UK to allow babies from three people • Hacker News Board

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#141

Post by tosseraccount » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 8:13 PM UTC

Cogito wrote: post #9

To those wondering, this does not involve gene splicing or anything like that. Instead, defective mitochondria are being replaced with mitochondria from a healthy donor. This technique is only valid for diseases involving defective mitochondria. The mitochondrial DNA is responsible for very very little of the genetic material that defines who a person is, essentially limited to how effective the mitochondria are at t…

"This is around 0.1% of the total genetic code."

More like 13% ... check my math ...

Most chromosomes have 2 copies per cell.

However ... there are many copies of the mitochondria : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mitochondrial_genetics#Qu... Each human cell contains approximately 100 mitochondria, giving a total number of mtDNA molecules per human cell of approximately 500.

Mitochondira make about 15% of then genetic material in a human cell.

total chr1-22+X/Y ~= 6,200,000,000 (6.2 billion, sizeof genome = 3.1B times 2) sizeof one mitochondira : 16569

so ((100)(50016569))/6200000000 = .13362096774193548387

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#142

Post by M2Ys4U » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 8:26 PM UTC

task_queue wrote: post #129

Fuxy wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with "designer babies". I think it would be cool if you could clean up your DNA removing all the nasty genetic diseases you could pass on to your children. I wouldn't really change the appearance of my child though. Plus I would keep most of the original genetic material just fix the bits that are detrimental to a long and healthy life.

Congratulations, you were born with Monsanto mDNA Correction! Due to intellectual property restrictions, you must attain a license to activate your reproductive system and pass on our genetic code.

I wish people wouldn't conflate those promoting GMOs with copyright/patent maximialists - the two issues are orthogonal.

Monsanto are an awful company, and a very large part of that is down to their maximalism, rather than the GMO part.

Continuing to conflate the two issues just does one's own argument a disservice (it's a strawman) while also reinforcing the maximalists' position that GMOs have to be patentable.

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#143

Post by M2Ys4U » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 8:32 PM UTC

andygates wrote: post #121

recibe wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. This procedure is likely to be inaccessible to the general public without subsidy via insurance (public or private). My argument is that one's ability to reproduce should not be guaranteed by the state, and therefore the state should not create laws that overtly or inadvertently sanction the genetic engineering of eggs or embryos to that end. This law does precisely that.

This is the UK, once legal it will become available if the appropriate committees think the funding is well spent.

Namely the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE).

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#144

Post by Dylan16807 » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 8:41 PM UTC

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #88

Dylan16807 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But no DNA is being modified.

Technically you are correct, no DNA is being modified. However, the mix of genetic material is being altered.

Not really. Nobody calls it genetic modification when you change your gut flora.

No genome has changed at all.

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#145

Post by M2Ys4U » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 8:55 PM UTC

stefantalpalaru wrote: post #5

What are the legal rights of the parent who contributed only her mitochondrial DNA?

As I understand it they have the same rights as an organ or blood donor - none.

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#146

Post by M2Ys4U » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 8:57 PM UTC

e0m wrote: post #43

One could have a Mom, Dad, and ???

Another mother. The nucleus from the "true" mother is transplanted into a healthy donor egg (or embryo) that has had its nucleus removed but still has its healthy mitochondria.

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#147

Post by recibe » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 10:31 PM UTC

one-more-minute wrote: post #114

recibe wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. This procedure is likely to be inaccessible to the general public without subsidy via insurance (public or private). My argument is that one's ability to reproduce should not be guaranteed by the state, and therefore the state should not create laws that overtly or inadvertently sanction the genetic engineering of eggs or embryos to that end. This law does precisely that.

> one's ability to reproduce should not be guaranteed by the state, and therefore the state should not create laws that overtly or inadvertently sanction ... Ok, but even taking the first part of that as given I don't understand why the second part follows. I don't think one's ability to go on holiday should be guaranteed by the state, either, but that doesn't mean plane travel should be illegal.

From the article:

"The method, which was developed in Newcastle, should help women like Sharon Bernardi, from Sunderland, who lost all seven of her children to mitochondrial disease."

Reasoning:

Sharon Bernardi hasn't been able to reproduce naturally without this "method".

But the UK is going to make this method legal - and because its healthcare system is publicly funded the UK government (and thus the public) will also pay for the implementation of the method.

This represents an example where the state is making a guarantee - a formal promise or assurance - that it will pay for citizens that normally couldn't have children to be able to have them.

From the article:

Prime Minister David Cameron said: "We're not playing god here, we're just making sure that two parents who want a healthy baby can have one."

What's not logical about that?

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#148

Post by recibe » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 11:11 PM UTC

Houshalter wrote: post #133

recibe wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. This procedure is likely to be inaccessible to the general public without subsidy via insurance (public or private). My argument is that one's ability to reproduce should not be guaranteed by the state, and therefore the state should not create laws that overtly or inadvertently sanction the genetic engineering of eggs or embryos to that end. This law does precisely that.

So condemning some children to horrible genetic diseases somehow makes the world more fair?

That's both flimsy and a perversion of my logic, which is a direct rebuttal of the logic of the article itself.

The article gives an example of a woman who tried 7 times to have children and failed because she is genetically defective in terms of her ability to have children.

The government, however, has made special allowances to a 1990 law prohibiting egg and embryonic re-engineering so that this woman can.

The Prime Minister's stated rationale: "We're not playing god here, we're just making sure that two parents who want a healthy baby can have one."

So clearly - the state is paying for people who can't have children to be able to have them - under the pretense that doing so is beneficial to society.

To be able to select this procedure, the prospective mother must already know about her condition. If she knows about her condition, she should be educated to abstain from having children instead of receiving public funds to have her defective DNA altered to facilitate the process of reproduction.

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#149

Post by recibe » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 11:14 PM UTC

damon_c wrote: post #22

manicdee wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting there are no limits to growth? No limits to available fresh water supplies? No limits to energy production? Once you run you of fresh water and have to rely on nuclear power to run the desalination plants to keep people watered, you have three major problems.

The growth rate is slowing. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growthrate

Great source.

The growth rate is slowing as the population is increasing.

Stop a moment to consider how that observation is irrelevant.

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#150

Post by recibe » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 11:16 PM UTC

Houshalter wrote: post #136

3d8995163 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the kids whose parents couldn't afford to have them genetically improved? They just exist as some sort of permanent underclass? If you think the inequality and the way poor people get treated is a problem now, wait until rich people are actually genetically superior to the poor.

This is zero-sum thinking. The un-genetically modified kids are no worse off than they would have otherwise been. Second we could easily solve it by making it available to everyone. Third, the world is hardly genetically fair as it is. People are born with all sorts of horrible genetic conditions every day. If anything this will make the world more fair.

Just because you perceive something makes the world "more fair" doesn't mean it should EVER be implemented exclusively on that basis.