OK we have made it through midterm exams and our second blizzard in a week, so we can now get back the business of studying biology!
Below please find a link to an article about "Three Parent Babies". Please read the article and watch the embedded videos and then post what you think about the procedure or comment on one of your peers posts.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11386151/Three-parent-babies-the-arguments-for-and-against.html
It doesn't seem like many of the professionals in the medical field seem to side with this operation. That being said, if this operation proves to be successful and the patients don't obtain devastating repercussions from this surgery. Then the world and views on medical research will change forever. The next step would be surgery "editing" DNA to produce the perfect child, of course this could have ethical drawbacks.
ReplyDeleteI believe this should be made legal. The procedure will give the chance of life to someone who else wise would not be able to live a long life and most likely die as an infant. There are risks to this procedure that can not be overlooked, the "three parent child" should be monitored throughout their lives. This procedure would help people live and would be beneficial for this reason.
ReplyDeleteHow loquaciously worded. Bravo.
DeleteMoral values aside, it can be argued that the possible success and positive impact of this new technique is or is not worth the risk. With every scientific experiment, there is a certain degree of risk involved. This could eradicate devastating diseases, but could potentially increase the chance of other deadly conditions, even hundreds of generations down the line. Even if I were to disregard my ethical views on this, I still do not think I would support it, because more studies need to be conducted, and more knowledge gained, before a mitochondrial transfer is carried out.
ReplyDeleteIn its beginning stages, replacing faulty mitochondria with that of a donor's sounds like a good idea. On the other hand, the idea doesn't seem to be developed enough, and could cause deadly mutations in further generations, affecting more than just the immediate. As the FDA stated, the science is not currently safe--more research and testing must be done prior to the futuristic use of this medical procedure.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first read the article title my first reaction was thinking how confusing it would be for a child to have three genetic parents. Who is the true mom? As I read the article, I understood that the procedure had good intention to make sure a baby is born healthy. There seemed to some problems though, as different scientists had different views about how much mitochondrial DNA actually affects a childs characteristics and what causes mitochondria to be defective. There is also uncertainties about negative effects from the procedure. Until more research is done that would make sure the procedure, I would not support it.
ReplyDeleteI have no issue with it. Go ahead and make your kid have purple eyes, for all I care. Progress! Science! Who cares about morals anymore anyway? Sure, the kid might end up with some other horrible genetic diseases or defects, but how cool would it be to be able to tell people that you have three parents? Extremely cool. It would be a sweet ice-breaker!
ReplyDeleteBesides, the parent's should be able to weigh the pros against the cons, and make an educated decision.
What if you were that kid?
DeleteI agree completely with Jack on this one. I understand there are still potential risks, especially how future generations will be affected, but without trying it how will we know what the eventual outcome will be. Plus, with medicine progressing at the rate that it is today, who knows? If future generations are affected, we may be able to just cure them anyway. Plus, think of the alternative. In the second video the woman says that in a BEST CASE SCENARIO the child will live into their teens. That's not very long, and I think its a pretty easy decision for most parents. For science and technology to progress from where we are and in order to truly unlock our potential as humans, I believe we need to be willing to take risks and not dwell on a procedure which as far more pros than cons.
Delete@jack
DeleteI smiled at the ice-breaker, I guess you could also twist that into a clever pickup line at bars. And purple eyes, you'd be irresistible! However, side effects such as cancerous development and premature growth may occur, so we'd have to keep that in mind.
The procedure: Take mother’s egg. Remove the nucleus.
ReplyDeleteTake donor's egg, remove the nucleus.
Place mother’s nucleus in donor's egg.
Let father’s sperm enter donor's egg and fertilize in mother’s nucleus.
The nucleus is the same as it would be.
Organelle are the same.
Only difference is the mitochondria.
Do they affect how the cell functions?
Is there evidence that changing the mitochondrial changes a person outside of the disease? If there is, then no, I’m against it. If it only fixes the mitochondrial DNA disease, and nothing else, then I am for it! (From the article, it does not seem like there is much substantial evidence or data of the consequences now.)
This is because if I knew someone had changed, decided who I was going to be like characteristically, who knows what I would have been like before? Who knows what I would have thought and done. I thought to myself, if I was to be born lame, would I appreciate it if someone made my legs whole, but changed who I was? I thought no. Yes, I can run, but that is not important when my own identity is taken away from me.
But, if someone made my legs whole, and I am free to run and be myself, then I would hug them and cry, be speechless and grateful.
I would not appreciate it if someone fixed my body, but took away who I am.
You have a good point, but I would ask you...
DeleteIf, 2 months before you were born, your parents were told that you had a genetic illness that had a 99% mortality rate in the first 3 years of life but that it could be cured, what would they have said? The answer is pretty clear. Say, however, this procedure would give you blond hair, purple eyes, and maybe a few allergies. Or maybe these traits would show up in your children. I still think the answer is pretty clear. What does it mean to "take away who you are" if the procedure happens before anyone has seen you, before you can possibly remember anything, before you had black hair? And remember this procedure most likely saved your life.
I think that a group of parents who are in need of this procedure for their child to live should have the procedure done, and over the course of their life they should be monitored to find all effects of the procedure. If there are no serious issues, it should be then applied in a large scale to help everyone with life threatening diseases which can benefit from the procedure.
ReplyDeleteWill the child have the ability to live his/her life freely and happily with constant monitoring and fears of easily obtaining terminal diseases?
DeleteI do not agree with this procedure because I do not think that the three-parent baby will live a through life with extreme risks like getting deathly diseases and continuously being monitored. Plus I am wondering how the three-parent babies' children, if they happen to choose to reproduce, would turn out. How would three sets of genetics make their way into their DNA? Also, the uncertainty of those working in the medical field worries me. Doctors unsureness of this procedure makes it seem that there has not been enough testing done on the three-parent babies. I think it was a good idea, but I think it needs more research, more proof , and less risks in order for me to agree.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely on that statement. This procedure seems to have many risks since it is any area that has not been widely dealt with before in the medical field. It has the potential to help many people and have high benefits, but before opening it to the public there should be more research. This is a shaky experiment that could either end great or disastrous, and more trials need to be tested so they can be more certain of the outcome of the procedure. I would be open to this new procedure, but I would want much more testing done before it is legalized.
DeleteIt's a very tricky question. On one hand, the replacement of mitochondria could solve certain issues, such as muscular dystrophy. On the other hand, such actions could lead to other issues, including terminal diseases, which in turn could lead to passing on said diseases. But how much do we really know about the diseases? They could be genetic, or they could not. There is no way for us to know unless we try. Sometimes things work, other times, they don't.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, when penicillin was first discovered back in 1929, people were very skeptical. In fact, one of the first human testers happened to be allergic to penicillin, and became even more unwell. Now penicillin and other antibiotics are a part of our daily lives. We don't know. There are risks, of course, but there is a risk in anything we do.
I believe that this procedure could have a positive impact on the evolution of science. The idea needs to be developed and tested a little more before they use it, but once it is proven to work and have a positive effect on the child, I would support the idea of a three-parent child. The lives of those affected by mitochondrial disease will be improved, after all you are giving life to a child who might not have had the chance to see the world and giving the parents a child of their own to love. Yes, this procedure is risky, but there are ways around the risk. For example, the procedure doesn’t have to be available to everyone, and the parents can make a decision on whether or not they want this procedure or not. Also, the child should be monitored to make sure nothing goes wrong and also to check if other diseases arise from the procedure.
ReplyDeleteWhile this procedure can have positive effects on the children, there are still many possible side-effects that could go wrong. The relationship between mitochondria DNA and nucleus DNA is not known. This means that the procedure could give the child other disorders. The child would also be at a greater risk for cancer, and would have to be monitored their whole life. Overall, I don't think this procedure is a good idea-- scientist should not mess with nature.
ReplyDeleteI wholeheartedly agree. This is uncharted territory for science and should not be tested on children without much further research. Psychologically, it would not be healthy for the child to be a walking science experiment that could go horribly wrong at any time. Physically the effects of this procedure are unknown. It may cure the mitochondrial problems but could make the child susceptible to many other serious conditions including cancer. We need more research not only on the procedure,but also on safety and other risks. I don't think we should mess with these children's mitochondrial DNA unless we are prepared for the repercussions. For the time being, scientists should not mess with nature.
DeleteAlthough, the procedure may seem extremely appealing, there will almost certainly be some repercussion either for the child or somewhere down the line. The scientists are exploring uncharted territory. They still do not understand everything about cells, but only a small portion of it. Even though discoveries are made through experimentation, without sufficient knowledge of the matter, everything can, and most probably will, go down hill. So for now, I do not think that this procedure should be allowed, but should be tested out more in the future when we gain more knowledge about it.
ReplyDeleteI agree somewhat with your view on this matter. It seems like the results of the procedure are basically unknown beyond the immediate eradication of a mitochondrial disease. However, keep in mind that the procedure may also help a child. Better to have a minor medical condition like an allergy right? We need more tests, but I believe the possibilities will ultimately be beneficial.
DeleteI am not exactly sure on my standing about three-parent babies, but for the most part, I am against it. It seems to have many risks, and it could have many risks to the three-parent person's children. If they were to develop the cure more and make sure it was safe and would in fact help the child, I think then it would be good to use. Although I do not completely agree with it, it does allow parents who didn't want their child to have this to be able to have children happily. So, it should really be up to the parents if they want to do it, because they really just want the best for their child. This could be a positive thing, but it could also end up really bad for the child. There should be more research on this to make sure it was actually safe, and after that, it should be okay, as long as none of the traits are changed about the child besides the disorder.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the benefits of three parent babies outweighs the bad parts. Having three parents doesn't sound morally right but if that's what it takes to make a baby healthier then go for it. Although, I also see how there could many risks with the procedure but if scientists can make it mostly risk free then it could be a huge breakthrough for science.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that this procedure should be allowed and further researched.
DeleteThis procedure will help many couple looking to have children be without the concern of passing on the debilitating condition. There is the problem that comes with this procedure that the child could have the DNA from three people. If this procedure can be perfected it can be used to prevent the passing on of other DNA transmitted diseases.
ReplyDeleteI see a need for a longer testing trial so that we can see how this effects the child's DNA replication and reproduction. Should the data show that we can do this safely and if we can get this perfected to a point where the child is unaffected beyond the new mitochondria this should be made legal. Any chance to give a child the chance at a healthy life with the same opportunities as any other child should be explored.
ReplyDeleteThis is not making designer babies. This is giving a child the same opportunities that a child without a history of mitochondrial diseases has. It's hard to imagine what life with these diseases is like when you are born healthy and it's even harder to imagine what it's like to face the chance of passing that down to your child. Designer babies refers to modifying a child to fit the aesthetic desires of a parent. This it not manipulating a child to fit the pleasures of a parent, this is giving a child a new mitochondria so that they don't have to live with the difficulties of their parents.
I agree, I would like to see the testing trial be extended before this hits the public. Just so that the parents can be properly educated on what effects this might have. I also agree on the designer babies aspect because the child is in no way being manipulated to have traits that the parents want. It should be legal and we should continue to strive for greater knowledge and cures for these currently incurable diseases.
DeleteI can see how perfecting the child's DNA would be against some people's views, but based off of the research that has been done, this procedure has become safe and has proven that the child will remain healthy and free of the mitochondrial disease by following through with the three- parent babies. I believe that this should not be a decision that government has to become involved in, I should be the parents decision or those who are considering having a baby that could have be born with this disease. Therefore, it should be allowed and legal.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the creation of three-parent babies should be made legal. By legalizing this procedure, families across the world will be given the opportunity to have a healthy child that wasn't possible before. For those who think it is unethical, they can opt out and adopt instead. Even though there is a chance that children with two mothers will develop disorders or diseases, families run that risk every time they have a naturally-born child. This procedure should be made legal because both science, and many families will benefit from its effects.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that this procedure should be legalized. We do not know enough about the future of these kids who get it, and it could cause diseases which would make the child's life worse. It should be waited until the procedure is perfected, or else there could be some dangerous mutations
ReplyDeleteWhile I do see the many benefits to this procedure, on the whole I am against it, at least until more research is done. As the article states, this is uncharted territory. Scientists do not yet know the complete effect of this procedure on a person. That said, the person will have to be monitored their whole life, and their children will be too. That could have a negative affect on their psychological health. I know that if I were that kid, I would feel like I was merely a science experiment. The article also says that swapping out the mitochondria for that of another mother can alter the child's personality. So you are not just changing the person's cells; you are creating a whole new person. In addition to being detrimental to a person's psychological life, the article says that children who undergo this procedure are at risk of developing cancers. Other disorders may develop as well. Mitochondrial disease is a terrible thing, but I believe that a large amount of research must be done before this technique can be proven to be an option.
ReplyDeleteI believe that although there are many possible side affects when producing a three-parent baby this procedure should be legalized. Legalizing this procedure would give mothers with mitochondrial disease the chance to have a child of their own. Even though this experiment is risky I think the decision to have a three-parent baby should be up to the Mom and Dad. Although the creation of a three-parent baby has postivly impacted science and has helped mothers not pass mitochondrial disease to there child I believe the scientists should continue to improve and change the procedure so that the child can live a healthy normal life.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that this procedure should be legalized. I think it is up to the parents if they are okay with having a three-parent baby and okay with knowing that the chid may have illness while growing up. I think everyone deserves the chance to have their own child and if this is the only way for them to it, I think it should be legal.
DeleteI believe that the three parent procedure should be legalized. It will do lots of good like making a child with Mitochondria Disease healthy and ready to take on the world. Even though diseases could potentially come from it, it should be up to the parents better judgement whether or not they want to do it. Also, if the child doesn't receive the procedure, he or she will always have a disease, but if they do, they will be disease free with a possibility of one coming again. That is why this procedure should legalized.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this is a controversial issue, it seems like there is a much more solid argument in favor of three-parent babies. The procedure is a potential cure for genetic mitochondrial diseases, and would make having children safer for women at risk of passing the disease along. This seems more substantial than the argument against three-parent babies, which sums up to "Well, it might lead to unintended genetic diseases," and, "We just don't know how it will turn out, it might hurt the children." Of course, there are undoubtable risks in the procedure, and we simply won't know until there have been more tests on its side effects. But in general, it seems like women subjecting their future children to the process will pit the risk of muscular dystrophy against the possibility of another condition. As to the moral dilemma, I know that I'd rather have a complicated family tree than muscular dystrophy. If the procedure can rid a child of a potentially crippling disease, than it's worth the complication. So on whether I think it should be illegal or not, I believe that it's up to the parents to make an educated decision. This involves reading up on the subject, and knowing the potential risks of the procedure. I also believe that unless there is concrete evidence that the procedure will definitely leave the child worse off than he/she would have been, then it should be legal. It kind of reminds me of abortion; some find it wrong, but the procedure can help people in different circumstances. Anyway, I believe that research should be continued with the topic, and for now it should ultimately be up to the parents, all risks included.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to what Curtis said, this is a topic full of skepticism. As far as we know, no baby has been negatively affected by this breakthrough. The benefits this procedure provides seem to be enough to make families bring another life into the world. However, the negative aspects seem convincing also. Having the possibility of premature aging and regular checkups seems demoralizing and inconvenient.
ReplyDeleteFrom what the article and video say, I can only conclude that three parent babies should be allowed. The babies that are born without three parents and have mitochondrial diseases like Muscular Distrophy live short lives and have a very high infant mortality rate. The babies that are born from three parents are given a shot at a long life, even though they may get cancer in their older years. The bottom line in my opinion is that these kids that are born with three parents instead of two are able to live long lives which, if they had only had two parents, they wouldn't be able to do.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Maggie and feel this is a good procedure that can only help these families. The procedure in general is pretty safe and is not changing the DNA and in a way "playing god" like the second video said. The families are hurt, as any family would be, when the parents have to watch their child suffer and die before their life ever really starts. This procedure would have such a positive impact on their lives and really make a huge difference in the families lives and it would be a huge step in medical research in general.
DeleteThis procedure should be limited as a last-resort scenario, under absolutely certainty that a child's net change will be more beneficial following the process. If a subject is ensured to suffer life-threatening diseases or extremely intolerable defects, the three-mother process should be undergone, given that the possible side effects of the procedure outweigh the defects the child may have without it. Cancerous and unnatural growth are extremely risky chances to take, but if a subject's survival is at stake, it should be followed through. Study of this topic should receive more attention, as well as all possible methods to help increase survivorship and combat deadly defects.
ReplyDeleteThree-parent process, not three-mother process :/
DeleteThe operation is definitely a controversial subject. Although there are strong arguments for both I am an advocate of the operation. I do believe it should be saved as a last resort for those who cant have children without it but it is a miracle of science. This operation may remain ahead of it's time currently but I think that with careful research and studies a three parent operation could be extremely useful.
ReplyDeleteI am for the legalization of three-parent babies. Although there is a lot unknown about the possibilities of how three parent babies might be affect differently from other babies the legalization will give the parents the choice to either wait, or they can try to protect their child from mitochondrial diseases. The three-parent babies although some might consider "Playing God" it is not genetically altering the makeup of the baby. The only thing that the three parent babies are doing is replacing the diseased mitochondria with that of a health donor. Three parent babies are at a possible greater risk of cancer and premature aging but it is all in the decision of the parents whether they feel it is safe enough.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this procedure should be made legal. Although these three-parent children would have to be monitored their entire lives for unwanted results (Cancer, for example), it would definitely be a better option than the child dying in their late teens or early twenties from mitochondrial disease. The three-parent procedure gives children who would eventually succumb to mitochondrial disease a better chance of living and surviving. Although the potential side effects may not be desirable, they are still better than the alternative. Before the procedure happens and is legalized, it must be understood that although the results may not be perfect yet, they are much better than the alternative turnout.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, this procedure is a good idea. Due to the fact that it can help children be born without a mitochondrial issue, it seems very helpful. And although the child may have a greater risk of diseases like cancer, it is unknown whether or not that is true. Yes the child may have to be monitored his or her entire life, but it is better than a certain death from mitochondrial disease. I believe that the benefits of the three-parent procedure greatly outweigh the risks. And most importantly, the two chosen parents are the only ones with nuclear DNA. Therefore the child technically only has the traits of two parents. A life full of monitoring is much better than none at all.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kyle. Of course there are always risks to anything new, but one of the greatest accomplishments is having a child. Not being able to do this is heartbreaking and no one wants that. Like he said, yes, they will be monitored all their lives, but that is much better than having no baby at all. This could be a major breakthrough in science to help people all over the world and if the mother and father understand the risks, I think they should go through with it. Other hand, its nerve-racking to see that the DNA from one cell is moved to another which can be very dangerous. For the sake of science and the family, I would go for it.
DeleteI am on the fence about this procedure. Obviously, eliminating genetic disease would be a huge step for mankind, making the end goal desirable. However, DNA is a very complex thing, and as many of the scientists said, this may result in complications. I believe that a period of very log term study, testing, and refinement will be needed to alleviate the fears of parents of many potential beneficiaries. Even if the cure is provided at a later date, the extra research put into the procedure will make the cure much more safe and much less unpredictable.
ReplyDeleteI think that the procedure should be legal, but should not be used excessively. Because no child has lived a full life after this procedure, no one knows all the risks that the doctors are taking by performing it. If a small number of procedures were performed and then doctors spent some time studying the kids, then it would be less risky and more could be learnt before the procedure becomes common.
ReplyDelete