Posted on 08/27/2009 4:39:31 PM PDT by wagglebee
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The latest news from the world of genetic manipulation comes from scientists who are conducting research on monkeys that they say could lead to the birth of a human being with three parents in order to eliminate the possibility of inheriting and genes that could cause certain diseases or conditions.
Genetic engineering has long caused problems for pro-life advocates and bioethicists because of the manipulation involved and research that destroys human life in order to create a so-called perfect human race.
It also leads, they say, to a society which devalues the disabled and the physically and mentally disabled.
Despite the concerns, Shoukhrat Mitalipov, of the Oregon National Primate Research Centre, has moved forward with experiments in monkeys. His team created a technique that led to the birth of four healthy macaque monkeys.
The research involved the transplantation of genetic material in the DNA of one monkey into the egg of another to correct genetic defects that damage health.
The success of the technique, germline genetic engineering, could mean that it could be used in women in a matter of years to allow them to avoid passing along so-called harmful genes to their unborn children.
However, the technique makes it so the children it creates would inherit genetic material from three parents. The unborn baby's mother and father would contribute most of their child’s DNA but a small amount would come from a second woman donating healthy mitochondria, where defects can cause issues for one out of ever 6,500 people.
“The only way to treat these defects is to replace the genes,” Mitalipov told the London Daily mail newspaper.
“This is gene transfer involving the germline, which is a concern, but we are pursuing it not for general use but for patients with mutations they will pass to the next generation. We believe this technology will prevent that," he said.
His team published their findings in the journal Nature, where they modified eggs containing chromosomes from one female monkey and mitochondria from another and fertilized them using sperm. The resulting embryos were transferred to the wombs of surrogate mothers.
The first monkeys to be born were twins called Mito and Tracker, after a dye called MitoTracker used in the experiments. Two more monkeys were born after later experiments.
Tests showed that none of the monkeys had any trace of mitochondrial DNA from the mother that provided their nuclear DNA, suggesting that the process was successful.
“We consider it a big achievement,” Dr Mitalipov said. “Anything we study and achieve in non-human primates can be translated much more easily to humans.”
He told the Daily Mail that his would apply to the FDA for permission to try the technique with human eggs. Such research would have to wait for a few years for the longer-term results of the study involving the monkeys to produce enough data about their health.
Yep, it would certainly be more difficult than just having a mitochondrial donor, but either way - I think the “three parent” thing is overstated.
Definitely WAY overstated.
>> Do you even know what mitochondrial DNA is? Or what mitochondria are, for that matter?
As a matter of fact, I do.
I guess you had some point to make with your comment, but darned if I can tell what it is.
I was with you up until this statement. I refer you to the movie "Idiocracy."
Additionally you should consider that because of cosmetic improvements and enhancements to adults, children are becoming uglier each year upon year.
The potential parents can't see what disgusting genetic traits are hidden by a Surgeon's skill.
Yes, and these pin-heads thought they were so clever at genetically engineering corn several years ago, until several hundred pets and puppies died from eating it!
Do you even know what mitochondrial DNA is? Or what mitochondria are, for that matter?
As a matter of fact, I do.
I guess you had some point to make with your comment, but darned if I can tell what it is.
Most hs & college bio covers this.
Could ask dr. bushwon for further info as he has studied extensively, I’m guessing would be nervous over ramifications of some of this
My FRiend, GOD gave us free will - we as a society have chose to do disturbing things with that free will, and on His timetable will he alter our behavior. I sorrow for the uncaring and unknowing of us who do not understand His will.
I have no links, but the local news in Columbus Ohio reported that the dog food company,Diamond had to pull thousands of bags of dog food off the market, because the genetically engineered corn they had used to produce the dog food was shown to be the cause of hundreds of deaths across the US. Specifically in this area, they interviewed a Lab breeder who had lost an entire litter of puppies to the problem, before anyone figured out what was going on. (IIRC the timing was late 2005, early 2006-before the rat poison in the rice incident.)
I was feeding Diamond to my two Great Danes at the time, and believe me, they were on another food the next day!
This little “problem” almost destroyed that company, and I know of at least two breeders who will NEVER touch the brand again.
What does that have to do with my comment?
Thank you for saying that. As the mother of a child with a genetic condition, I think that this would be a miracle. I’d be very happy if we could really cure these diseases.
I empathize with your desire to keep government out of this business all together. I don’t know if this is where government should be meddling either — but I do believe that it is rational for government to meddle in things that promote the common good at some level, even at the expense of some degree of freedom.
I disagree with your suggestion that the items in paragraph one are “genetic manipulation”, or in any way comparable to medical gene manipulation.
TO use an example a bit outside my field, Catholics believe it is OK to practice birth control, if you do so by not having sex, and MOST believe it is OK to have sex at times when it is unlikely they will get pregnant, but it is immoral to use a condom or other methods to block sperm.
Moreso, while it may well be that someone is picking partners to influence their babies, I don’t think the practice is thought of positively, nor do I think most people pick their mate with that in mind. And, while it isn’t logical, there is still a random factor which makes it like you aren’t really “choosing”, even if you are changing the odds.
So I do think we need to prohibit certain genetic manipulations, because it is bad for the common good to manufacture “better humans”. But the line isn’t clear to me between using medical techniques to help a person live a better life (which seems “good” to me) and using medical techniques to create a better class of humans (which seems “bad” to me).
I would imagine a person who wasn’t so “religious” would not find it so bad for humans to create better humans; maybe people who don’t believe in Creation also would find it easier to support humans creating new humans (I know that sounds odd, people who don’t believe we were created being happier about creating a better humanity than people who think God created us). (I’m NOT trying to put you in either of these categories, you are free to do so if you like but this is just a GENERAL OBSERVATION)
I can't wait for the government to force all people having children to use this process exclusively.....
.....for the children. < /s>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.