. And what do you mean by having your name offered? I was trying to say you were one of those mega users with like over 500 followers. Like Wolfe, zod.
Not a problem at all, rlands. Besides, I think it's an interesting topic. I'm going to be mostly offline for a few hours so I won't be able to contribute to it much (maybe that's a good thing), but I'm sure I'll be able to peek in occasionally.
pipes - the beta testers at the time 2.0 was released were the first group of people in the featured ("popular," which I think is a misnomer) user list. Since we were the only ones at the start, many people followed us, just because we were there.
Oooooooooooooooo. That makes tons of sense now. You should go on SOH on air.
With me and rlands too.
Ya a biased view towards TERRORISTS!!!!! I'm kidding. Ive never gone there but they seem nice and interesting.
Absolutely. Arguments against shows a true lack of understanding of science.
This procedure is a little misleading. The egg donor process in the UK precludes the possibility of any mitochondrial disease being passed on to a child as is. This procedure allows the mother (non egg donor) to be genetically related to the child.
I wouldn't say the *procedure* is misleading - it's just a procedure.. Any claims that it's the only way a woman bearing a mutation for a mitochondrial disease can have a child would be misleading. Also, I think calling it a "3-parent child" is...
...misleadinog. It's 37 genes *from* another person. Thirty-seven genes involved in chemical energy production in cells do not constitute a "parent." In my opinion.
Based on their reasoning, yes.
No. I view it as a violation established by nature: 1 man, 1 woman.
"Violation of the order established by nature...."
Even if it means fewer children born with diseases, heart trouble, or other conditions?
Yes rlands. "Designer children" is a bad thing.
I'm with Okie
We had a similar poll the other day where I was trying to meek the argument too.
Susan knows a lot about this.
Okie/Melon, so what's your solution to the dilemma for parents who have this gene, but don't want to adopt?
I don't have one shazaam. Sorry.
I took several science classes in high school and it ended there. I'm definitely not qualified to come up with a solution to this. What I choose is merely my own opinion. This is not science fact. If it were, this question would not exist.
True Melon, but just because science "can" do something doesn't mean it should. On the question of whether it "should" be done, a person does not need any science training at all. Mere opinion is sufficient and equal to anybody else's.
Exactly my point too Okie. Same page I think.
How many genes have to be added before the addition is considered a "person."
If you insert one gene from a different person into a fertilized ovum, does that mean it has 3 parents? A gene is just a string of nucleotides. What if the inserted gene..
..from another person had exactly the same DNA sequence as one of the parents? Does THAT make it a 3rd parent? If you added two genes? Five?
Mitochondria have 37 genes. Chromosomes have ~20,000. You're swapping out 37 genes. Is that a person?
I agree, but with no other option, is it morally correct for one who doesn't have this gene to impose restrictions on one who does? Also, where is the line? Is invitro testing ok? If embryo is defective, is abortion then ok? See what I mean?
Susan, would this same view apply to all GMOs like rice, grain, Turkeys/chickens, etc?
shazzam - there ARE other options - egg donation (so one parent is a biological parent to the child), or adoption.
Sorry, but I gotta run - will be in & out a bit, but mostly gone for a few hours.
Susan, isn't this ultimately the same thing? How is fertilizing an egg from one woman, and implanting in another NOT three parents?
Because it's only 37 genes that are swapped out - those in the mitochondria, which are in the cytoplasm (outside the nucleus) of the ovum. The donor ovum's nucleus - with all its chromosomes - has been removed. So the embryos genes would be:
..one full set of chromosomes from the father, one full set of chromosomes from the mother, and one set of 37 genes in each of the mitochondria of the ovum from the donor. Each set of chromosomes has ~20,000 genes. I don't see 37 genes as a "person."
Susan just curious if you're pro-life or pro-choice? Not that it really matters, but it seems to have significant ties to this...
I agree it's not 3 parents, but I'd take it step further and say it wouldn't matter if it were.
Here's the link:
So basically, if the mother has a high risk of passing on a mitochondrial disorder, segments of the DNA she contributed would be substituted out for that of a third party. Critics liken this to genetic modification of children.
What? I love Al Jazeera!! It's my go-to.
TERRORIST!!!!!!! Someone call Obama for a drone strike!!!!! ;)
The reporters aren't terrorists! They're just trusted as a news source by a lot of different people from many different walks of life.
No, you are the terrorist for using a terrorist company.
Aljazeera is one of the best!
I like Al Jazeera too I don't go to every day but it is usually very informative of international stories.
Totally. Rlands the terrorist. You got that one right on the button.
And thanks z. I read it all the time! Nothing wrong with it
The American news networks are so biased that I doubt they could even report the news straight if they wanted to. I'm sure Al-Jazeera also have bias in some way but they present a valid viewpoint which we would otherwise never hear.
Like mabbou said: especially for international stories. I check the Al Jazeera app several times everyday.
You should check it out! Get their app for your iPad.
I think I will actually rlands. I used to watch them occasionally, they started a channel years ago in the UK and it was pretty interesting actually.