Category Archives: Transhuman News

The House of Commons in the U.K. has now voted to permit mitochondrial DNA replacement, which enables babies to be born who have DNA from three people.

Mitochondria are the batteries of our cells that provide energy for cell division and growth. We get ours from our mothers genes. If there is a defect in a mothers mitochondria, it can have devastating consequences for her children, resulting in almost certain death. But, by extracting a mitochondrion from a healthy donor egg, scientists are now able to conduct a miniature organ transplant on the cellular level to create a healthy baby through in vitro fertilization. Such a baby has its parents genes, except for one small but crucial portion obtained from a donor.

The need for the procedure is real. Somewhere around 4,000 children per year in the United States are born with a type of mitochondrial disease. Many do not survive more than a few months. Mitochondrial transplants would help prevent these diseases. So why not use them?

Critics give three main reasons; safety; creating babies with three parents; and the danger of opening the door to more genetic engineering. None of these objections provides a convincing reason against trying to treat what are often lethal diseases.

Is the procedure safe? When it was first tried by my NYULMC colleague, Jamie Grifo, at NYULMC in 2003 he was widely denounced as doing something unsafe with an embryo. The FDA brought his work to a halt. Grifo said he had plenty of data in rodents to show the technique was safe but decided not to push against the FDAs opposition. So what is different now that makes safety less of an issue?

Now we have data from monkeys. Convincing data. The creation of healthy primates was shown in 2009. And we have data from the creation of human embryos. A team of scientists at the Oregon National Primate Research Center and the Oregon Health & Science University proved in 2012 that the transplanted mitochondria made viable embryos. Safety is always an issue but the case for moving forward in the UK and the USA is strong.

Some say three parent babies are weird. It is true that a mitochondrion is taken from a donor but why this makes the donor in any way a parent is beyond me. If I give the battery from my car to a friend whose battery has died does that make me an owner of her car? And even if logic were stretched to say yes, it is not as if this is the first time we have seen babies with three parents. Sperm, egg, and embryo donation and surrogacynot to mention adoptionhave been around a long time without fracturing the nature of the family. This objection gets no traction.

Lastly some say mitochondrial transplants cross a bright ethical line. Changing genes in the lungs of people with immune disease or in the eyes of people with macular degeneration may fix the broken body part but, critics point out, the change is not passed on to future generations. When you change the mitochondria in an egg with a transplant, you make a change that is inherited by every single offspring of any child created from that egg. That is called germline engineering. Germline engineering of mitochondria moves beyond using genetic engineering to fix our body parts into directly engineering the traits of our children. It is a road that could lead, the critics warn, to eugenics.

Well, thats where they are wrong. Transplanting mitochondria is not going to be the method used to create enhanced babies. Traits like height, intelligence, strength, balance, and vision dont reside in the battery part of our cells.

We may well want to draw the line at genetic engineering aimed at making superbabies but all that is involved with mitochondria transplants is trying to prevent dead or very disabled ones. The latter goal is noble, laudable and ought to be praised not condemned.

View original post here:
Is It Ethical to Create Babies From Three DNA Sources? Absolutely

The coral reefs of the world are in serious danger. A recent scientific report on corals in the Caribbean Sea, for instance, found that coral cover declined from 34.8 percent to 16.3 percent from 1970 to 2012.

One of the chief threats to corals is climate change. Not only do warmer waters stress the species, leading to bleaching events like the one pictured above. Climate change provides a double blow to corals because it also brings on ocean acidification, driven by increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (caused by the burning of fossil fuels) dissolved in seawater. As sea waters acidify, corals have a harder time producing calcium carbonate, which is crucial to reef formation.

Thats why, in the latest issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a group of researchers from the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology now tentatively propose something that they admit is extremely novel in conservation circles. Namely, they suggest that humans may need to intervene in the breeding of corals so as to assist their evolution.

Such anthropogenically enhanced corals may survive better, the researchers suggest, in a world of warming and acidifying seas. Moreover, this environmental engineering may be necessary as a last-ditch effort since, to be blunt, climate change is proceeding so fast with so much change already locked in that there may be no other choice.

So what are they planning to do? This isgenetic alteration, to be sure evolution always is but it isnot what we typically think of as genetic engineering.Although the development of GMO corals might be contemplated in extremis at a future time, we advocate less drastic approaches, notes the study.

Theyre not proposing Frankenstein coral, stressesNancy Knowlton, a marine scientist at the Smithsonian Institution who edited the paper.

Rather, assisted evolution entails a series of strategies that are perhaps best likened to the domestic breeding of anything from dogs to cows to pigeons to change their attributes. Charles Darwin called it artificial selection, as opposed to natural selection, which usually plays out over much longer periods of time.

For corals, heres how it might work. The researchers propose a number of strategies,some affecting corals and some affecting the communities of microbes that live with them in a symbiotic relationship.

For instance, scientists might identify strains of the appropriately namedSymbiodinium tiny microbes that live inside corals and are essentialto reef growth that are more resistant to temperatures. Then they could introduce this strain into corals in the wild that are struggling.

Yet anotherproposal, meanwhile, is actually guiding the evolution of Symbiodinium in the lab by using x-rays or chemicals that would lead the organisms to evolve and adapt more quickly.

See the article here:
Coral reefs are in such bad shape that scientists may have to speed up their evolution