FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Britains first 3 parent baby arrives.
Britains first 3 parent baby arrives.
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *hagTonight OP Man
over a year ago
From the land of haribos. |
It is all over the media, did you also read about it? It is a rather complex one to understand but apparently last week was the arrival in the uk of the first three parent baby.
The pioneering technique is an attempt to prevent children being born with devastating mitochondrial diseases, it is incurable and can be fatal.
Where most of the dna comes from their 2 parents and 0.1% from a third doner woman.
Experts also said that it is not without risk, they are especially concerned with moving the genetic material from one egg to another could affect the way in which the genes are expressed.
What do you think of it, is it a good idea? I think that it is good that they have found a way to potentially prevent it 
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's a step forward in one way, but not without its risks as with any genetic procedure, new conditions may occur from the gene coding in different ways, trouble is, this is with human life, so is always going to be an emotive subject |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Anything that helps eradicate bad things is good imo  "
It’s good to prevent birth defects but soon it will be designer babies. A bit like having a cocktail. A bit of this a splash of that and a slice of something else. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Anything that helps eradicate bad things is good imo
It’s good to prevent birth defects but soon it will be designer babies. A bit like having a cocktail. A bit of this a splash of that and a slice of something else. "
Is that a bad thing do you think? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Geneticists scare me.
Nature and evolution have done a fine job so far. Don’t fix what isn’t broken. Yeah sure there’s loads of things that will kill you. That’s just nature’s way of population control.
The mr |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Geneticists scare me.
Nature and evolution have done a fine job so far. Don’t fix what isn’t broken. Yeah sure there’s loads of things that will kill you. That’s just nature’s way of population control.
The mr "
Was about to say something similar x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It is all over the media, did you also read about it? It is a rather complex one to understand but apparently last week was the arrival in the uk of the first three parent baby.
The pioneering technique is an attempt to prevent children being born with devastating mitochondrial diseases, it is incurable and can be fatal.
Where most of the dna comes from their 2 parents and 0.1% from a third doner woman.
Experts also said that it is not without risk, they are especially concerned with moving the genetic material from one egg to another could affect the way in which the genes are expressed.
What do you think of it, is it a good idea? I think that it is good that they have found a way to potentially prevent it
"
..
It's a slippery slope! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hagTonight OP Man
over a year ago
From the land of haribos. |
"It's a step forward in one way, but not without its risks as with any genetic procedure, new conditions may occur from the gene coding in different ways, trouble is, this is with human life, so is always going to be an emotive subject"
Yes, you are right there as well, it is a step forward, but not without its risk as it is a new procedure |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It is all over the media, did you also read about it? It is a rather complex one to understand but apparently last week was the arrival in the uk of the first three parent baby.
The pioneering technique is an attempt to prevent children being born with devastating mitochondrial diseases, it is incurable and can be fatal.
Where most of the dna comes from their 2 parents and 0.1% from a third doner woman.
Experts also said that it is not without risk, they are especially concerned with moving the genetic material from one egg to another could affect the way in which the genes are expressed.
What do you think of it, is it a good idea? I think that it is good that they have found a way to potentially prevent it
"
This is how we get X-Men. And so it begins……
Or it’s a good thing for humanity and eradication of a nasty disease. One of the two. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mf123Man
over a year ago
with one foot out the door |
These science folks will be our ruin between this and robot busses n cars its like nobody has seen gremlins 2 terminator superman or the matrix they will bring about our end the bloody fools |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I was listening to something about this on Friday.
We seem to develop techniques first and worry about the ethics afterwards. I don't know where it will lead. Either a dystopian future with a race of wealthy super beings being serviced by impoverished 'normal' humans, a world free of awful genetically transmitted disease or something in between. I do know if mitochondrial disease was likely to affect any of my children I'd jump at the chance of this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *a LunaWoman
over a year ago
South Wales |
"I do know if mitochondrial disease was likely to affect any of my children I'd jump at the chance of this."
This. It may sound like the beginning of the end to some, but to others it gives hope of a new beginning.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Geneticists scare me.
Nature and evolution have done a fine job so far. Don’t fix what isn’t broken. Yeah sure there’s loads of things that will kill you. That’s just nature’s way of population control.
The mr "
Is this different to any medical intervention though?Where do you sit with vaccines? Treatment for illnesses. Keeping people alive by removing tumors, medication like statins to help prevent heart attacks etc....are these not nature's population control that we have no business interfering in? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
In my view this is treading a dangerous path on a slippery slope.
Whilst I can understand the appeal of such a process to those with inherant genetic disorders, have we not learned from Darwin about how evolution works in ridding the gene pool of such defects.
This latest development means that we have now taken that step into 'designer babies' and who knows where it will end?
Next thing you know, we'll be getting scientists to manipulate our offsprings DNA with regard to hair and eye colour and who knows what else.
To quote a line from Jurassic Park, these scientists are 'so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should'
I find it terrifying when events in reality catch up and mimic events in fiction - that really should have warned us of the dangers of following such a path.
It's the same with Artificial intelligence. Terminator anyone? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Anything that helps eradicate bad things is good imo
It’s good to prevent birth defects but soon it will be designer babies. A bit like having a cocktail. A bit of this a splash of that and a slice of something else. "
Which is the real & will be the main objective throughout … |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Geneticists scare me.
Nature and evolution have done a fine job so far. Don’t fix what isn’t broken. Yeah sure there’s loads of things that will kill you. That’s just nature’s way of population control.
The mr "
Isn't this nature and evolution in action though in that we're part of nature and have evolved to have this capability?
People with mitochondrial disease live horrible, desperate, brief lives as do their families. That might be population control but it's horribly cruel |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Geneticists scare me.
Nature and evolution have done a fine job so far. Don’t fix what isn’t broken. Yeah sure there’s loads of things that will kill you. That’s just nature’s way of population control.
The mr "
Incurable and fatal mitochondrial disease sounds broken to me |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Geneticists scare me.
Nature and evolution have done a fine job so far. Don’t fix what isn’t broken. Yeah sure there’s loads of things that will kill you. That’s just nature’s way of population control.
The mr "
Agreed |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
A little different, I have friends where one provided the sperm, the other one's sister provided the egg and his other sister actually carried the baby.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hagTonight OP Man
over a year ago
From the land of haribos. |
"Geneticists scare me.
Nature and evolution have done a fine job so far. Don’t fix what isn’t broken. Yeah sure there’s loads of things that will kill you. That’s just nature’s way of population control.
The mr "
Yes, nature and evolution have done a good job so far too and that is the thing as well, one dont know what could happen when mixing in a 3rd dna, like what could happen if it goes wrong or if nothing happens. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hagTonight OP Man
over a year ago
From the land of haribos. |
"Geneticists scare me.
Nature and evolution have done a fine job so far. Don’t fix what isn’t broken. Yeah sure there’s loads of things that will kill you. That’s just nature’s way of population control.
The mr Yes, nature and evolution have done a good job so far too and that is the thing as well, one dont know what could happen when mixing in a 3rd dna, like what could happen if it goes wrong or if nothing happens."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Geneticists scare me.
Nature and evolution have done a fine job so far. Don’t fix what isn’t broken. Yeah sure there’s loads of things that will kill you. That’s just nature’s way of population control.
The mr "
Why do they scare you? Fear often comes from a lack of knowledge, perhaps a greater understanding of what they do, how they do it, what controls are in place etc would help alleviate some of that fear?
Aside from that, I'm not sure your comments on evolution are on the mark either. Like many people you appear to be anthropomorphising nature, giving it a rationality when it has none. Evolution has no plan, it isn't a system that designs perfect outcomes, just one that work long enough to breed. That aside, it has arguably been many millenia since human evolution was driven only by natural selection for survival traits. Instead our evolution has tended to be more and more social. As a species, our care for the sick has meant that for 10's of thousands of years we have had the ability to allow genetic material from individuals who would have otherwise have died before reaching breeding age to be passed on. Life saving first aid on a child who would otherwise have died falling from a tree is not exactly letting nature take it's course.
Maybe try walking through some of the children's cancer wards at your local hospital and telling the parents that you see there that nature knows what it is doing may help you to see this in a new way? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It’s not the first time it’s happened.
Personally I see nothing wrong with it, if helps a set of parents who either known to carry a specific gene of a life threatening (likely untreatable & painful for the child) illness; Or unwilling know when have their first child that their dna mixing would cause a serious illness to the child
Why should they remain childless if there is solution out there |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It worries me to the point we don't know the potential effects that changing a person's DNA will have. Will it increase their chances of cancer later in life for example we don't know.
With mitochondrial diseases which are absolutely horrendous. I'm not sure if the parents should look to other options? But I do understand that people's drive to have a genetically born child of their own is strong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Geneticists scare me.
Nature and evolution have done a fine job so far. Don’t fix what isn’t broken. Yeah sure there’s loads of things that will kill you. That’s just nature’s way of population control.
The mr Yes, nature and evolution have done a good job so far too and that is the thing as well, one dont know what could happen when mixing in a 3rd dna, like what could happen if it goes wrong or if nothing happens."
Nature and evolution have done a rubbish job Shag and as I said earlier us humans are a part of nature that has evolved to be able to start to try and eradicate the things that evolution hasn't. I'm not qualified to say if this is good or bad but humans will always try and work towards making things better, often with a side effect of making some things worse |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Geneticists scare me.
Nature and evolution have done a fine job so far. Don’t fix what isn’t broken. Yeah sure there’s loads of things that will kill you. That’s just nature’s way of population control.
The mr Yes, nature and evolution have done a good job so far too and that is the thing as well, one dont know what could happen when mixing in a 3rd dna, like what could happen if it goes wrong or if nothing happens.
Nature and evolution have done a rubbish job Shag and as I said earlier us humans are a part of nature that has evolved to be able to start to try and eradicate the things that evolution hasn't. I'm not qualified to say if this is good or bad but humans will always try and work towards making things better, often with a side effect of making some things worse "
I think a lot of us wouldn't be alive a lot of times over if we just let things be. Vaccine preventable disease, the high risk of childbirth (I suspect my mother would have died for two of three of her kids if not for modern medicine), other conditions incompatible with fertility, etc. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Geneticists scare me.
Nature and evolution have done a fine job so far. Don’t fix what isn’t broken. Yeah sure there’s loads of things that will kill you. That’s just nature’s way of population control.
The mr Yes, nature and evolution have done a good job so far too and that is the thing as well, one dont know what could happen when mixing in a 3rd dna, like what could happen if it goes wrong or if nothing happens.
Nature and evolution have done a rubbish job Shag and as I said earlier us humans are a part of nature that has evolved to be able to start to try and eradicate the things that evolution hasn't. I'm not qualified to say if this is good or bad but humans will always try and work towards making things better, often with a side effect of making some things worse
I think a lot of us wouldn't be alive a lot of times over if we just let things be. Vaccine preventable disease, the high risk of childbirth (I suspect my mother would have died for two of three of her kids if not for modern medicine), other conditions incompatible with fertility, etc. "
I'm currently reading a book about the lives of medieval women. All I can say is thank god for human intervention |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Geneticists scare me.
Nature and evolution have done a fine job so far. Don’t fix what isn’t broken. Yeah sure there’s loads of things that will kill you. That’s just nature’s way of population control.
The mr Yes, nature and evolution have done a good job so far too and that is the thing as well, one dont know what could happen when mixing in a 3rd dna, like what could happen if it goes wrong or if nothing happens.
Nature and evolution have done a rubbish job Shag and as I said earlier us humans are a part of nature that has evolved to be able to start to try and eradicate the things that evolution hasn't. I'm not qualified to say if this is good or bad but humans will always try and work towards making things better, often with a side effect of making some things worse
I think a lot of us wouldn't be alive a lot of times over if we just let things be. Vaccine preventable disease, the high risk of childbirth (I suspect my mother would have died for two of three of her kids if not for modern medicine), other conditions incompatible with fertility, etc.
I'm currently reading a book about the lives of medieval women. All I can say is thank god for human intervention"
Absolutely.
I can think of at least three health conditions in my family members that would have prevented my conception and birth. My birth could easily have been fatal. Antibiotics dramatically saved my life once. Surgery saved my life twice. Medicine has kept me alive (extremely cheaply and low maintenance) for over 20 years.
Fuck nature  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"These scientists are playing with nature ok to help a small minority but nevertheless playing with natures way  "
Human kind has been playing with nature since we figured out how to make fire. Literally everything that has been done since making the first tool has been unnatural.
Yes there does have to be some consideration of ethics, risks vs. benefits etc. Funnily enough though, scientists do in fact do this. There are swathes of law controlling what is allowed, law which is regularly reviewed and updated in line with both advances and new concerns. Every hospital, every university, have ethics boards that oversee this stuff.
If and when things do go wrong, the problems can usually be traced to the self-involvement of people and groups that have zero ethical concern or oversight - politicians, newspapers, "religious" pressure (in quotes because usually these people are actually utterly lacking in any true religious values) and snake oil salesmen in general. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Anything that helps eradicate bad things is good imo
It’s good to prevent birth defects but soon it will be designer babies. A bit like having a cocktail. A bit of this a splash of that and a slice of something else.
Is that a bad thing do you think?"
In some cases as it will be the financial elite having a choice and others not. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Anything that helps eradicate bad things is good imo
It’s good to prevent birth defects but soon it will be designer babies. A bit like having a cocktail. A bit of this a splash of that and a slice of something else.
Is that a bad thing do you think?
In some cases as it will be the financial elite having a choice and others not. "
Yep  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Anything that helps eradicate bad things is good imo
It’s good to prevent birth defects but soon it will be designer babies. A bit like having a cocktail. A bit of this a splash of that and a slice of something else. Which is the real & will be the main objective throughout … "
Yep. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Anything that helps eradicate bad things is good imo
It’s good to prevent birth defects but soon it will be designer babies. A bit like having a cocktail. A bit of this a splash of that and a slice of something else.
Is that a bad thing do you think?
In some cases as it will be the financial elite having a choice and others not. "
Is it much further on from (for example) a woman choosing a man to have a child with based on his looks, intelligence and fitness? Or a man choosing a woman on similar criteria?
Obviously this is a health concern but really it just seems like one step up |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Let’s not lose our minds folks…
Almost all of the reporting I’ve seen on this story has been the worst kind of click-baity, lazy journalism that borders on irresponsible. It’s the sort of shit that irritates me beyond belief, as I work in healthcare and frankly, we’re all overworked enough as it is without having to constantly fight misinformation. So as a PSA, here’s my cliff notes explanation of What Scientists Have Done, and Why This Is Important But Not Scary.
Let’s start at the beginning with what mitochondrial DNA is: It’s not the same as nuclear DNA (I mean the stuff that is found in the nucleus of cells and is classically thought of as making you, well… you). Mitochondria are found in every single cell of the human body, and have a hugely important purpose- cellular respiration-ie turning Oxygen and simple sugars into a form of energy called Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP) that is used to fuel life processes on a cellular level. If this process stops, cellular necrosis occurs; as one cell dies, it starts to damage others, cell death leads to tissue death, tissue death to organ death and that leads to Death Death.
What’s interesting and unique about mitochondria is the fact that they are believed to have come into existence in the very earliest stages of the evolution of single cell life forms when one very simple single cell life form moved into the body of a slightly more complex single cell life form and a symbiotic relationship arose. This acted as the catalyst for the evolution of more complex life, because the proto-mitochondrial lifeform was able to produce so much more energy than it needed and this ‘spare’ energy could be used by the host cell to power ever-increasingly complex processes- which is how we got from an amoeba in a pond to shitty journalists writing bad news articles. Mitochondrial DNA is pretty much the operating manual that tells the mitochondria what to do- wonky instructions will result in a mitochondria that does not produce sufficient energy to drive cellular processes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The only other two things you need to know about mitochondria are:
Firstly, mitochondrial DNA is incredibly stable and not prone to mutation in the way that nuclear DNA is because it does not undergo both mitosis and meiosis during cellular reproduction. Mitosis and meiosis splits chromosomes pairs into random halves, then remakes each halve’s partner by replication- errors can creep in resulting in genetic mutations over time. Mitochondria and the DNA within just replicate by creating what are effectively clones for the sake of this explanation.
Secondly, we only ever inherit our mitochondria from our mothers- although every cell needs mitochondria to provide energy, sperm cells hold all their mitochondria in the base of their tails which are shed as the sperm penetrates the egg- so the resulting zygote only inherits one set of mitochondria from the maternal line.
These facts means it is possible to trace the mitochondrial DNA of every human alive today all the way back to a single female ancestor known as Mitochondrial Eve. I don’t know about you, but I think this is incredible. Unfortunately, they also mean that on the incredibly rare occasion an embryo is unfortunate enough to be gifted mitochondria equipped with wonky DNA, they will go on to develop a number of incredibly rare conditions such as Leigh Syndrome and likely have a significantly reduced lifespan, or even fail to reach full-term.
Let’s get back to the mythbusting though, rather than us all panicking that scientists are somehow creating thruple-parented children by buggering around with nuclear DNA. The technique that is being reported on is not new, the first successful case actually occurred in 2016, the only reason it’s in the news this week, is it’s the first time it’s been carried out in the UK, that’s all. (if you want to read more there’s a good article about the original case in New Scientist magazine, but I can’t post a link here because Rules). What they have done is not any sort of gene-splicing, they’ve not even touched the important mitochondrial DNA directly. They’ve simply transplanted healthy, functioning mitochondria from a third person into the cells of a very early stage embryo, replacing enough of the known faulty mitochondria that the resulting infant is born free from a horrifically life-limiting condition, but will still have only nuclear DNA from the actual parents. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Technically, Yes- this has resulted in the child containing DNA from 3 people, but that’s exactly what happens to anybody who has an organ transplant- however in this case, the “foreign” DNA is found in tiny quantities in every cell in the body, rather than being every piece of DNA in a single organ, and none of it is in anyway going to change any of the usual heritable traits that give us our familial resemblance to our parents- it’s simply not that sort of DNA- Mitochondrial DNA just does the boring stuff like keeping us alive. Tt doesn’t give us blue eyes like our mum, a big nose like granddad or that embarrassing birthmark shaped like a cock and balls that your weird cousin Jeff has. Actually, the process is analogous with a lung transplant in many ways, just at opposite ends of the biological micro- to macro- scales as well as the opposite ends of the process of respiration.
If you’re concerned that the same technique could be used to create designer babies, it can’t and it won’t- wrong type of DNA, remember? Also this is a dumb thing to worry about with actual gene editing anyway- gene editing is used to correct dangerous mutations of nuclear DNA, yes- but it’s actually safer than the way we breed new strains of crops or create new designer dogs by just letting nature roll the dice and see what random genetics get thrown up, because gene editing can literally target the exact gene that needs switching on or off in order to make a crop more drought resistant or less prone to pests. Also, unlike all those backyard breeders, scientists are subject to an incredibly tight regulatory process, and have to convince an ethics committee that they aren’t doing anything dodgy before they’re even allowed to start asking for the funding to do it- honest.
There’s plenty of things to get angry/worried/frightened by in the world, but I promise, this bit of new science that isn’t actually that new anyway is not one of them. So on that cheerful note, let’s all go back to Fabbing pictures and talking nonsense…did anybody else see Mel Geidroyc wanking off a bucket the other day, or was I having a bad acid trip?! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hagTonight OP Man
over a year ago
From the land of haribos. |
"I was listening to something about this on Friday.
We seem to develop techniques first and worry about the ethics afterwards. I don't know where it will lead. Either a dystopian future with a race of wealthy super beings being serviced by impoverished 'normal' humans, a world free of awful genetically transmitted disease or something in between. I do know if mitochondrial disease was likely to affect any of my children I'd jump at the chance of this."
Yes, we seem to do that, apparently this also seems to be a new a ground breaking ivf procedure |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
