The concept of “designer babies” may sound like science fiction, a literal Brave New World, but it is decidedly not fictional – it is here now and being pushed rapidly into fertility clinics.
After only a brief debate on February 3rd in the House of Commons, British Members of Parliament (MPs) approved a proposal to create genetically-engineered babies, who all will contain the DNA of three parents: two mothers and one father. The vote wasn’t even close – 382 voted to approve while only 128 opposed.
The proposal is framed, as is often the case, as a “treatment” for a dread disease, and as the only possible way to proceed if we are to eliminate human suffering.
David Prentice, Ph.D., is Vice President and Research Director at the Charlotte Lozier Institute.
In this instance, the proposed “cure” is for mitochondrial diseases. These genetic diseases are due to mutations in the DNA of cellular mitochondria, which are the “energy factories” present in every cell. Mutations in the DNA of mitochondria can, indeed, lead to severe, tragic diseases. In severe cases the life span is only a few years, and even in mild cases there can be significant health problems. So the promise of a potential treatment has great appeal.
But what has been proposed, and now approved by the House of Commons, is not a treatment at all. The proposed technique ignores people who already have mitochondrial disease, spurning them in favor of creating new individuals who will — as the advocates hope promise — not carry the genetic mutations.
The proposal is to manufacture genetically-engineered babies. Mitochondria are inherited from the mother, so the proposal calls for recombining parts from two different eggs to engineer a genetically new egg, theoretically with healthy mitochondrial DNA. This process entails the destroying and recombining parts from two different embryos to assemble a genetically new embryo.
Missing from the proposal is evidence for the safety, as well as the efficacy, of the proposed embryo-manufacturing techniques. Numerous comments from around the world have pointed out the flaws in the science as well as the all-important ethical considerations raised by the proposal. Polls show that the majority of British public sentiment opposes proceeding with these exercises in genetic engineering of human beings, in spite of all the emotional appeals having been made in its favor.
In the end, all of the evidence against this genetic twiddling of humans was ignored, and now the Parliament is headed toward consent to begin construction of British-engineered babies.
Editor’s note: Author David Prentice’s testimony was included in the materials considered by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee hearing in October, 2014. This column was adapted from a blog post at the website of the Charlotte Lozier Institute.
Could you please confirm if this statement is correct?
“[T]he proposal calls for recombining parts from two different eggs to engineer a genetically new egg, theoretically with healthy mitochondrial DNA.”
My dispute is with the term “three-parent” baby. It seems there is only one egg, which has been enhanced with mitochondrial DNA from another egg. Hence, it is one egg, albeit enhanced with mitochondrial DNA extracted from another egg. Hence, only two parents. The mother’s egg has been enhanced. There is still only one mother. The DNA of the newly conceived human person is similar to the DNA of three people. But there is only one egg.
Obviously, the killing of an embryonic human person is the gravest moral evil.
I just seek clarification on this expression “three parent” child. This may connote something more than it is.
Also, could you please clarify your statement: “engineered babies, who all will contain the DNA of three parents: two mothers and one father.”
My contention is this: The DNA of a new human person from conception is similar to its parents, but it is not its parents DNA. This is an important distinction.
Please clarify. Thanks and God bless.
Mr. Weinberg:
The mitochondria are not replaced or transferred in either technique, whether starting with egg or embryo.
In both cases, the nuclear DNA or whole nucleus is transferred.
Two eggs, or two embryos, are required as starting material. The net result is that DNA from two women is used, along with DNA from one man. The mother’s egg is not enhanced. There may still be only one “gestating” mother, but DNA contribution (nuclear + mitochondrial) comes from two women. And the DNA from both women is in every cell of the baby’s body, and if the baby is a female, passed to future generations.
The new individuals are indeed engineered, because of the manipulations needed to recombine the DNA from two women, rather than the one mother as usual.
David Prentice
Pop science and culture have jumped on the term three parent baby for their own reasons. The term undermines the nature and dignity of the human person. While we oppose this kind of utilitarianism, it is important to define our terms correctly.
A new human life is created by two parents, not three. In this case, the mother’s egg has been enhanced by the nucleus of a second egg which is destroyed.
Also, we should be careful to not make it seem as if the nature of a newly conceived human person is nothing more than a carrying forth of the DNA of the parents, as if the newly created human person stops being its parents’ DNA at conception, and begins being its parent’s DNA all by itself. DNA is merely the matter of the new persons unique genetic code, but the genetic code of the new person is uniquely his or her own. And it comes from two parents, even if the mother’s egg has been enhanced by the nucleus from another egg.
This science is unethical, but we still should be precise in our description of what it is.
Mr. Weinberg–
You are quite correct that the science is unethical. But one aspect of this manipulation that makes it unethical is the artificial genetic recombination, adding some DNA from a third parent. When we describe this we are being precise in terms of the biological and molecular description.
While the natural conception of a new human life uses the genetic components from only two parents, these new artificial manipulations in the laboratory can combine genetic components from various individuals. In the proposal being discussed, nuclear and mitochondrial DNA are recombined, and the term “three-parent embryo” is appropriate. But there are also possibilities for additional nuclear DNA, and from multiple individuals. Sadly, the hubris of genetic engineering of new individuals knows no real limit.
I disagree with your claim that parenthood is established by implanting the nucleus of one egg into another. This undercuts the philosophical truth of the genesis of a human person, and is exactly what the utilitarian wants us to do.
This should be obvious, because an embryo grows through division of unique chromosomes, which are formally part of the nature of the newly conceived human person, and not through divisions of DNA.
So clearly your analysis omits the formal aspect of the human person.
Legally, philosophically and physiologically there are only two parents. There may be hundreds of sources of DNA, but still only two parents.
We should have a law against this asap, because it is largely experimental and may involve the destruction of embryonic human persons.
We hope and pray, and advocate, for a law against. This may be possible in the future, but for now we are fighting against such techniques becoming the law of the land in the UK or in the US; the FDA is considering approving these human experiments here in the U.S.
Biologically, there can unfortunately now be different numbers of genetic parents. Transferring a nucleus into an egg is the process of cloning (nuclear transfer), the same technique that created Dolly the cloned sheep and various other animal clones, and within the last two years, several human clones–who were all destroyed in the experiments. The familial lineages become blurred with the newer embryo-manipulative, embryo-destructive technologies.
In short, the term “three parent” child undermines the formal cause and dignity of the human person. Having the nucleus of your egg implanted into another woman’s egg which is then fertilized does not constitute parenthood, legally, biologically or philosophically. It just means that some additional material-DNA went in to the formal composition of the conceived person. But it is not the formal composition of that person’s nature. Providing DNA in this manner does not constitute parenthood, because DNA is not the formal cause of personhood, hence it is neither the cause of parenthood. This is because the newly conceived person has his/her own unique genetic code, which is a formal principle of that person in relation to the material principle of DNA.
However, this whole thing is unethical and should be outlawed, since it involves utilitarian experimentation which results in the killing of human life.
Which is why we’re fighting against it.
Thank you for your work and leadership. Any guidance you have for draft legislation, we will surely inform the delegations from Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska and Missouri.
God bless.