World's first 'three-parent' baby born - Expert
reaction
22 September
2016
Scientists in the US say a
baby born in Mexico in April was the result of a new
technique using DNA from three people.
The
Jordanian parents contacted researchers at New York’s New
Hope Fertility Center after discovering the mother had a
rare mitochondrial disease – Leigh syndrome – which she
had passed on to two children, both of whom died from the
disease.
The method used – which took donor mitochondrial DNA and combined it with the mother’s nuclear DNA and the father’s sperm – is not approved in the United States, so the researchers went to Mexico.
The
research has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal,
but appeared as a 'late breaking' abstract for an
upcoming conference on reproductive medicine.
The
SMC gathered expert reaction to the announcement, feel free
to use these comments in your reporting. Further details are
on scimex.org.
Dr
Lynsey Cree, senior lecturer, Department of Obstetrics and
Gynaecology, University of Auckland,
comments:
"It is extremely difficult to comment on this as the details provided in the conference abstract are brief. Whilst this may represent a really exciting advancement for patients with mitochondrial disease, this study has not been subjected to the rigorous scientific peer review process required for publication in a scientific journal. This has sadly meant that several questions remain unanswered.
"Interestingly 3 of the 4 embryos biopsied had abnormal numbers of chromosomes, which could either be due to chance or the manipulation process itself. Another important consideration is whether this is the team’s first attempt or whether all previous attempts have failed and therefore have not been reported.
"While this is a promising advancement it is vital that the ethical implications are considered and the techniques are appropriately regulated. Moving forwards it is also important to follow-up children born using these techniques to ensure that they remain healthy.
"Current New Zealand legislation prevents research on viable human embryos. Unfortunately, this means we cannot perform the necessary validation to be able to offer these techniques to New Zealand patients with these diseases."
Our
colleagues at the UK and Australian Science Media Centres
also gathered the following comments. Dr Ainsley Newson,
Associate Professor of Bioethics, University of Sydney,
comments:
"This couple’s decision to use
mitochondrial replacement – after four miscarriages and
the deaths of two children – is unlikely to have been
taken lightly. They have also chosen to use maternal spindle
transfer (MST) as it may lead to less embryo destruction
than other forms of mitochondrial replacement.
"Ethical aspects of this technique, such as the cost of the technology and the value of having a genetically related child need to be weighed against the value for this couple. But, the manner of this particular case is disquieting. The treatment location seems to have been chosen due to there not being any regulations in place. This is in stark contrast to the UK, where specific regulation was developed after a lengthy process of scientific, legal and public engagement. There has also been less research into MST than other approaches, raising safety aspects.
"While
research on some forms of mitochondrial replacement in
Australia may be possible under licence, the format of our
cloning laws means that performing MST in either a research
or clinical setting would be illegal. Given advances in this
area, Australia needs to look at how its laws can keep pace
with fast-moving technologies like this
one."
Prof Justin St John, Professor and Director
of the Centre for Genetic Diseases, Monash University,
comments:
“It is very hard to comment as this
is just a meeting abstract where all the important relevant
information is not available.
“As this technology is
controversial and a world first, I think the investigators
should have submitted a manuscript for full peer review
instead of announcing these outcomes in this manner. The
review process would have ensured complete validation of the
data and provided a tested platform from which to conduct a
debate about the degree of achievement. As it now stands,
there will be much conjecture. For example, there will be
much discussion about whether sufficient tissues in the
offspring were analyzed to draw reasonable conclusions about
the low level of mtDNA mutation
transmitted.
“Furthermore, as part of the peer review
process, the genetic testing results would have undergone
rigorous assessment and further analysis could have been
requested to ensure no doubt existed. Until we know these
outcomes, it is very difficult to
comment.
“Nevertheless, if all the validations are
sound, this represents a first for the treatment of some
very serious disorders. However, extensive monitoring will
be required as there has been limited testing of this
technology in appropriate animal models.”
Dr
Dusko Ilic, Reader in Stem Cell Science, King’s College
London, comments:
“Without much ado it appears
the first mitochondrial donation baby was born three months
ago. This was an ice-breaker. The baby is reportedly
healthy; hopefully, this will tame the more zealous critics,
accelerate the field, and we will witness soon a birth of
the first mitochondrial donation baby in the UK.
“But
some questions remain. By performing the treatment in
Mexico, the team were not subject to the same stringent
regulation as some other countries would insist on. We have
no way of knowing how skilful or prepared they were, and
this may have been a risky thing to do. On the other hand,
we have what appears to be a healthy baby. Because it was
successful, fewer questions will be raised but it is
important that we still ask them.
“Was this the first
time ever they performed the technique or there were other
attempts and they are reporting this one because it was
successful? This and other important questions remain
unanswered because this work has not been published and the
rest of the scientific community has been unable to examine
it in detail. It’s vital that that happens soon.
“So
it appears to be a good end result. But it risks
encouraging others to follow the example, as we saw with
‘stem cell tourism’. That could be dangerous as
understandably impatient people pursue treatment in the very
places where regulation is the least strict."