This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/mom-dad-donor-britain-debates-rules-for-three-parent-babies/2015/02/03/f23a3262-ab2f-11e4-8876-460b1144cbc1_story.html?wprss=rss_world
The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Mom, dad, donor: Britain moves step closer on rules to allow ‘three-parent’ babies | Mom, dad, donor: Britain moves step closer on rules to allow ‘three-parent’ babies |
| (about 3 hours later) | |
| LONDON — Britain moved a step closer Tuesday to becoming the first country to formally allow so-called “three-parent” babies as lawmakers gave strong backing to a plan for fertility labs to use genetic material from a mother, father and a female donor. | |
| The debate in the House of Commons reflected the deep passions on both sides of the issue: whether to permit in-vitro procedures that seek to avoid passing along inherited and incurable diseases from mitochondrial DNA, which is carried from mother to child. | |
| Supporters say it would offer hope to families who would otherwise risk passing along diseases such as muscular dystrophy to their offspring. But a wide range of critics question the ethics of the proposals, saying it would be another step toward creating “designer babies.” | Supporters say it would offer hope to families who would otherwise risk passing along diseases such as muscular dystrophy to their offspring. But a wide range of critics question the ethics of the proposals, saying it would be another step toward creating “designer babies.” |
| In the end, the proposal passed 382-128 and moved to Parliament’s upper chamber, the House of Lords, which is expected to vote soon on the measure but no date has been set. Commentators say the first “three-parent” baby could be born next year if the changes move ahead. | |
| “This is a bold step for Parliament to take, but it is a considered and informed step,” said Britain’s health minister, Jane Ellison, before the vote. She added: “For many families affected this is, indeed, that light at the end of the dark tunnel.” | |
| Lisa Jardine, the former chair of Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, Britain’s fertility regulator, dismissed safety concerns, telling BBC Radio 4 that “all of those issues have been investigated.” | Lisa Jardine, the former chair of Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, Britain’s fertility regulator, dismissed safety concerns, telling BBC Radio 4 that “all of those issues have been investigated.” |
| “The scientific committees have said there is no evidence this procedure is unsafe but like all good scientists, they say it will require careful progress," she said. | “The scientific committees have said there is no evidence this procedure is unsafe but like all good scientists, they say it will require careful progress," she said. |
| Religious leaders have voiced concerns, warning the government it shouldn’t rush into a decision and that more research needs to be done. | Religious leaders have voiced concerns, warning the government it shouldn’t rush into a decision and that more research needs to be done. |
| “Without a clearer picture of the role mitochondria play in the transfer of hereditary characteristics, the church does not feel it would be responsible to change the law at this time,” Brendan McCarthy, the Church of England’s national adviser on medical ethics recently told the Daily Telegraph. | “Without a clearer picture of the role mitochondria play in the transfer of hereditary characteristics, the church does not feel it would be responsible to change the law at this time,” Brendan McCarthy, the Church of England’s national adviser on medical ethics recently told the Daily Telegraph. |
| If the procedure gets the green light, babies born would have all the key genetic material from their mother and father, and just a small amount of DNA from a donor female, who would remain anonymous. | If the procedure gets the green light, babies born would have all the key genetic material from their mother and father, and just a small amount of DNA from a donor female, who would remain anonymous. |
| The aim is to help the estimated 2,473 women in the U.K. at risk of passing on possibly disease-triggering mitochondria DNA to their children. | The aim is to help the estimated 2,473 women in the U.K. at risk of passing on possibly disease-triggering mitochondria DNA to their children. |
| Mitochondria are tiny structures found inside cells that act like tiny batteries, providing energy to the cell. They also have their own DNA. When they don’t do their job properly, the results can be devastating. Faulty mitochondria have been linked to blindness, deafness, dementia and muscular dystrophy. | Mitochondria are tiny structures found inside cells that act like tiny batteries, providing energy to the cell. They also have their own DNA. When they don’t do their job properly, the results can be devastating. Faulty mitochondria have been linked to blindness, deafness, dementia and muscular dystrophy. |
| The mitochondria’s 37 genes are a small fraction of those in the human genome, and unlike nuclear DNA, mitochondrial DNA does not affect appearance characteristics like hair color. The ban on tinkering with nuclear DNA would still be in place. | The mitochondria’s 37 genes are a small fraction of those in the human genome, and unlike nuclear DNA, mitochondrial DNA does not affect appearance characteristics like hair color. The ban on tinkering with nuclear DNA would still be in place. |
| Still, should the law change, babies could be born with a very small fraction of their DNA from a female donor, about 0.2 percent. Opponents to the proposed legislative change say this could be the beginning of a slippery slope. | Still, should the law change, babies could be born with a very small fraction of their DNA from a female donor, about 0.2 percent. Opponents to the proposed legislative change say this could be the beginning of a slippery slope. |
| A Conservative member of Parliament, Jacob Rees-Mogg, who voted against the measure on Tuesday, told the BBC: "At the moment, there is a very clear boundary that babies cannot be genetically altered, and that once you decided that you can, even for a small number of genes, you have done something very profound and then it's merely a matter of degree as to what you do next." | A Conservative member of Parliament, Jacob Rees-Mogg, who voted against the measure on Tuesday, told the BBC: "At the moment, there is a very clear boundary that babies cannot be genetically altered, and that once you decided that you can, even for a small number of genes, you have done something very profound and then it's merely a matter of degree as to what you do next." |
| The bulk of the scientific community in Britain, however, appeared to welcome the result of the vote and widely interpreted it as clear guidelines on what is acceptable. | |
| “I don’t agree with the slippery slope argument at all,” said professor Alison Murdoch of Newcastle University, which has been at the forefront of mitochondrial research in Britain. “By having a legal framework that says you can do this, but you can’t do the other without criminal sanctions, there is an absolute barrier.” |