The ethical and practical implications of creating three-parent embryos – a scientific Rubicon too far. By Fiona Bruce MP
On the face of it, curtailing mitochondrial disease through cell replacement sounds wonderful. Mitochondrial disorders give rise to very serious diseases, and the challenge of living with these conditions must not be downplayed or exploited by either side of the debate
But the possible benefits of these procedures must be weighted against the ethical consequences of permitting them. What these procedures entail – “Mitochondrial Transfer” involves removing some cells from one woman’s egg and transplanting them to another (akin to the procedure which would be used for ‘designer babies’). The more I learn, the more I am convinced that this is a line we should not cross. Here are just some of the concerns put to me:
· These techniques create children with at least 3 genetic parents in the case of Maternal Spindle Transfer or 4 in the case of Pro Nuclear Transfer. By using the core cellular material of three or four people, the resulting embryo therefore has three or four parents. Those wondering about the ethics of this need only ask themselves a few questions to make clear some attendant identity related issues. Will the child be able to ask questions about or contact their third or fourth parent? I cannot see any logical reason why they ought to be refused such a request. And what steps will be taken to afford the child the right to know who its parents are? Notwithstanding those queries, what is the precise relation of the child to its commissioning parents? The public deserve to know. Yet all these are unanswered questions.
· Full scale human genetic modification could follow. Mitochondrial DNA only accounts for 0.1percent of our total DNA at this stage in life – a fact that is often cited by supporters of this research. But many argue that there is no reason in principle for objection to a greater percentage of DNA modification once this threshold is conceded. A Rubicon will have been crossed. The very significant ethical and technological barriers which have restricted these procedures to date are in place for very good reasons.
· We don’t actually know if these techniques work. In fact, there is a growing body of speculative evidence which suggests the contrary; they may actually pose risks to the child. Science Magazine ran a piece recently suggesting these treatments could cause sterility, and lead to reduced growth, impaired learning and exercise capacity and even a slowed metabolism on the basis that we don’t know if the donor mitochondria will be able to properly communicate with its host. The group Human Genetics Alert agrees: “These techniques go far beyond anything existing in both invasiveness to the embryo and complexity so it’s not surprising that they pose serious health risks to the child, risks that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority refuses to properly address.”
· We won’t be able to monitor the effects of these procedures. We will only know the long term effects of MST and PNT in the long-term if we monitor the people who began as PNT or MST embryos and their descendents. But there will be no way to force individuals to participate in such research – nor should there be. Equally, it is surely not the plan of the Government to require MST or PNT adults to disclose to their partners their genetic inheritance (assuming that they are even aware), so the fruits of these techniques – good or bad – may well be totally unknown.
· These techniques involve irreversible changes to the human germ line, that is, the way genetic information is transmitted through generations. The Council of Europe’s Convention of Human Rights and Biomedicene explicitly condemns this as does the World Health Organisation which states fairly comprehensively that “ where there is an intention of possibility of altering genes passed on to the next generation [this] should not be permitted in the foreseeable future”. It is truly alarming that Britain is the only country in the world on the cusp of permitting these procedures –and with so little scrutiny or awareness of debate. I understand that to undertake these procedures in France would mean committing an imprisonable criminal offence.
· These techniques are not cures. The pro-research lobby is promoting these procedures as cures, but, they’re not cures at all. Rather than eliminate disease, they make sure that only certain kinds of persons come into existence. After one of the techniques – Pro Nuclear Transfer (PNT) – the child resulting is not the same human individual as the one originally. The other technique, Maternal Spindle Transfer (MST), uses genetic manipulation to create an individual purportedly free of known mitochondrial defects – but with what consequences?
These objections give a flavour of what we’re facing here: untested, unproven, ethically controversial, potentially dangerous techniques which we wouldn’t even be able to monitor. Yet the Government seems to be promoting these unsound proposals on the premise that they would establish Britain as a leader of scientific research in this area. Permitting these techniques would represent such a fundamental shift in our concept of family that Parliament should be given greater opportunity to debate – and resist –them.
