Dr Zhang told the New Scientist that, as the technique has not been approved in the US, the team went to Mexico where “there are no rules”. “To save lives is the ethical thing to do,” he added.
The world’s first child created using a controversial “three-parent” baby technique has been born in Mexico, it has been announced.
According to critics, the procedure is tantamount to genetic modification of humans or even “playing God”. But supporters say it allows women with a particular type of genetic disease to have healthy children who are related to them. The child’s mother has Leigh syndrome, a fatal disorder that affects the developing nervous system and would have been passed on in her mitochondrial DNA.
Although she is healthy, two of her children have died as a result of inheriting the disease: a girl who lived until she was six and an eight-month-old baby.
Isaiah Brooks
Based Dr. John "There are no rules" Zhang
“To save lives is the ethical thing to do,”
“To save lives is the ethical thing to do,”
ethicists BTFO
Zachary Wilson
That child would be dead if Zhang only followed some stupid fucking rules only bootlicking autist would care about
Ryan Parker
Not dead
It would die slowly and be expensive for everyone in society and on healthcare facilities.
IT would basically sit in a hospital for 6 months to 6 years, dying.
Because that is "ethical".
Anthony Evans
So by what percentage roughly is the child in question actually genetically related to the healthy "battery mother" in question?
How much DNA is contributed by mitochondrial DNA?
Bentley Barnes
On a serious note. The only thing important Veeky Forums speaking is the idea it was an American team going to an area with less regulation to proceed.
Thereby showing how useless regulation is for something like this on an individual country basis.
Hudson Watson
Fucking based, I hope more and more people will follow this line of thinking
Angel Myers
Chinks will inherit the earth.
Gabriel Gray
He didn't save a life using experimental methods. He conceived a life using experimental methods. That's what makes it unethical.
>That child would be dead That child would never have been conceived.
Henry Howard
Or she could not just reproduce because she has a fatal disease and natural selection is supposed to weed her out. She could've easily adopted a child. Who knows what that baby's health is gonna be like in a few decades
Matthew White
this desu
Daniel Walker
Whites BTFO
Ethan Smith
The battery mother contributed all of the mitochondrial DNA, but none of the nuclear DNA.
Normally, humans have 46 nuclear chromosomes that encode the ~20,000 genes encoding proteins and RNAs that are needed for life.
Every cell has 2-10 mitochondria which each encode 13 proteins. These proteins are needed in the ETC, but nuclear proteins are also necessary for proper ETC functioning.
So, to answer your question, the DNA contributed by the battery mom is near 0. There is very little mitochondria DNA compared to nuclear DNA, and people typically are thinking about the 46 nuclear chromosomes when they talk about DNA.
Isaac Hall
You know what, you just inadvertently made a big point.
The method used to conceive a healthy child allowed the mother to bypass the disease activating in the child. But isn't the code for said disease still there in the kid's genes?
What exactly did this accomplish ultimately other than proving the procedure could be done.
James Brooks
This sort of thing gives me hope.
My family has a history of heart disease, diabeetus and mental health issues on both sides. Basically my parents shouldn't be allowed to breed.
If this sort of idea advances and they can screen out my sort of genetic predispositions then i would want my children to be conceived this way.
Luis James
Except that you don't how the child will contribute in the future, he could be a new genius.
John Hill
I love good news.
Jose King
>history of heart disease, diabeetus and mental health issues on both sides Stop drinking, smoking, overeating, eating McDonalds every day.
Really that simple desu
Nathaniel Sanchez
This is honestly the best way to move things forward it seems like. Do it and then tell the world "we have already done it, here are the results"
Jeremiah Perry
No, you are wrong. The kid does not have any of the defective mitochondrial genes.
The kid should be fine as long as the nuclear transplant does not have adverse effects.
Those diseases are not based on mitochondrial genetics, so this procedure cannot help your children.
However, heart disease, diabetes, and mental health issues have large environmental components, so raising your kids to live a healthy lifestyle would help them avoid those conditions.
Luke Harris
Wrong.
The mother already had two children that died due to inheriting Leigh syndrome. This child might also have inherited Leigh syndrome if not for the deeds of Zhang. Therefor he saved the life of the child and the act was ethical.
Yet again ethicists are btfo like they have been throughout all human history.
Lincoln Sanders
I see then, so then does that mean the kid now has the battery mother's mitochondrial genes instead?
Or did this procedure simply phase out future generational inheritance of the defective mitochondrial genes altogether by bypassing the traditional birthing process?
To plebs who can't understand simple biomedical science, sure
Aiden Russell
The baby has 23 chromosomes from the father, 23 from the mother, making about 3 billion base pairs. Then the battery mothers mitochondria (which has about 16,500 base pairs).
Caleb Hughes
I think the only controversy here is the name. I saw it and I thought it was absurd.
Mason Gonzalez
>it gives women with genetical diseases a chance to have a healthy baby
>If I was born 20 years later, I wouldnt have to suffer and live with triplicated a-genes and a beta-thalassemia
fml
Brody Hill
I was born with poland syndrome so I kind of feel you
Matthew Torres
>mexican intellectual
Grayson Hill
They implanted the maternal spindle (the non fertilized nucleus) of one egg of the affected mother in a donor egg. The interesting part is that the affected mother had some mitochondrion affected by the mutation and some sane. This is the reason the mother was healthy but some of her children could be affected by the disease. Because it is possible for an egg to have only defective mitochondrion.
Elijah Cooper
The first three parent baby was Emma Ott, born in 1997; Alana Saarinen was born in 2000
Jeremiah Mitchell
>Basically my parents shouldn't be allowed to breed.
Don't worry user. It's not like you will be having kids anyway
Joseph Peterson
Not that guy but I've pretty much decided never to breed even if I had the chance because I've got shitty eye sight, heart disease, three different cancers, diabetes, running in both sides and from my mother's side I've got two different neuromuscular diseases and colorectal cancer.
While I'm technically "healthy" I'm still a carrier for most of that shit and my brother wasn't so lucky and ended up with DMD.
If I were to ever have a kid I'd want that shit to be fixed genetically first.
Leo Hughes
Neat, don't see anything unethical about this.
Look up mitochondria on wikipedia. All they do is produce ATP, the energy source for cells. All of the DNA that is responsible for appearance and other inherited features is stored in the nucleus.
Levi Cox
Google CRISPR/Cas9, we are finally making advances in those areas. If people aren't moralfagging too much, then we might get there in your life times.
Mason Cruz
>mental health issues >stop being fat Really makes you think
Christian Stewart
Actually a good diet is beneficial to mental health.
Samuel Cooper
>>“To save lives is the ethical thing to do,”
>ethicists BTFO
i'd be surprised if you can quote an ethicist who advocates the opposite
Christopher Brown
muh ethics is a meme, they just say nonsense and state it's ethical based on some obscure reasoning, like muh culture or muh heritage.
Levi Wilson
>ethicists following any rational line of thought
Jack Smith
well, can any of you both cite or reproduce an ethicist's claim which might suggest that saving lives is unethical?
Hudson Diaz
Yes, opposing basic research funding.
aka animal testing
Jason Young
Only time will tell user.
Blake Stewart
The trolley problem.
Lucas Edwards
>Be me in Biology lecture >Professor talks about Chinese scientists working on CRIPSR >Class mumbles "Chinese give no shit about ethics kek"
Why is it so hard for people to develop both right and left brains?
Jaxson Wright
Problem is the child who was "saved" didnt even fucking exist until Zhang intervened and performed the procedure. You cant save someone/something if/before it fucking exists numbnuts
Christian Johnson
what do you think of the moral status of animals?
in the extreme case you entertain the ethicists argument, and that you agree that animals are worthy of moral consideration, yet, we still must press on with animal testing, because the good of 'potential' lives saved far outweighs bad of experimentation that ultimately results in the death of an animal.
this might open up situations that are not as agreeable. why stop with animals, and include humans too (with the previous assumption that it is acceptable to subject beings with moral status to experimentation)? if you were to show up at a hospital, why can't the doctor cut you up for organs to save several other people who desperately need them?
this most certainly and directly saves lives rather than the hundreds or thousands of mice that die to develop a procedure whose efficacy remains to be seen and may or may not have government approval.
Liam Phillips
I literally read the first sentence of your shitty ass post and STOPPED
you stupid fuck low IQ trash. Fuck off back to some shit board for low IQ faggots like /cgl/ or something.
>muh animal rights >muh ethics
Caleb Roberts
This could possibly be a problem longterm.
It's going to happen whether we like it or not. Mankind taking its evolution into its own hands is almost like what we're engineered to do. How the human species comes to live with this power, and how it all shakes out, can't really be predicted.
I see mostly bad things.
Robert Sanders
Everyone is going to die of aging soon.
Who the fuck cares about "ethics". I'd turn prisons into fucking rat labs. I'd increase incarceration rates. I'd allow any fucking testing people said okay too.
Then, on top of that I would start putting all resources into cloning and genetic engineering possible.
Fuck your stupid ass low IQ ethics. >hurr what about da goriluh dat will hurt I would tear open every Gorilla on earth to advance medicine 1%.
Jonathan Cooper
So pretty much you'd make human society hell, negating any purpose behind these advancements.
Adam Phillips
Shh. Brainlets don't know the brain is part of their body.
Josiah Stewart
This. The brain is magic and just is, off on its own, why the hell would it be affected by dietary intake or environment? Moreover, how? Pills are obviously the only thing that can interact with the brain, you fucking idiots.
Ugh.
Brandon Powell
gtfo
Jackson Bailey
One question, the "3rd parent" is a donor , right?
Kevin Cruz
idiot. if ethics didn't matter, then it wouldn't be right or wrong to do any of this. can you even claim that animal testing is wrong or right then? or at some point do you claim that we all do this because of 'muh feelz'.
>Who the fuck cares about "ethics" nearly everybody who could barely articulate a poor reason why murder is wrong and act accordingly.
Kayden Peterson
The chance is less than hitler winning ww2
Luke Cooper
So it's 50/50?
Evan Moore
There is no 'supposed to' in natural selection, you teleological shit. This very process of genetic engineering IS natural selection.
Gabriel Perez
If they can extract mitochondria and implant new ones, could they also implant chloroplasts? Don't chloroplasts function like mitochondria having their own DNA and everything? Would inserting chloroplasts into an embryo give an animal the power of photosynthesis?
Josiah Phillips
Just limit your calories and your schizophrenia will go away.
Jackson Parker
The rules are bullshit. 80% of "ethics" rules are bullshit, and not really about ethics but about religion.
Carter Edwards
>natural selection >natural >artificial conception >artificial THEY'RE THE SAME GOD DAMN THING
Samuel Anderson
murder is wrong because it wastes economic potential and the resources invested to raise such a person.
Ethics and Morals are for bitches.
Nathan Thomas
Indeed. People don't call it 'artificial termite harvesting' if a chimp uses a stick after all.
Robert Gonzalez
This.
Came here to post this.
News media has a short fucking memory and no research skills.
Joshua Myers
>Why can't science give me a magic pill now! Buaa! Keep deluding yourself, brainlet. ;^=)
James Roberts
>comes to Veeky Forums just to post shitty bait in multiple threads
Christopher James
>>murder is wrong because it wastes economic potential and the resources invested to raise such a person.
you tell me that murder is wrong and you give a reason why.
i tell you that you're making an ethical argument. if you don't think that you are engaging in ethics then you commit yourself to speak only of facts and descriptions, but without any notion of wrongness or wastefulness. if that isn't the case, then you mean to say that murder is factually wrong?
Luis Flores
>economic potential and resources are important
nice moral position bruv
Chase Sanchez
he was great in hangover
Ian Gray
>The trolley problem So you pull the lever and have the train kill that one guy.
What's the problem?
William Sullivan
>One question, the "3rd parent" is a donor , right? Yes, the donor of the egg with the healthy mitochondria.
Jason Rodriguez
got my medical state exam in a couple of weeks . any tips for cheating
Jack Anderson
Hey idiot, the child didn't even exist. Did you read the article?
Angel Jackson
This is simply your subjective moral standpoint. You're only human, ethics and morals are the pinnacle of human achievement and nature. They're the most important things ever existing on this planet, all the sciences are far behind.
Jeremiah Walker
>you are there too! >keeps replying like a desperate beta So no argument? Typical brainlet.
Adam Green
>or even “playing God” What is this and why is it bad?