In a recent scientific breakthrough at Newcastle University, doctors have found a way to replace faulty DNA inherited through the female line with DNA from another healthy woman. So does this mean a child conceived that way has two mums?
Mitochondrial cells convert the energy from our food into energy that can be used in the body. They also carry inheritable female DNA. Mutations in the mother’s mitochondria can result in a range of serious diseases in her children, including muscular dystrophy, hearing or sight loss.
Based on IVF, the technique is yet to be fully tested and embryos have never been implanted into a woman, so it is still possible the theory may fail. If it succeeds, the child would have less than 1% of its genetic inheritance from the egg donor, just the new ‘batteries’ that give instructions to the child’s cells on how to produce energy. Every other trait, all the things that we normally consider meaningful about genetic relationships such as physical appearance and abilities, comes from the genes of the two parents. But given it allows the child to be born healthy, it’s a significant contribution to their personal history.
Is 1% enough to count? We know some donor-conceived people care a great deal about who their donor is, but that’s a much closer biological relationship. In a world where tracing your ancestors is a common hobby and there are thousands of members of sites like 23andme.com who are interested in their distant cousins, it is not impossible that some people would wish to follow this up.
1 comment
No ping yet
Stephen Swaine says:
February 6, 2012 at 12:00 pm (UTC 0)
In a society where religious influence has tried to hold back the tide of stem cell research, it is reassuring that despite the irrational fears, the scientific advancement in rectifying genetic defects still marches on. I am pleased to see there is so much more potentially, positive and creative steps forward that will improve lives, benefit society and help to eradicate our inherited ailments.
Of course there will be the anti-science Luddites , who decry the progress as a modern eugenics, echoes of Nazi Germany and GM children, acting against “the Creator’s will”. My answer would be to “get over yourself”. Recognise the benefits to these effected lives, society and right down to the health systems very infrastructure.
It is not wrong to work against and rectify the natural aberrations breeding and inbreeding our homo sapiens have created. The 1% supplier is an extremely important player in the process of halting the discomfort and disability the beneficiary would otherwise have to suffer for life. If medicine can do this, it is not acting as God, but actually preventing possible illness, disability and creating the possibility of a more “normal” life. If we are “made in His image”, then why not improve the quality of life of the child. The donor should be celebrated, in our society as a honoured family member. Truly a God Parent in a very modern sense.
An equally valued and qualified by their assistance, part of the family tree. Even if only a 1% donor- a donor who has changed the lives of the subsequent offspring and family line.
Porphyria was bred out of the broader royal line, as was haemophilia. The above treatment is a contemporary answer to the same genetic management that eradicated the the ailments that beset the royal family.
I have no doubts about the new modern treatment, and embrace it’s positive advancements. But my only worry is that amongst areas of society, where the culture of inbreeding within a small family gene pool is prevalent, then resources maybe over exhausted by the needs of these few, rather than the socially general view of the many benefactors. This is already a problem causing complications in many inner city areas, and a burden on the local health authorities budgets.
There are many ethical, moral and political layers to this question, but in my view the 1% “God Parent” represents a 100% bonus/ benefit to the future offspring and as such is a family member as any other.