CMC's NEWS REVIEW (VIII), by Marina Dorca

CMC'S NEWS' REVIEW (VIII), by Marina Dorca

News' title: Britain Set to Approve Technique to Create Babies From 3 People.

Date of publication: 3^rd of February, 2015

Source of information: New York Times

 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/04/world/europe/britain-nears-approval-of-fertilization-technique-that-combines-dna-of-three-people.html?_r=0)

Scientific field: Genetics (biology)

Extract:

British lawmakers voted to allow in vitro creation of babies with the DNA of three people. They are still discussing whether it should be put in practice or not.

This technique could prevent genetic diseases in women with mithocondrial defects, such as muscular dystrophy, loss of vision or even premature death. By using in vitro creation, the embryo would have nucleous DNA from the child's parents but mithocondrial DNA from a donor.
Despite all this advantages, this situation has lit a fierce debate. There are people who are in favour of allowing it. For example, the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, highlights the benefits it would provide, though others are not so sure. The Human Genetic Alert, for example, has said that we are crossing an ethical threshold, and that this technique shouldn't be put in practice.

Critical appraisal: Where the limit is?

When science collides with such sensitive issues as the ones related to humans' lives, it's very difficult to determine which is the good thing to do. The ethical limits of science are pretty unclear, and the opinions related to this matter are varied. Should we leave poor babies in the hands of natural selection? Or should we interfere and try to prevent the possible diseases they carry with them?

On one hand, if we approved this technique, we could prevent most of the genetic diseases. Science has advanced enormously last decades, and it has developed pioneer

procedures which could help humans' lives to improve. This technique could be applied to women with defects in the mitochondria. By doing this, they could make sure that its son wouldn't suffer a genetic mitochondria disease, which would be great.

Despite this advantage, bioethics may not be in tune with this kind of techniques. It's true that it could prevent lots of pathologies but, on the other hand, babies would be genetically modified.

I think we shouldn't do anything against nature laws. Science is capable of doing incredible things, but I believe this advances shouldn't go in the opposite direction to what nature establishes. Furthermore, if we start giving support to this kind of pioneering techniques, we might be tempted to create DNA modified babies in the future, and that wouldn’t be ethical. We shouldn't «design» our babies under any circumstance. Does it really matter whether your son will have blue or brown eyes? We may stop caring about such things and embrace the gift of life as its given to us.

Glossary:

Threshold: the sill of a doorway.

In vitro: made to occur in a laboratory vessel or other controlled experimental environment rather than within a living organism or natural setting.

DNA: deoxyribonucleic acid: an extremely long macromolecule that is the main component of chromosomes and is the material that transfers genetic characteristics in all life forms.

Womb: the uterus of the human female and certain higher mammals.

Kidney: either of a pair of bean-shaped organs in the back part of the abdominal cavity that form and excrete urine, regulate fluid and electrolyte balance, and act as endocrine glands.