Government accused of dishonesty over 3-parent baby plan
Published: July 29th, 2014
Leading scientists have accused the Government of misleading the public after it quietly changed its definition of “genetic modification” to push forward with proposals to allow 3-parent babies.
Last week, the Government announced its intention to place regulations before Parliament as it released its response to a 12-week consultation recently undertaken by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA).
The proposed IVF technique, known as ‘mitochondrial replacement therapy’, will allow permanent changes to the genetic make-up of future generations for the first time and is widely recognised by experts as a form of genetic modification.
However, in a move buried in a Department of Health document, the Government quietly redefined “genetic modification” in way that would exclude 'mitochondrial replacement therapy'. A spokesman for the Government admitted that it had adopted a "working definition [of genetic modification] for the purpose of taking forward these regulations.”
But leading scientists say that the Government is acting dishonestly and misleading the public over the true implications of the procedure.
Leading fertility expert, Lord Winston said: "Of course mitochondrial transfer is genetic modification and this modification is handed down the generations. It is totally wrong to compare it with a blood transfusion or a transplant and an honest statement might be more sensible and encourage public trust.”
The proposed technique is being presented as a mean of preventing mothers from passing genetic disorders to their children through faulty mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA).
It involves transferring the nucleus of an egg or embryo with defective mitochondria into a donor egg or embryo with healthy mitochondria. Any resulting child will therefore inherit genetic material from three, instead of two, individuals (two mothers and a father).
The Government's new definition of "genetic modification" restricts the term to inheritable changes to nuclear, rather than mitochondria DNA, therefore excluding its 3-parent baby plan.
Ted Morrow, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Sussex, said: “My impression is the Government is doing all it can to contain and define these kinds of terms in ways that favour mitochondrial replacement being introduced as an uncontroversial therapy.
“They push the idea that mitochondrial DNA does nothing more than regenerate more mitochondria, which are nothing more than cellular batteries, and that mitochondrial genes don’t encode traits relevant to personal identity and so on."
Around 60 per cent of those who responded to the HFEA's public consultation were opposed to the proposals.
Sources:
Related stories:
Read Christian Concern's response to the recent HFEA consultation on plans for "three parent babies" by clicking here >
