Modern civilization throws us off, of course. Either abortion will be allowed, then in vitro fertilization will be invented, then surrogacy. We’re not going to talk about same-sex marriage at all, so as not to excite anyone for nothing, we’re strict about it now. There are reasons to believe that
As biotechnology develops, ethical and legal issues will arise more and more. We must be ready for it, and then we must not shy away from anything new, like the plague.
Here, for example, a child was born the other day in England for the first time (officially) using the DNA of three people. More than 99% of the DNA came from two parents and about 0.1% from a third female donor. The method was applied to prevent the birth of a child with incurable mitochondrial diseases. Mitochondria are the “compartments” in the cells of the human body responsible for converting food into usable energy using oxygen molecules. The process of generating energy within a cell is known as cellular respiration. Accordingly, defective mitochondria are unable to nourish the body and lead to brain damage, muscle atrophy, heart failure and blindness. Mitochondrial diseases are basically incurable and can be fatal within days or even hours after birth. Since mitochondria are only passed on from the mother, their donation can be considered a modified form of IVF when mitochondria are used from a healthy donor egg. There are two options for donation: either after the fertilization of the mother’s egg with the father’s sperm or before.
This technology was developed about ten years ago. As usual, those who are now called “Anglo-Saxons”. The first child born after mitochondria donation was born in Mexico in 2016. But before that, this family from Jordan was treated experimentally in New York, in the United States. In America itself, this problem was not fully resolved at the legal level, so they apparently did not dare to grant this baby US citizenship “at the place of birth”. So he was born Mexican (same rule applies here). In 2019, Democrats in the US Congress attempted to liberalize the “genetic editing” ban of embryos, but conservative Republicans blocked the bill.
At the legislative level, mitochondrial donation has only been approved by two countries – the UK and Australia, and a law allowing it was passed in the UK in 2015. This slowness is determined by two conditions. The first is purely ethical issues related to the fact that a child has three parents, no matter what they say. It is also decisive in determining the further viability of the baby, despite the seemingly insignificant proportion of DNA obtained from a female donor. The second reason is that the number of newborns with mitochondrial disease is negligible, so this problem is not seen acutely in the vast majority of countries in the world. According to current statistics, an average of 1 in 6,500 babies is susceptible to incurable mitochondrial diseases. Meanwhile, the percentage of such diseases is higher in Australia: one in 5,000 newborns. In the UK today, the number of donor operations required to correct this error of nature is estimated to be around 150 per year. By the way, up to five children born in this way are known all over the world, and all personal information about them is classified. According to other data, up to 20 such operations have been carried out in secret in the UK alone since 2017 (when the relevant license became operational).
Mitochondria have their own genetic information (DNA), which practically means that children born after such manipulations inherit some DNA from both their parents and a donor. Moreover, the latter is a hereditary change that will be passed down from generation to generation.
Mitochondrial DNA is only concerned with creating the “right” mitochondria and does not seem to affect a person’s other personal qualities, such as their outward appearance. But still, like any new thing, it will inevitably raise questions from conservatives. And if this practice becomes widespread, then questions from “staple carriers” will go in full flow.
In this case, we’re talking about setting an important precedent: in fact, it’s precisely “editing” that happens (in other cases, it’s the editing of the genome, not the cell, usually denoted by the English abbreviation. CRISPR-Cas9, or CRISPR for short, Clustered Regular) of the human embryo to avoid dangerous inherited diseases that are often incurable. From Intermittent Short Palindromic Repeats).
But theoretically this can be done to “improve” any qualities of the newborn, even before birth. If you let your imagination go, then you can imagine pre-programmed child athletes-record holders, outstanding scientists, or those imprisoned for a particular profession or profession. For example, “universal soldier”. Or musical, mathematical, linguistic, etc. super powers. This could represent an enormous ethical challenge to humanity. No less serious than the uncontrolled development of artificial intelligence. Since it is absolutely clear that access to such cutting-edge technologies will come first and foremost by the wealthiest, therefore, if this practice becomes widespread,
A superhuman race could literally be created on Earth. They will have programmed perfect health and all these qualities that are considered the best at the current stage of the development of civilization. Yes, and they will live much longer than others.
Until now, the generally accepted response to the development and, more importantly, practical application of such technologies has been to ban the “genomic editing” of human embryos altogether. As you know, for the first time such manipulations were carried out by a Chinese scientist in 2018 and 2019, three children were born. For this, the Chinese authorities sentenced him to 3 years in prison. He stated that after their release, the children were alive and well. Nothing more is known about them. Officially, this practice has been stopped and banned in China as well as in all countries of the world. However, we know as much about what is unofficially as all the details regarding the origin of the COVID-19 outbreak.
With the complete ban on CRISPR technology, things are not so simple either. The fact is that it has already been recognized that genome editing is an effective tool in the fight against a number of dangerous diseases, including oncology. In the latter area, it is widely believed among many experts that, in principle, each oncological disease is strictly individual in nature, and therefore only individual therapy at the level of genome editing can be most effective. As with other dangerous diseases. This type of treatment is already being used experimentally in some countries where the United States is at the forefront, as is often the case with biotechnology.
The genome editing method can also be applied at the embryonic stage. It is within the power of modern science to predict with high accuracy what dangerous diseases an unborn baby may develop.
We’re talking about a much larger number of people who can be treated before birth than with mitochondrial diseases. Every year at least 300,000 babies are born around the world with congenital diseases that can, in principle, only be treated at the genetic level.
In the case of adults, the situation is much simpler ethically. This is, in fact, an experimental treatment that only requires the consent of a skilled person. However, ethical questions still remain.
First of all, a per capita “package” can cost upwards of $2 million, due to the different accessibility of such technologies by people of different income levels. In any case, this technology will not be for the poor and backward countries and people for a long time. In addition, orthodox-minded people will have objections, who will see this as an interference with “God’s will”.
In the same America, society still lacks complete clarity on how to relate to the possibility of editing the genome before a person’s birth, according to surveys. About a third consider it a good idea, the same number are extremely negative about it, and another third do not know what to say here. Just over 40% of those who already have children of their own say they are highly or in some way likely to approve of prenatal therapy for their child. More than half (55% according to the Pew Research Center) said they wouldn’t. More than half of Americans (55%) rightly believe that the widespread practice of editing the genome of unborn babies will further increase social inequality in society. However, about half believe that such treatments are quite feasible for adults with their consent.
As far as is known, no such sociological research has been conducted in Russia. It is understandable: this problem is simply not relevant at the current stage of development of domestic medicine and biotechnology. However, with some degree of probability, it can be predicted that the first reaction will be given if it is possible to import such technologies into our country in one way or another, which is still very difficult to imagine against the background of the most severe sanctions. Its use by legislators will be their indispensable prohibition.
The author expresses his personal opinion, which may not coincide with the editors’ position.