Three-person babies

Sprungli · February 03, 2015, 03:05:06 PM

MPs say yes to three-person babies
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31069173

Well, this is certainly going to become one of the biggest medical and ethical talking points in years to come. On one hand i'm glad that such a technique exists to improve people's lives and give happiness to those that without this would perhaps never be truly happy. But on the other hand I can't help but see a slightly darker side in the fact that we are picking and choosing parts of people that we want, going against the most basic and natural thing for any animal-breeding.

How long is it until this type of selection of desirable parts extends to extremes? There's a very real chance that one day it'll be a lot more than 0.1%, it just seems as though this may one day present an entirely new way to control the population's attributes or makeup-something some nations (such as Singapore) already do vigorously.

More Than Mortal · February 03, 2015, 03:06:23 PM

Do chimeras have significant health problems?

Cheat · February 03, 2015, 03:08:51 PM

Reminds me of Gattaca. I can see the artificial method (of picking and choosing traits) to eventually be the go-to method for having a kid once we can weed out the disadvantageous stuff.

Mr. Psychologist · February 03, 2015, 03:09:15 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 03, 2015, 03:06:23 PM

Do chimeras have significant health problems?

One would hope not, given how the entire point of this is to avoid a serious health problem <.<
It would be quite self-defeating if they did >.>

gats · February 03, 2015, 03:17:19 PM

I hate how it's called 'three-person babies' it implies the babies inherit 46 chromosomes from 3 different people which isn't the case at all.

The baby inherits 46 chromosomes from the 2 original parents, the only thing that is planted from the third parents is mitochondria. Other than mitochondria it has no relation to the third parent. Look at this.

Spoiler

Turkey · February 03, 2015, 03:18:59 PM

Quote

I can't help but see a slightly darker side in the fact that we are picking and choosing parts of people that we want, going against the most basic and natural thing for any animal-breeding.

We do this with plants and animals, and evolution does it at a slower rate. If anything, being able to selectively breed beneficial traits is a milestone in evolution.

Sprungli · February 03, 2015, 03:59:31 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 03, 2015, 03:18:59 PM

Quote
I can't help but see a slightly darker side in the fact that we are picking and choosing parts of people that we want, going against the most basic and natural thing for any animal-breeding.

We do this with plants and animals, and evolution does it at a slower rate. If anything, being able to selectively breed beneficial traits is a milestone in evolution.

And the tactic has rendered many species of plants unused, shunned. Your point is perhaps even darker, if the same could possibly happen to people

Sprungli · February 03, 2015, 04:02:09 PM

Quote from: goootsby on February 03, 2015, 03:17:19 PM

I hate how it's called 'three-person babies' it implies the babies inherit 46 chromosomes from 3 different people which isn't the case at all.

The baby inherits 46 chromosomes from the 2 original parents, the only thing that is planted from the third parents is mitochondria. Other than mitochondria it has no relation to the third parent. Look at this.

Spoiler

1. Broken link

2. I know, but they are three-person babies as in they have genetic material inherited from 3 people, 0.1% of the DNA is not their parent's. To simply dismiss different mitochondrial DNA as unimportant is stupid really, and until you come up with a superior description 'three-people babies' will have to do

gats · February 03, 2015, 04:10:36 PM

Quote from: Sprungli on February 03, 2015, 04:02:09 PM

Quote from: goootsby on February 03, 2015, 03:17:19 PM
I hate how it's called 'three-person babies' it implies the babies inherit 46 chromosomes from 3 different people which isn't the case at all.

The baby inherits 46 chromosomes from the 2 original parents, the only thing that is planted from the third parents is mitochondria. Other than mitochondria it has no relation to the third parent. Look at this.

Spoiler

1. Broken link

2. I know, but they are three-person babies as in they have genetic material inherited from 3 people, 0.1% of the DNA is not their parent's. To simply dismiss different mitochondrial DNA as unimportant is stupid really, and until you come up with a superior description 'three-people babies' will have to do

1. Go here to see the picture then, it explains the procedure with pretty little pictures to help you understand http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/feb/02/three-parent-babies-explained

2. Okay but it's still not correct and very misleading.

Turkey · February 03, 2015, 04:33:36 PM

Quote from: Sprungli on February 03, 2015, 03:59:31 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 03, 2015, 03:18:59 PM
Quote
I can't help but see a slightly darker side in the fact that we are picking and choosing parts of people that we want, going against the most basic and natural thing for any animal-breeding.

We do this with plants and animals, and evolution does it at a slower rate. If anything, being able to selectively breed beneficial traits is a milestone in evolution.
And the tactic has rendered many species of plants unused, shunned.

What?

Sprungli · February 03, 2015, 04:47:13 PM

Quote from: goootsby on February 03, 2015, 04:10:36 PM

Quote from: Sprungli on February 03, 2015, 04:02:09 PM

Quote from: goootsby on February 03, 2015, 03:17:19 PM
I hate how it's called 'three-person babies' it implies the babies inherit 46 chromosomes from 3 different people which isn't the case at all.

The baby inherits 46 chromosomes from the 2 original parents, the only thing that is planted from the third parents is mitochondria. Other than mitochondria it has no relation to the third parent. Look at this.

Spoiler

1. Broken link

2. I know, but they are three-person babies as in they have genetic material inherited from 3 people, 0.1% of the DNA is not their parent's. To simply dismiss different mitochondrial DNA as unimportant is stupid really, and until you come up with a superior description 'three-people babies' will have to do
1. Go here to see the picture then, it explains the procedure with pretty little pictures to help you understand http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/feb/02/three-parent-babies-explained

2. Okay but it's still not correct and very misleading.

There is a major difference between "three parent" and "three person", I would never say 'three-parent' is in any way accurate. 'Three person' is though, as the child would contain DNA from 3 different people. The earlier point you made about chromosomes is 100% correct of course, and the reason 'three-parent' would be wholly inaccurate. But remember "They have their own set of 37 genes which are separate from the 20,000 or so genes that shape who we are.", that is the key part that makes the 'three person' tag correct.

Sprungli · February 03, 2015, 04:51:51 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 03, 2015, 04:33:36 PM

Quote from: Sprungli on February 03, 2015, 03:59:31 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 03, 2015, 03:18:59 PM
Quote
I can't help but see a slightly darker side in the fact that we are picking and choosing parts of people that we want, going against the most basic and natural thing for any animal-breeding.

We do this with plants and animals, and evolution does it at a slower rate. If anything, being able to selectively breed beneficial traits is a milestone in evolution.
And the tactic has rendered many species of plants unused, shunned.

What?

Many species of plant just are not grown any more because selective breeding has made them undesirable, such as purple and white carrots having been replaced by orange carrots via selective breeding. What I was saying is that if the concept were to be applied to humans it would be a little dark

Super Irish · February 03, 2015, 05:13:46 PM

I agree with gootsby that it's misleading - sure, it has attributes from a 3rd party, but it is the basic blocks so that the child can survive.

It'll hardly change a child with white parents black if the mitochndria is from a black person, nor any mental state-change either.

Regardless of what they call it though, this is good news. One less problem to worry about.

Turkey · February 03, 2015, 08:33:15 PM

Quote from: Sprungli on February 03, 2015, 04:51:51 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 03, 2015, 04:33:36 PM
Quote from: Sprungli on February 03, 2015, 03:59:31 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 03, 2015, 03:18:59 PM
Quote
I can't help but see a slightly darker side in the fact that we are picking and choosing parts of people that we want, going against the most basic and natural thing for any animal-breeding.

We do this with plants and animals, and evolution does it at a slower rate. If anything, being able to selectively breed beneficial traits is a milestone in evolution.
And the tactic has rendered many species of plants unused, shunned.

What?
Many species of plant just are not grown any more because selective breeding has made them undesirable, such as purple and white carrots having been replaced by orange carrots via selective breeding. What I was saying is that if the concept were to be applied to humans it would be a little dark

We're talking about the ability to prevent cognitive disorders and congenital diseases, to anticipate and stop birth defects, not to mention the possibility of eradicating allergies and select for higher disease immunity.

Sprungli · February 04, 2015, 12:07:45 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 03, 2015, 08:33:15 PM

Quote from: Sprungli on February 03, 2015, 04:51:51 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 03, 2015, 04:33:36 PM
Quote from: Sprungli on February 03, 2015, 03:59:31 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 03, 2015, 03:18:59 PM
Quote
I can't help but see a slightly darker side in the fact that we are picking and choosing parts of people that we want, going against the most basic and natural thing for any animal-breeding.

We do this with plants and animals, and evolution does it at a slower rate. If anything, being able to selectively breed beneficial traits is a milestone in evolution.
And the tactic has rendered many species of plants unused, shunned.

What?
Many species of plant just are not grown any more because selective breeding has made them undesirable, such as purple and white carrots having been replaced by orange carrots via selective breeding. What I was saying is that if the concept were to be applied to humans it would be a little dark

We're talking about the ability to prevent cognitive disorders and congenital diseases, to anticipate and stop birth defects, not to mention the possibility of eradicating allergies and select for higher disease immunity.

Yes, I know. Do you even understand why they selectively breed plants and the consequences of it?

Turkey · February 04, 2015, 05:42:35 PM

Quote from: Sprungli on February 04, 2015, 12:07:45 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 03, 2015, 08:33:15 PM
Quote from: Sprungli on February 03, 2015, 04:51:51 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 03, 2015, 04:33:36 PM
Quote from: Sprungli on February 03, 2015, 03:59:31 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 03, 2015, 03:18:59 PM
Quote
I can't help but see a slightly darker side in the fact that we are picking and choosing parts of people that we want, going against the most basic and natural thing for any animal-breeding.

We do this with plants and animals, and evolution does it at a slower rate. If anything, being able to selectively breed beneficial traits is a milestone in evolution.
And the tactic has rendered many species of plants unused, shunned.

What?
Many species of plant just are not grown any more because selective breeding has made them undesirable, such as purple and white carrots having been replaced by orange carrots via selective breeding. What I was saying is that if the concept were to be applied to humans it would be a little dark

We're talking about the ability to prevent cognitive disorders and congenital diseases, to anticipate and stop birth defects, not to mention the possibility of eradicating allergies and select for higher disease immunity.
Yes, I know. Do you even understand why they selectively breed plants and the consequences of it?

Yes, for the plant-equivalent of what I said above. You make it sound like kids without genetically-chosen traits like lack of allergies or disease resistance will be shunned by society, which is ridiculous. Just because that shit happens in Gattaca doesn't mean it reflects reality. People with Down's Syndrome or other defects are already societal outcasts; shouldn't minimizing the prominence of those traits be a venerable cause?