Today's news includes a story about the launching of a public consultation over a subject which has been dubbed 'three-person IVF'. This is a laboratory technique which would enable babies to be created in a laboratory using genetic material, DNA, from 3 different people.
According to a woman who was interviewed during the 'Today' programme on radio 4 this morning, all that the public needs to concern itself with is the ethics of the process as the science has already been thoroughly reviewed and found to be what she described as 'safe'. In her interview she refused steadfastly to be drawn on the science and wouldn't even explain why this three-person approach might be needed; presumably she didn't feel that the public either needed to know the 'why?, or that they wouldn't understand it if it was explained or that they would understand it and would decide to reject the idea. To me, it was a studied exercise in trying to manipulate public opinion in order to gain the desired outcome, i.e. a positive result to the consultation.
The woman who was so lacking in candour is currently head of the HFEA, the body which oversees such matters, Professor Lisa Jardine. Astonishingly, Profesor Jardine is not a scientist but a historian who has spent most of her life in academia and, in recent times, has been a member of a whole range of institutions, both public and private; she is a regular contributor in the media also, but despite all of this one has to wonder what are her qualifications for chairing the HFEA and, in particular, for taking such an arrogant stand in respect of this consultation.
The actual reasoning behind this 'three-person IVF' is to eliminate genetic conditions which derive from errors in the mitochondrial DNA of the mother's cells. Basically, an embryo is formed when the sperm from a man enters the egg from a woman, something of which most people will be well aware. The egg is a full cell containing not just a nucleus but also all of the surrounding material which is found in every other cell in a human body while the sperm is little more than a nucleus. Although most of the genetic material which is passed on from parents to their children comes from the nuclear material, a tiny proportion comes from the mitochondria, tiny organelles which are only passed on by the mother. In some rare instances, the genetic material in these organelles can become damaged and give rise to serious illnesses.
The proposed way to prevent such occurrences is to fertilise an egg with sperm in a test tube in a normal IVF procedure but then to remove the nucleus from the fertilised egg and transplant it into a denucleated cell (one from which the nucleus has been removed) obtained from a third party. This third-party cell would then provide the mitochondrial component to the developing baby along with all of the other material from outside of the nucleus. The resulting baby would therefore have its main features and heredity derived from its 'parents' although elements of its cellular structure, including its mitochondrial DNA, would be derived from the third party. One thought that occurs to me, and something which I have not seen mentioned as a possibility, is that the 'third-party' material could, in fact, be derived from the father's cells thus removing the need for an actual third party, though I don't know if this would be a practical solution.
I always become a little cynical, to say the least, when scientific types try to persuade me to accept some new technique but are unhappy about providing a proper explanation of the process or, as in this case, appear to consider that we are not even worthy to be told the facts. We are expected to accept what we are told without debate, simply taking the word of the scientific community and others with a vested interest on trust. As I stated earlier, in this case, the public are being canvassed only for their views on the ethics of the process, the science already having been 'approved'.
To my mind this all sounds a bit like Dr Frankenstein creating his monster, although it may be more scientifically reasonable. Over the centuries, scientists have often claimed something to be true or safe only for later generations to discover some other awful and real truth; antibiotics that no longer work, the dangers of X-Rays and nuclear radiation, the addictive properties of many antidepressant drugs, the supposedly beneficial qualities of smoking tobacco and the dangers of steroids. Thalidomide.
Scientists are not always right, indeed they are probably more often wrong. For the general population to be refused a proper explanation of this proposed new practice is unacceptable. For us simply to be told that the science has been confirmed as being 'safe' is unacceptable; the people who have drawn this conclusion are the very ones who will be using it and profiting from that use should it be approved. Ethically, I simply feel that this would be a step too far in creating manufactured human beings.
Overall, I don't like it and the general public should tell the self-appointed experts to forget it.
