by Carly Andrews
[A sobering 2014 article on alteration of the human gene pool which will have unknown consequences for the human race. Once invoked, how can this be undone? Is this really what we want genetic science to be? ED]
As FDA holds hearing on new controversial fertility technique, Aleteia expert insists it’s a moral no-go.
The
FDA (Food and Drug Administration) is holding a hearing this week in
the US to consider a controversial new IFV technology that would involve
the creation of test-tube babies, using the DNA from 3 separate people. The procedure aims at preventing potentially fatal mitochondrial diseases. [emphasis - DNI]Troublesome cells
Mitochondria are organelles (or tiny power stations) found in every cell of the body except for red blood cells, generating energy for the cell. They are passed from mother to child through her egg.
There are around 5,000 children in the US suffering from the illness. Mitochondrial diseases are often caused by mutations – inherited or acquired – in mitochondrial DNA. The effects can include cerebral developmental delays, muscle weakness, seizures, strokes, dementia, diabetes, blindness, deafness, short stature, respiratory problems and in the worst cases, death.
This latest IVF research has discovered that exchanging the defective mitochondria of the parent egg/embryo with mitochondria from a healthy donor egg/embryo, avoids passing on the disease to the infant.
There are two different methods for mitochondrial repair:
First – intervention by embryo:
1. The sperm fertilises two eggs; one embryo is created using the egg of the parent, and another with the egg of the donor.
2. The nucleus (containing the genetic information) from the donor embryo is removed and destroyed.
3. The nucleus from the parent embryo (which has the unhealthy mitochondria) are removed and the remains destroyed.
4. The parents’ nucleus is inserted into the donor embryo to create a healthy embryo.
Second - intervention by egg:
1. A healthy donor egg and the mother’s egg with defective mitochondria are collected.
2. The donor’s nucleus (containing most of the genetic information) is removed and destroyed.
3. The nucleus from the mother’s egg is removed and the remains destroyed.
4. The mother's nucleus is inserted into the donor’s healthy egg, and it may now be fertilised by sperm.
The consequences
of either of the above procedures mean that the child would have around 20,000
genes from their parents and about 37 mitochondrial genes from a third-party
donor. The genetic inheritance of the infant would be irreversibly
moderated.
Moral
dilemma
Antonio
G. Spagnolo, Director of the Institute of Bioethics, Faculty of Medicine,
at the Università Cattolica del S. Cuore, Rome, has spoken
to Aleteia about the moral implications of this highly
controversial procedure.
“Undoubtedly the efforts of the
researchers in attempting to eliminate pathologies of this type are commendable”
he says. “Unfortunately the manner
in which they proceed to resolve illnesses is very problematic and numerous
moral questions must be confronted."
“First of all, at the heart of
the matter is the unavoidable problem - which is morally negative in itself - of IVF
which is what actually enables the realisation of this new
procedure.”
The Church is very clear on the moral depravity of IVF practices, in which
many human embryos are experimented on and disposed
of.
“Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or
exploitation of the human embryo." [Congregation for the Doctrine of
Faith]
Besides the
many risks involved for both the mother
and infant, the big moral problem is that the human embryo is treated as mere
disposable biological material, instead of a human person.
The
Church explains that the human person is a unified whole,
which is “at the same time corporal and spiritual. By virtue of its
substantial union with a spiritual soul, the human body cannot be considered as a
mere complex of tissues, organs and
functions...”
Therefore “the fruit of human generation,
from the first moment of its
existence...from the moment
the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally
due to the human being in his bodily and
spiritual totality.”
If the human embryo must be treated as a
human person, then it is “not in
conformity with the moral law deliberately to expose to death human embryos
obtained 'in vitro'.”
But then, wouldn’t the second form of IVF be morally
permissible, since it only modifies the egg and not the
embryo?
Professor Spagnolo answers that “the procedure cannot be morally
permissible.”
Consequences unknown
Firstly, in addition to the foundational problem of IVF in
itself being morally wrong, Spagnolo emphasises the problem
of consequences.
“Even for those who retain that in
vitro fertilisation does not have any moral problems” he explains that “they still could not help but recognise
that this new procedure is, in itself, loaded with unknown elements with regards
to its results."
Indeed there is no way to tell, from supposed initial
‘success’ in experimentation, what the long-ranging consequences of this
procedure could be for the child and what physiological or psychological
problems it may cause further down the line.
Gene therapy
Secondly, Professor Spagnolo considers the risks involved with understanding the
procedure in terms of “gene therapy.”
He explains that the
scientific community has “always considered gene therapy on germ cells in the
negative sense.”
The practice “deals with inserting
correct genes into a germ cell before IVF” he says. “Germ gene therapy is loaded with risks since any possible
harm transmitted would be done not only to the embryo in question, but also to
the descendants of the embryo.”
Here Spagnolo brings
our attention once again to the teachings of the Church.
“The
Catholic Magisterium reminds us: ‘because the risks connected to any genetic
manipulation are considerable and as yet not fully controllable, in the present
state of research, it is not morally permissible to act in a way that may cause
possible harm to the resulting progeny. ...For these reasons, therefore, it
must be stated that, in its current state, germ line cell
therapy in all its forms is morally illicit.’” [Dignitas Personae,
26]
So
basically, 3-person IFV treatment is a
moral no-go.
[Note: Better analysis than most. Yes, both the end/goal and the means used to reach it must be ethical. The ends do not justify the means.
(1) He identifies one of the major scientific consequences that seems the media wants to ignore: the genetic engineering does not just affect the child born, but because those “foreign” genes become integrated into her germ cells (female oocytes) then those foreign genes will ALSO be passed down through the child’s future generations -- genetically altering not just the child’s genome but all her descendants and the human gene pool as well. Thus not just one child’s problems are the issue, but also the cloning of those foreign genes down through the generations.
(2) I might also add that the fact that mitochondria have fewer genes than the nucleus does not therefore mean that they are “incidental” -- as demonstrated by the various mitochondrial diseases themselves.
(3) Approving this research -- much less clinical trials with human patients -- would thereby also approve killing the normal living human embryos used as the source of the healthy mitochondria.
(4) How can patients in clinical trials give ethically or legally valid “informed consent” when the researchers don’t know the critical “information” they need to inform their patients -- e.g., the scientific facts, the risks and benefits, etc.?
(5) Scientifically they don’t have a clue as to what genes are causing the problems in mitochondrial diseases. (a) As there are many different kinds of mitochondrial diseases, there are probably many different genetic mutations causing them. (b) By what genetic criteria will they determine the guilty genes when scientists still don’t know any more that 50% or less of the coding of THE Human Genome Project (which used only nuclear genes, and derived them from samples from people around the world and pooled them all together!). Answer: They don’t know, and can’t know. Thus they are incapable of anticipating any dangerous consequences to the child or her descendants -- or explaining them scientifically.
(6) A lot of research by many different scientists have shown that the normal “communication” between the nuclear genes and the mitochondrial genes is badly damaged when “foreign” mitochondrial genes are substituted for the natural mitochondrial genes -- and that causes serious damage to the organism.
(7) And what appears to be a “beneficent” technique can also be used for maleficent purposes as well. What if they use the same technique to inject non-human animal mitochondrial thus forming a chimera? Or inject foreign genes desired by researchers into the donor mitochondria before injecting them into the human oocyte/embryo? Same technique, different foreign genes. Opens the door to all sorts of genetic engineering of human beings and their descendents.
(8) My only pause was when he used the term “zygote”. According to the Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development (instituted in 1942 and updated continuously since then to the present), the formation of the human “zygote” is not when the new human being begins to exist. The “zygote” is Stage 1c; the embryo already exists before that point at Stages 1a and 1b. That is, the new sexually reproduced human being begins to exist at the beginning of the process of fertilization, when the sperm penetrates and fuses with the oocyte -- not at the end of the process. If the “zygote” is claimed to be when the human being begins to exist, that would justify using (and killing) the already existing embryo at Stages 1a and b -- which is when a great deal of human genetic engineering is performed! Well, at least he didn’t say “conception”. The article first appeared here. -- DNI