The creation of babies made from two women and one man has been
approved by the UK’s fertility regulator, prompting condemnation from
pro-life campaign groups.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority announced its
endorsement of the new procedure yesterday. It is supposed to prevent
babies being born with genetic disorders such as mitochondrial diseases.
The genetic diseases are inherited from the mother only, so the new
technique uses a donor egg as well as the mother’s egg and father’s
sperm in order to ensure the disease is not passed on to the baby.
The first such child could be born, at the earliest, by the end of 2017.
Bioethicist Dr Anthony McCarthy, of SPUC, said the decision was
reckless and would do nothing to help those who are already suffering
with the disease. He said: “It comes as little surprise that the HFEA
has approved the creation of ‘three-parent’ embryos given their track
record of undermining respect for the human embryo and the integrity of
human reproduction. The two techniques which the HFEA has decided to
permit are not curative of mitochondrial diseases and in no way help
those who already have them.
“One technique, Pronuclear Transfer, destroys two human embryos by
removing the nuclear material from an embryo with faulty mitochondria,
whose life is ended, and creating a new embryo by placing this nuclear
material into the shell of a second embryo who is also destroyed,” Dr
McCarthy continued. “The fact that there are now calls in Newcastle for
egg donors – in practice, to produce healthy embryos solely for spare
parts – tells us much about attitudes to women used to produce embryos
this way, and harms and endangers us all.”
“The other technique, Maternal Spindle Transfer, uses a donor egg
which is enucleated and then given the nucleus from the egg of the woman
with the mitochondrial condition, such that when the egg is fertilised
an embryo is formed, it is hoped free from disease (this embryo has
‘three parents’ as the donor egg is from a mother who makes a genetic
contribution to the embryo). “While no embryos need be destroyed in the
technique itself, the new life has come to be through a production
process which fragments maternity and will in practice be subject to
quality-control.”
Dr McCarthy concluded: “Finally, it is worth noting that there are
very serious safety concerns about these techniques, which may well pass
on new genetic problems to future generations. Such concerns have been
raised many times by authoritative voices in the scientific community
and elsewhere. The HFEA, as well as undermining respect for human life
and reproduction, continues to show a reckless attitude to the safety of
the society it is supposed to serve.”
Life Spokesman Mark Bhagwandin said there was still danger and
uncertainty surrounding the treatment. He said: “Despite the thousands
of people who have written to the HFEA and sounded alarm bells, it has
decided to approve a procedure which will alter the human genome. The
HFEA says it is a cautious decision. However this genetic modification
of human beings, is very uncertain and potentially dangerous. There is
nothing cautious about the HFEA ruling.
“It is at the very least reckless and irresponsible given that we
have absolutely no idea what the long term consequences are to us
interfering with the human genome. Just a few months ago one study on
mice showed that this therapy could influence metabolism and ageing.
“It has also already been acknowledged by scientists that there is a
risk of the original“defective mitochondria” still entering the modified
embryo. The therapy, only trialled in animals so far, could therefore
fail. Whilst we are deeply sympathetic to the plight of people with
mitochondrial related diseases, the ends does not always justify the
means. We would encourage and support greater investigation and research
into ethical remedies which do not seek to genetically modify human
beings.”