Well this is one where personal opinion is quite a big factor. It is quite a new technique and I think there is still a way to go in knowing all the issues.
In some ways its not different to a organ donation, and this is right on the edge of what I know as I am not a biologist. As it is the mitochondrial DNA this is not changing the nucleus so does not impact on the characturistics of the child other than preventing mitochondrial disease.
But I do think that there are limits on how much fiddling should be done to prevent disease. I feel this is a little too far but this is a bit of a gut feeling.
Yes. And I disagree to some extent with Dave about this being about personal opinion, I think this one is a black and white answer.
The current proposal is to replace the mitochondria in the egg cells of the mother (or more precisely purge the nuclear DNA from a healthy egg cell and replace it with the mother’s nuclear DNA). Mitochondria are the power-stations of our cells and they carry their own DNA, if this DNA carries bad mutations it can cause very bad and life-limiting diseases. Because all of your mitochondria come from your mother we can know these days beforehand if a child is going to suffer very harmful effects on their health. If we can prevent this, I think we should.
I don’t think the donor of the healthy cell should retain any parental rights; they will not be responsible (usually) for bringing up the child.
Uao guys, you definitely know much more about mitochondrial DNA than me.
My point of view is quite simple… if such a technique helps to prevent diseases on the newborn why should we not use it? Science can make our lives better and that is one of the ways it does.
Comments