Not seeing much ethical issues

[catsittingstill]

There is an interesting article here.

The gist of it is that it appears to be possible in humans to produce an embryo from egg DNA, sperm DNA and an egg emptied of DNA that acts as a mitochondrial donor.  Mitochondria are little organs (organelles, actually) in the cell that "breathe" oxygen to produce energy for the cell.  If your mitochondria aren't working right you fall over and die for lack of energy.  (Sometimes the falling over and dying is prolonged long enough for people to actually figure out what is *wrong* but right now there isn't much that can be done.)

Mitochondria are not built by the cell, the way ribosomes and centrioles and stuff are--they act like little living creatures inside the cell, reproducing by fission (they split down the middle, like bacteria.  They're about the same size too.  This is not a coincidence).  They even have their own little circles of DNA (like bacteria), though a lot of their genes have gone to live on the cell's main chromosomes.  It is thought that mitochondria are the degraded leftovers of some free living bacterial cell that either invaded or was engulfed by another cell back when the first eukaryotes were starting up and instead of getting eaten by the engulfing cell, somehow switched tracks to live inside it for mutual benefit.  Normally mitochondria and maternal DNA come as a package deal, both in the egg.

Remember the multicellular life I was squeeing about last week that doesn't need oxygen?  That's because it's using something different for mitochondria (or arguably some very different mitochondria--I'm not sure anyone has investigated that closely enough to be sure).

Since some kids die young of diseases of the mitochondria, and this development, if it works out after much testing, might make it possible for would-be parents who were likely to have kids like this to recruit a donor to provide healthy mitochondria, it looks like a good, happy development to me.

But the article keeps saying there are ethical issues.  I'm sorry, I'm not seeing any ethical issues to speak of. 

Questions about who is a parent?  Don't we have those now?  Surely we have all kinds of people who walk the grey line between "genetically related *and* principal caregiver" and "not involved at all."  We have sperm donors, egg donors, surrogate mothers, step parents, adoptive parents, noncustodial parents, and parents who abandon, or regretfully give up, their children.  Now we'll have one more class: mitochondrial donors; why is this some sort of daunting problem?

One technique needs human eggs, which are uncomfortable and potentially risky to gather (I think because the long term effects of the fertility hormones on the egg donors are not well understood).  Well, okay, but we have procedures for making sure donors know what they are doing and consent without duress--why is this particular technique the one where those procedures don't work?

There might be risks not immediately evident--well, this is why we work such things out in laboratory animals before we use them in people.  And the first people will face risks that can't be fully known, which is the case with any medical advance, and we have procedures worked out for how we deal with that--why is this particular technique the one where those procedures don't work?

We're introducing a heritable genetic change?  I should hope to shout!  We're introducing a heritable genetic change that kids won't die young in exhausted misery; that's a good thing.

So, I guess, yes, I do see ethical issues; they're the same ones we've successfully dealt with in the past; we know how to do this, so why make a big deal out of it?

Comments

[keris]

I think that the difference is having inherited material from three parents. I have no problem with that, but I can see that some people might. In all of the other situations a child is genetically from only two parents, even if they are actually birthed by a different mother from the only supplying the genetic material.

This goes along with transgenetic organisms (combining genes from severa different sources) and seems to trigger automatic reactions in many people.

Compare this also to the people who can happily handle straight and gay people but freak out about bi ones, and the GLBs who can't cope with trans, and people all over the spectrum who blow up at poly. There's something about "more than two".

I don't understand it, but I've seen it too many times to dismiss it.

why make a big deal out of it?

[bigbumble.livejournal.com]

There are people who seem to need to stir up a fuss just to stir up a fuss. Most likely a preacher or someone else who wants publicity. With luck, this will slide beneath their radar.

Re: why make a big deal out of it?

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

:-) we'll see.

[howeird]

So, I guess, yes, I do see ethical issues; they're the same ones we've successfully dealt with in the past; we know how to do this, so why make a big deal out of it?
Yup, it's pretty much the same ethics as we have around organ donation. But there will always be some people who oppose all genetic engineering, no matter how much good it does or how proven it is.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I suppose so. It just makes me sad to see people trying to fan fears about it.

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

When a news story says "there are ethical issues" that is usually code for "the anti-science religious right finds this scary". It occurs to me that since these are mostly the same people who are always telling us that sex is evil, if they were rational, they'd actually want to encourage high-tech alternatives to traditional reproduction, because if it were fully developed they could ban sex entirely. But speculating on that set being rational is sort of like starting with 2+2=5 in your axioms and wondering what you could derive.

[benet.livejournal.com]

Well, really, if you put a contradiction in your axioms you can immediately derive anything (in classical logic, at any rate). No need to speculate.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Kip pointed out that some of this reaction might be people being afraid of new things just because they are new, and trying to protect everyone from something they see as dangerous without being able to articulate *why* it is dangerous.

That seems reasonable to me.

[daisy-knotwise.livejournal.com]

The "ethical issues" show up any time you are dealing with potential human life. You can't just dismiss them as the irrational rantings of ignorant fundies. What ever the outcome, they should be addressed.
And harvesting eggs is rather uncomfortable and expensive. (Been there, done that, twice)It isn't just going in, having a procedure, and going about your business. There are a couple of cycles of nasty hormones (expensive, injectable hormones) to ripen as many eggs as possible. Lots of ultrasounds and blood tests and a rather invasive collection procedure. Somebody would have to be paid well to go through it.
If memory serves, when we looked into it, the compensation for an egg donor eight to ten years ago was $5000 plus meds and procedure costs.

Am I saying we shouldn't do it? No, but it isn't as black and white as you imply.

GHR

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I agree it isn't black and white--I'm saying it's grey in a way that current procedures are grey and that we have a lot of experience dealing with--and that maybe it's silly to fuss so much about yet another medical procedure being grey.

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

The "ethical issues" show up any time you are dealing with potential human life.

Well, yes. It would be more accurate to question whether this creates any new ethical issues, or just variations on the same old ones. (I'll take Door Number Two.)

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Even better, this cures the problem for future generations. The child grown from this zygote, if female, will pass on healthy mitochondria. This is good.

In the UK, when interviewed, one of the researchers was wonderful on this point. No, there are no ethical issues. A step towards human cloning? (This was brought up by the interviewer.) Nonsense. Many human clones are born every year - we call them twins. What about genetic engineering to produce superbabies? Don't be silly. That's far beyond our current technology and no-one is working on it anyway. It's far too dangerous to the embryo. But the genetic material is not the woman's. This technique is just one step on from using a donor egg, which will enable women who could not otherwise contribute their genes at all to the zygote to have their own healthy children!

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Many human clones are born every year - we call them twins.

I agree totally, except that we call them identical twins.

I really like your account of the researcher's interview.

[jenrose]

FWIW, not all mitochondrial issues are caused by mitochondrial DNA. Shiny's mito issues are caused by things going on in chromosome 4... precursors to the kreb's cycle.

She used to just *stop* for a few minutes whenever she was active... like she'd "used it all up" and needed to recharge. Which is how I figured out there was mito involvement at all. Her factory building is fine, the workers are fine, but the parts shipments are off.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

FWIW, not all mitochondrial issues are caused by mitochondrial DNA.

Yes. As I mentioned above, a lot of the mitochondria's genes have gone to live on the cell's main chromosomes. So there are certainly nuclear DNA issues, like Shiny's with chromosome 4, that can affect the function of mitochondria--and for these types of issues, substituting mitochondria would logically do no good.