UK first country to approve IVF using genes of three parents

[Minas Tirith]

Found this interesting, though do not have any background:
Is this the starting point for just creating babies with any parents? Or even without any?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/uk-becomes-first-country-in-world-to-approve-ivf-using-genes-of-three-parents-8677595.html

Britain is set to become the first country in the world to allow a controversial IVF technique that produces embryos with DNA from three people in an attempt to rid some affected families of serious genetic disorders. If Parliament gives the go-ahead, it would mean that Britain would also be the first nation to allow a form of “germ-line gene therapy”, where the DNA of all subsequent generations within a family is changed in order to eradicate inherited diseases.

The Government’s Chief Medical Officer, Dame Sally Davies, said that legislation to allow the use of mitochondrial replacement could be passed by Parliament at the end of next year with the first IVF babies resulting from the technique being born within two years.

“What we are starting to do now is to develop the regulations, consult on these regulations and then to take them into Parliament… I hope then to go forward and we’ll be the first country if we do,” Dame Sally said yesterday.

Inherited defects within the mitochondria – the tiny “power packs” of the cells – affect about one in 6,500 people. Most have mild forms but between five and 10 babies a year are born with a severe form of the disease and it is these children whose lives could be transformed by the technique, Dame Sally said.

“Mitochondrial disease, including heart disease, liver disease, loss of muscle co-ordination and other serious conditions like muscular dystrophy, can have a devastating impact on the people who inherit it,” she said.

“People who have it live with debilitating illness, and women who are affected face passing it on to their children. Scientists have developed ground-breaking new procedures which could stop these diseases being passed on,” she added.

The technique involves transferring the nuclear material of an affected mother’s egg cell into the donor egg of an unaffected woman, whose healthy mitochondria will then be passed on to the IVF baby.

This means that the baby will inherit DNA from three biological “parents” – the mother, the father and the donor woman – but scientists emphasised that less than 0.1 per cent of the baby’s genes will come from the donor in the form of mitochondrial DNA.

Children born from the technique will not be given the right to know the identity of the woman who donated the egg as she will not be officially recognised as a parent, Dame Sally said.

The technique will also mean that all subsequent generations of children born to girls resulting from the procedure would also carry the mitochondrial changes. In Britain, such germ-line gene therapy has been banned and Dame Sally emphasised that there are no plans to lift this ban in the case of nuclear DNA.

“It is the germ-line of your mitochondria that goes down [the generations] but that is quite separate from the DNA of the nucleus which is what makes us what we are… There is no intention of doing anything with the nuclear DNA,” Dame Sally said.

“I am comfortable with this. I think we will save some five to 10 babies born with ghastly diseases and [to an] early death without changing how they look or behave, and it will allow mothers to have their own babies, which at the moment they cannot.”

She added that all children born from the technique will be closely monitored by doctors during their lives for signs of any ill-effects resulting from the IVF procedure, although she emphasised that there is no evidence from animal studies that it can cause medical problems.

“I have to rely on the advice of scientists and what I hear from scientists whom I can trust is that this looks pretty safe. We have no evidence that it is unsafe,” she said.

“There are clearly some sensitive issues here and I’m not trying to avoid them, but since researchers first approached the Health Department in 2010 we’ve been taking views in different ways and it is clear there is general support for these techniques to be used, subject to strict safeguards.”

An extensive public consultation on the procedure by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority found widespread support for the technique but some critics suggested that it will increase the risk of unforeseen health problems as well as raising the prospect of “designer babies”. “These techniques go far beyond anything existing in both invasiveness to the embryo and complexity, so it’s not surprising that they pose serious health risks to the child,” said David King, director of the pressure group Human Genetics Alert.

However, Alison Murdoch, professor of reproductive medicine at Newcastle University, which is pioneering mitochondrial replacement in IVF procedures, welcomed the decision to introduce legislation to allow it.

“This is great news for UK science and gives hope to women who just want a healthy baby. The UK government has made a moral decision,” Professor Murdoch said.

“Our research is leading to a pioneering IVF technology to reduce that risk for mothers who have abnormal mitochondria. There is still more research to do, but this decision means that we could eventually be allowed to offer it as a treatment.”

Mitochondrial replacement has resulted from a revolution in IVF technology and the manipulation of eggs and embryos.

It involves two techniques. One, called maternal spindle transfer, involves switching the nucleus from the mother’s egg cell before fertilisation while the other, called pro-nuclear transfer, involves switching after fertilisation, which results in the destruction of the donor’s embryo.

Gene genius: What the experts say

Sir John Tooke, president of the Academy of Medical Sciences: “Introducing regulations now will ensure there is no avoidable delay in these treatments reaching affected families.”

Dr Catherine Elliott, director, Medical Research Council: “UK scientists are now at the exciting point of being able to turn these techniques into a means of preventing these appalling diseases.”

Professor Doug Turnbull, director, Wellcome Trust Centre for Mitochondrial Research, Newcastle University: “This will give women ... the opportunity to have children free of mitochondrial disease.”

Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, head of genetics, MRC National Institute for Medical Research: “There’s nothing in the science conducted to date to suggest new techniques are unsafe.”

Robert Meadowcroft, chief executive, Muscular Dystrophy Campaign: “We now urge the Government to move with haste, and to draft regulations to share with the public.”

 

[loreta]

Re: UK-becomes-first-country-in-world-to-approve-ivf-using-genes-of-three-parents

The other day they talked in the radio about a similar subject: they wanted to propose that the government give the yes for a new technology that will permit for the parents who receive ovules that they can choose the sex of their future baby. (It makes me laugh when the scientific says that the majority of the population in this country think it is a good idea. Because they asked 10 people?) They lie so well. Then, evidently, they will work to give ovules with the certainty that the future babies will not have illness. They have the technique that you can see, they say, in the ovule if the baby will be ok or not and to see their future sex. This is terrible and I think very dangerous for babies who will have sickness. They are preparing a future with little perfect humans beings, perfect for them. We are not in a Spielberg movie. We are in a Spielberg reality. But a reality very dark and sad. I don't like this world. :(

 

[Minas Tirith]

Re: UK-becomes-first-country-in-world-to-approve-ivf-using-genes-of-three-parents

For me the scary thing is that a "third person" is involved.
Could be any genetic material taken from anywhere.

The C's have been talking about "genetic breeding" in 3D a lot, this is just one example:

Why were the
Aryan genetic types seen to be more
desirable for creation of this Germanic
'master race?'
A: Both, similarity and ancestral link most
unblemished from Orion 3rd and 4th density
stock.
Q: (L) So they were essentially trying to
breed a group of people like themselves?
A: Yes.
Q:
A: Not point. How would you suggest
creation?
Q: (L) Okay. They were preparing this
breeding ground, so to speak. Obviously this
was for the introduction of some other
genetic strain. What was this?
A: Nephalim.
Q: (L) Well, if the Nephilim are coming in
ships, 36 million of them, why bother to
create half-breeds here?
A: Yes, but having an "advance party" makes
3rd density conquest much easier.
Q: (L) So, this Master Race was supposed to
get everything ready...
A: Yes.

Helping families with genetic issues to receive a healthy baby, could as well be a smoke screen to introduce new genetic material.

“germ-line gene therapy”, where the DNA of all subsequent generations within a family is changed in order to eradicate inherited diseases.

M.T.

 

[Olesya]

Re: UK-becomes-first-country-in-world-to-approve-ivf-using-genes-of-three-parents

Found this interesting, though do not have any background:
Is this the starting point for just creating babies with any parents? Or even without any?

Hi, Minas Trith, I think that's exactly what they're trying to do: to introduce different venues that women will carry to terms children with certain genetic features. Psychopathic, maybe? Or obedient? Who knows? In case you've missed it, there was an article on Sott not long ago http://www.sott.net/article/260754-Made-to-order-embryos-create-new-legal-issues where it was said:

Most recently, a fertility clinic in Davis, Calif., began combining donor eggs and sperm to create embryos, which can then be used in fertility treatments for a price tag of $9,800 for a pregnancy, much cheaper than what it costs to become pregnant via traditional in vitro fertilization (IVF), according to the Los Angeles Times. The clinic is able to offer the treatment at a lower cost because it creates a batch of embryos from a single sperm and single egg donor together, and then sells the embryos to multiple patients, the Times reported. Couples who opt for this method of fertility treatment would have no genetic relation to their children.

It's curious, osit, considering that so many unused embryos (from IVF procedures) are available already and usually have to be destroyed if not reclaimed by the parents. So, basically, what they're saying here: we chose a child for you (as well as his parents characteristics), you want to be a parent, we are here to help. Nobody knows what they will tweak and change in these embryos. It's like a science fiction/horror movie. And yet, this is a reality already. :O This whole issue makes me nauseous when I think about it.

 

[loreta]

Re: UK-becomes-first-country-in-world-to-approve-ivf-using-genes-of-three-parents

Found this interesting, though do not have any background:
Is this the starting point for just creating babies with any parents? Or even without any?

Hi, Minas Trith, I think that's exactly what they're trying to do: to introduce different venues that women will carry to terms children with certain genetic features. Psychopathic, maybe? Or obedient? Who knows? In case you've missed it, there was an article on Sott not long ago http://www.sott.net/article/260754-Made-to-order-embryos-create-new-legal-issues where it was said:

Most recently, a fertility clinic in Davis, Calif., began combining donor eggs and sperm to create embryos, which can then be used in fertility treatments for a price tag of $9,800 for a pregnancy, much cheaper than what it costs to become pregnant via traditional in vitro fertilization (IVF), according to the Los Angeles Times. The clinic is able to offer the treatment at a lower cost because it creates a batch of embryos from a single sperm and single egg donor together, and then sells the embryos to multiple patients, the Times reported. Couples who opt for this method of fertility treatment would have no genetic relation to their children.

It's curious, osit, considering that so many unused embryos (from IVF procedures) are available already and usually have to be destroyed if not reclaimed by the parents. So, basically, what they're saying here: we chose a child for you (as well as his parents characteristics), you want to be a parent, we are here to help. Nobody knows what they will tweak and change in these embryos. It's like a science fiction/horror movie. And yet, this is a reality already. :O This whole issue makes me nauseous when I think about it.

It is horrible, yes. And very scary. I remember also another program where there was an interview with the director of a clinic that pay for ovules. I remember the bad feeling I had listening this program and that for various reasons: the first one because of the hypocrisy of the program. They try to give the impression that they give information but in fact what they do is give information concerning how much you will be paid if you give your ovules to the clinic, insisting in that is very "safe" for the giver and also insisting in the amount of money (around 1000 euros) specially, they insist, in a times of crisis... I was shocked. I wanted to call the radio but I decided not to do it. The other reason I am shocked is how these "sales persons" talk about this subject as something very, extremely natural, normal. That there is no reason to be worried, that to be worried is against modernity, etc. But I am shocked also to see that the journalists do not ask, never ever, the good questions and let the sales persons to talk, and even approve. As in reporting a war, in this subject they act similar, permitting lies and propaganda, manipulating and controling. So in that case, reporters are guilty, as guilty as their bosses. We know this. And we know that if you don't act like this you will loose your job. And very soon we will see everyone very happy to have babies genetically modified.

 

[SMM]

Re: UK-becomes-first-country-in-world-to-approve-ivf-using-genes-of-three-parents

Found this interesting, though do not have any background:
Is this the starting point for just creating babies with any parents? Or even without any?

Hi, Minas Trith, I think that's exactly what they're trying to do: to introduce different venues that women will carry to terms children with certain genetic features. Psychopathic, maybe? Or obedient? Who knows? In case you've missed it, there was an article on Sott not long ago http://www.sott.net/article/260754-Made-to-order-embryos-create-new-legal-issues where it was said:

Most recently, a fertility clinic in Davis, Calif., began combining donor eggs and sperm to create embryos, which can then be used in fertility treatments for a price tag of $9,800 for a pregnancy, much cheaper than what it costs to become pregnant via traditional in vitro fertilization (IVF), according to the Los Angeles Times. The clinic is able to offer the treatment at a lower cost because it creates a batch of embryos from a single sperm and single egg donor together, and then sells the embryos to multiple patients, the Times reported. Couples who opt for this method of fertility treatment would have no genetic relation to their children.

It's curious, osit, considering that so many unused embryos (from IVF procedures) are available already and usually have to be destroyed if not reclaimed by the parents. So, basically, what they're saying here: we chose a child for you (as well as his parents characteristics), you want to be a parent, we are here to help. Nobody knows what they will tweak and change in these embryos. It's like a science fiction/horror movie. And yet, this is a reality already. :O This whole issue makes me nauseous when I think about it.

It is horrible, yes. And very scary. I remember also another program where there was an interview with the director of a clinic that pay for ovules. I remember the bad feeling I had listening this program and that for various reasons: the first one because of the hypocrisy of the program. They try to give the impression that they give information but in fact what they do is give information concerning how much you will be paid if you give your ovules to the clinic, insisting in that is very "safe" for the giver and also insisting in the amount of money (around 1000 euros) specially, they insist, in a times of crisis... I was shocked. I wanted to call the radio but I decided not to do it. The other reason I am shocked is how these "sales persons" talk about this subject as something very, extremely natural, normal. That there is no reason to be worried, that to be worried is against modernity, etc. But I am shocked also to see that the journalists do not ask, never ever, the good questions and let the sales persons to talk, and even approve. As in reporting a war, in this subject they act similar, permitting lies and propaganda, manipulating and controlling. So in that case, reporters are guilty, as guilty as their bosses. We know this. And we know that if you don't act like this you will loose your job. And very soon we will see everyone very happy to have babies genetically modified.

I think this is an adequate example of how science is being used to further the aims of the PTB, engineering & technology being used for weapons & genetic control.. for 'the benefit of mankind'.
I agree with everything everyone has written thus far. All the better to house a master race/Nephilims? I remember the C's saying something along the lines of soul potential being tied to genetic information, so perhaps the plan to alter what is conceived naturally, or tamper with it before maturation, may be part of what's lurking up their sleeves?

Whatever the intent, it's unpalatable & to a cognitively dissonant or transmarginally inhibited society [Britain in this case] the offer may seem to offer better life, health or some sort of benefit. In times of dis-ease, they manufacture a solution.

The worse part for me is that this is purported, by writer & overseers in the scientific field as perfectly normal. It comes as no surprise alas.

 

[United Gnosis]

Re: UK-becomes-first-country-in-world-to-approve-ivf-using-genes-of-three-parents

I believe I can succintly point at the core of this issue in this simple mathematical expression:
Brave New World times Gattaca

 

[Infernal]

Re: UK-becomes-first-country-in-world-to-approve-ivf-using-genes-of-three-parents

Helping families with genetic issues to receive a healthy baby, could as well be a smoke screen to introduce new genetic material.

“germ-line gene therapy”, where the DNA of all subsequent generations within a family is changed in order to eradicate inherited diseases.

Speaking from the perspective of a parent with a hereditary genetic illness that my children each have a 50/50% chance of having or dodging, I have tortured myself over the possibility that although I didn't know my condition at the time I may have passed "this curse" onto my children.
I have no wish to take anything away from those making academic contributions to this discussion, but please understand from the position of those of us so inflicted, you may like to think you can imagine or know how we feel... But there no way what so ever you ever possibly come close to conceiving the horror of passing on a terminal disease to you child, or what you would do or endure to change it.

I can say this with every confidence, it's the voice of experience.

 

[Hildegarda]

Re: UK-becomes-first-country-in-world-to-approve-ivf-using-genes-of-three-parents

But there no way what so ever you ever possibly come close to conceiving the horror of passing on a terminal disease to you child, or what you would do or endure to change it.

Infernal, my heart goes to you. Certain topics are forever perceived differently once you have a very personal perspective on them.

Some people have religious or cultural mandates that view reproductive technologies and genetic manipulation as immoral and inherently wrong. If we don't follow those, the issue becomes purely practical: does it work? does it help people? From there, ethics emerge.

But there is also the next step: how these are applied in real life. The historical trend is for a precedent-based approach. I.e., first the technology appears and is tried out, then we make sense out of it, then we make laws that govern it. When this finally happens, the theory behind ethics may be lost or skewed. A scientist who came up with in-vitro fertilization got a Noble Prize recently. I was amazed to read that they were prepared for anything when their first patient was giving birth. Here was this massive experiment on human beings, unprecedented in scope with no ethical oversight whatsoever. But the victors are never judged.

If things proceed as they have been, the rise of reproductive genetic choice technologies is going to continue. How it will be used, will depend on all of us. And perhaps it is people like you who are best positioned to make a meaningful contribution to public discourse, so that people are served and technology is not abused. E.g., one concern is, if the condition of the existing genetically challenged people is viewed as largely preventable, would the discrimination grow, and would all the gains for the rights of the disabled be compromised.

 

[Olesya]

Re: UK-becomes-first-country-in-world-to-approve-ivf-using-genes-of-three-parents

Some people have religious or cultural mandates that view reproductive technologies and genetic manipulation as immoral and inherently wrong. If we don't follow those, the issue becomes purely practical: does it work? does it help people? From there, ethics emerge.

But there is also the next step: how these are applied in real life. The historical trend is for a precedent-based approach. I.e., first the technology appears and is tried out, then we make sense out of it, then we make laws that govern it. When this finally happens, the theory behind ethics may be lost or skewed. A scientist who came up with in-vitro fertilization got a Noble Prize recently. I was amazed to read that they were prepared for anything when their first patient was giving birth. Here was this massive experiment on human beings, unprecedented in scope with no ethical oversight whatsoever. But the victors are never judged.

If things proceed as they have been, the rise of reproductive genetic choice technologies is going to continue. How it will be used, will depend on all of us. And perhaps it is people like you who are best positioned to make a meaningful contribution to public discourse, so that people are served and technology is not abused. E.g., one concern is, if the condition of the existing genetically challenged people is viewed as largely preventable, would the discrimination grow, and would all the gains for the rights of the disabled be compromised.

I just found out here _http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/10/robert-edwards-dead-dies-nobel-ivf-test-tube-babies_n_3053827.html that

Robert Edwards, a Nobel laureate from Britain whose pioneering in vitro fertilization research led to the first test tube baby and has since brought millions of people into the world, died Wednesday at age 87.

Later, in the same article

Together with Dr. Patrick Steptoe, Edwards developed in vitro fertilization, or IVF, which resulted in the birth in 1978 of the world's first test tube baby, Louise Brown. At the time, the two were accused of playing God and interfering with nature.

Since then, the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology estimates that about 5 million babies have been born using the technique, which creates embryos in the laboratory before transferring them into a woman.

Edwards' "success in IVF was one of the 20th century's great medical feats, pursued at long odds and despite great opprobrium," International Federation of Fertility Societies President Joe Leigh Simpson said.

"He laid the groundwork for infertile couples worldwide to have children, with 1-4 per cent of all babies in Europe, North America and Australia now born by assisted reproductive technologies started by Professor Edwards.
[...]
Experts say about 350,000 babies are born by IVF every year, mostly to people with infertility problems, single people and gay and lesbian couples.

"(Edwards) was an extraordinary scientist," said Dr. Peter Braude, emeritus professor of obstetrics and gynecology at King's College London, who was at Cambridge when Edwards and Steptoe were developing IVF.

"There was such hysteria around the kind of work he was doing," Braude said, noting that Edwards stopped his research for two years after he published details on how he had created embryos in the laboratory. "He wanted to work out what the right thing to do was, whether he should continue or whether he was out on a limb."

Braude said Edwards collected donor eggs from women in Oldham, where Steptoe worked. Edwards then put the eggs into test tubes which he strapped to his legs to keep them warm before catching the train to Cambridge, where he would attempt to fertilize them in the laboratory.

After Brown was born, Braude recalled a celebration at Cambridge, where scientists toasted Edwards and Steptoe's achievement by drinking champagne out of plastic cups.

Braude said public opinion has evolved considerably since then.

"I think people now understand that (Edwards) only had the best motivation," he said. "There are few biologists that have done something so practical and made a huge difference for the entire world."

The last sentence just made me feel sick to my stomach and angry. What people this Braude talks about? People who have been fooled by them in doing something that was not beneficial for humanity in general and for each of these parents personally because having sick children brings more suffering: children are suffering because their sick, and parents are suffering too.

To that I just want to add some information I found regarding what was posted by Minas Tirith

It involves two techniques. One, called maternal spindle transfer, involves switching the nucleus from the mother’s egg cell before fertilisation while the other, called pro-nuclear transfer, involves switching after fertilisation, which results in the destruction of the donor’s embryo.

If it was already posted somewhere on the Forum, my apologies to the moderators. Apparently, there is a company called Ecrins Therapeutics _http://www.ecrins-therapeutics.com/science that is trying to develop medicines for treating cancer. From it's website:

Prior to the creation of Ecrins Therapeutics, the founders of the company, working at Inserm (French National Institute of Health and Medical Research), and in collaboration with chemists of the Institut Curie (Paris), launched a project aiming to uncover novel regulators of cell division, and its “engine”, the mitotic spindle. By definition, research on cell division is almost synonymous with studies on cancer cell proliferation; hence any small molecule interfering with cell division becomes a potential drug candidate.

Then, here _ http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/article/umass-amherst-cell-biologists-identify-new-protein-key-asymmetric-cell-division we read what this novel approach is about:

AMHERST, Mass. – Recently biologists at the University of Massachusetts Amherst led by Wei-lih Lee have identified a new molecular player in asymmetric cell division, a regulatory protein named She1 whose role in chromosome- and spindle positioning wasn’t known before. Asymmetric cell division is important in the self-renewal of stem cells and because it ensures that daughter cells have different fates and functions.

When a fertilized egg develops in a fruit fly or a human being, the number of asymmetric cell divisions must be precisely balanced by symmetric cell divisions, Lee explains. He has spent years studying the cell’s molecular engine called dynein, which in many cases controls how embryos accomplish asymmetric cell division, though exactly how is not completely understood.

Now, Lee and postdoctoral researcher Steven Markus, with undergraduate Katelyn Kalutkiewicz, in experiments supported by the NIH’s National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), have identified She 1 as the first known regulator of asymmetric cell division that inhibits the dynein engine, but surprisingly also promotes asymmetric division. Their work is described in an early online edition of Current Biology and will appear in the December 4 print edition.

Working with common yeast, Lee explains, “With this study, we’ve looked deeper than ever before into dynein and its role in asymmetric cell division. This is a highly conserved process that’s very important to human development, to tissue differentiation and the self-renewing process of stem cells. Many had hypothesized that dynein influences the outcome of the division by pulling on the mitotic spindle, the intricate machine responsible for separating chromosomes. How dynein knows which direction to pull the spindle had become the holy grail of this research.”

When a cell is ready to divide asymmetrically, dynein molecules move to its outer wall in opposite directions by riding along microtubules “tracks” and anchoring in the wall like tent stakes. Until Lee and colleagues’ recent discovery of She1’s role, biologists believed dynein acted alone to direct the spindle apparatus between them, pulling chromosomes apart like taffy to form two daughter cells. They thought She1 seemed to be involved in dynein distribution, as it was often observed on the microtubule tracks along which dynein draws the spindle apparatus.

[...]

In fact, the UMass Amherst research team found that She1 interacts with dynein only when the motor protein is on the microtubule cable and the motor is moving on the track, never elsewhere. “We observed them colliding on the track, then binding. The new concept is that these microtubules become different,” Lee adds. “Discovering that She1 can block dynein’s motoring totally changed our thinking about how the spindle is being pulled in the cell[/.”

The researchers were surprised because observing its behavior; one would predict that She1 inhibits asymmetric division by blocking dynein. It turns out that is not true. Instead, She1 actively promotes asymmetric cell division by changing its local underlying microtubules. Tracks containing She1 no longer permit dynein to pass.

It’s a subtle difference, Lee acknowledges, but important. He clarifies, “We think the microtubule tracks might be ‘licensed,’ so to speak, by She1. The idea had been that the engine was always ‘on’ and pulling. However, now we have identified this new player with the ability to specifically regulate this pulling very locally. If there’s high She1 concentration on one side of the spindle, dynein can only pull from the other side, thus specifying the direction of the pulling.

There is no counterpart to She1 found in common yeast yet known in humans, but Lee and colleagues expect a similar protein will be discovered that regulates and directs dynein’s pulling in asymmetric cell division.

Dr. Joe Gindhart of NIGMS, partial funder of the work, says, “Because the proper orientation of the mitotic spindle during asymmetric cell division is critical for many organisms, researchers have been trying for years to better understand how one of its key molecular players, dynein, is regulated. The new findings offer important details about the proteins that yeast cells use to regulate dynein function, and they suggest the need to identify proteins with similar functions in higher organisms.”

The impression I get from this, is that the ongoing research has an aim to alter matrilineal genetic lines. This article is more than one year old and I haven't read the one in "Nature" mentioned above, so when I find it I'll post it here.

 

[Infernal]

Re: UK-becomes-first-country-in-world-to-approve-ivf-using-genes-of-three-parents

If things proceed as they have been, the rise of reproductive genetic choice technologies is going to continue. How it will be used, will depend on all of us. And perhaps it is people like you who are best positioned to make a meaningful contribution to public discourse, so that people are served and technology is not abused. E.g., one concern is, if the condition of the existing genetically challenged people is viewed as largely preventable, would the discrimination grow, and would all the gains for the rights of the disabled be compromised.

I appreciate your compassion Hilegarda, truly I do.
I also completely understand concerns regarding the impact that this technology can have.
But ethics can easily be overlooked with an emotional response, and often based in aesthetics of how this would be perceived.
I would have to know ALOT more about the idea to pass a valid judgment, a moot point though, well after the fact. Had I received my diagnosis prior to having kids, I would have to say, taking it at face value I might have tried this new method.
A little while back just after my diagnosis, when my daughter was only 4 months old and my son just turned 2 (now 3 and 5 respectively) I had to admit to myself, if I'd known about the disease then I would have chosen not to have children at all.
Of course now knowing them as I do, all the fun we have (and the excuse for a grown man to watch Disney movies on a regular basis) I wouldn't change their presence for anything.
But protecting them from this form of muscular dystrophy would be my one dream and wish.