It´s been a long time...
I read this article in the NY Times today.
I suggest you to read it, it´s quite interesting..
Essentially, it talks about a recently developed technique of genetic engineering that has been successfully tried in animals and is now ready to try in humans, which consists of "combining the genetic material of three people to make a baby free of certain defects", i.e. mitochondrial inheritance diseases.
The article explains the procedure briefly, and focuses on the ethical controversies around it, without very much going into details anyways.
The first paragraph makes a good summary of the whole thing:
"The Food and Drug Administration is weighing a controversial fertility procedure that involves combining the genetic material of three people to make a baby free of certain defects, a therapy that critics say is an ethical minefield and could lead to the creation of designer babies."
And that is no good.
Says who?
Because I know you are not 100% familiar with mitochondrial DNA inheritance, I will give you some quick key points:
- Mitochondria (plural form of mitochondrion) are small organelles (things) inside animal cells. Their main function is providing the energy that cells need to do their things themselves.
- It is theorized that they originally developed from a bacteria (unicellular kind of bug) that once fine day infected an animal cell, and god saw it was good, and it got embedded inside that cell per secula seculorum. This is because, unlike the rest of organelles, mitochondria carry their own DNA, as if they once were independent forms of life.
- Mitochondrial DNA is inherited only from maternal mitochondria. This is because sperms carry their mitochondria in their tail, which is lost during fecundation (when sperm and ovule make love).
- There are some inherited diseases related to mitochondrial DNA, such as certain kinds of muscular distrophy. This means, if your mom´s mitochondria carry the mutation, you are doomed, you got it.
You can also watch this video to get an idea of how it works. Sorry I still have to figure out how to embed videos with my tablet, which is the only laptop-like thing I have right now. You´ll have to click on the link.
Now that you have all the information you need, let´s proceed.
So, from what I understand, the procedure would consist of taking the egg, either before or after fecundation, removing the defective mitochondria, and replacing them with healthy ones from another healthy woman. I have to say, I don´t get why another woman instead of the actual father, who should also carry healthy mitochondrial DNA. I mean, if it´s a matter of taking a bunch of mitochondria and putting them into the egg, there should be no need for a third person, they could take them directly from dad and put them directly into mom´s egg...
But anyways.
As for the ethics, I´m gonna take the risk of sharing my opinion, even knowing that I might change my mind at some point...
I used to be more in the "genetic selection is not ethical" side but, when it comes to avoiding serious genetic diseases, I am absolutely pro-everything. Whatever it takes as long as it doesn´t hurt anybody.
And I admit it, by "anybody", I am not including embryos, even when I know that´s not very consistent with my opinions about abortion. I guess I should give everything another thinking.
What I don´t think is ethical is using genetic engineering to create or select embryos that will more likely result in blond-haired blue-eyed soft-skinned cute little babies that will model for a fashion magazine at the age of three, because that would not be "true parent love"... But then again, says who?
As Jüng once wrote on a wall in NY subway, "Nature must not win the game, but she cannot lose". But progress to fight Nature´s impositions is unstoppable, and what makes us claim to heaven today, might be accepted as perfectly normal in a few years. This is a stupid and absolutely not politically correct example, but a time might come when people who are opposed to genetic manipulation will be looked at just like now we look at those Jehovah´s Witnesses who would watch their child die rather than consenting to a blood transfusion.
We got used to hearing about the ethical controversy surrounding gene engineering but, for some reason, what we most often hear or read are the arguments of those who oppose. The "let´s not touch things", "let´s just leave nature to follow its course", "let´s not play god". But we have been playing god since much, much earlier than the day the first antibiotic saw the light, we play god every time we use medicine to cure diseases, every time we use technology to fight natural forces, even every time we use condoms to... Yes, I know, this has nothing to do with the matter on focus, but my point is, we can´t stop progress, just like we can´t reverse the course of history.
But even sci-fi movies often present gene manipulation as some scary thing that eventually gets out of control leading to a fatalistic future where poor humans are subdued to a superior race of genetically improved beings.
In fact, while I was reading the article, this was what came to my mind. Once again, click on the link...
But if you think of it (and you change that music that anticipates catastrophe for some birds twitting, water flowing and some tibetan bowls, you might realize that the idea of creating embryos with low chances of heart failure or neurologic diseases.. might not be that bad after all...
Right?
Anyways, I think this was enough blogging for that brief article!
... And, by the way, good luck to those taking the BAR tomorrow!! ;)
