Three-parent babies: an ethical boundary is being crossed

Scientists, naturally, like to make advances in science and the fact of mitochondrial disease being passed on by parents to their children is clearly one which science should investigate. But are three-parent embryos or three-person IVF really the way forward?

The Government’s own consultation reveals considerable public hostility to the procedure, as do opinion polls. Whilst one in 200 children are born each year with some level of mitochondrial disorder, only one in 10,000 are severely affected. This means that only a very few births would be involved if the proposed technology were to be introduced.

Not that what is being proposed is a cure. The new techniques may prevent babies being born with mitochondrial disease but they will not cure those who have been born already. Moreover, babies will continue to be born with these conditions since parents will not always know of the risk until the first baby is born.

We need to remember that an ethical boundary is being crossed. The proposed technology will interfere with and change the germ-line forever. This is breaking an international consensus that genetic engineering should not be used to modify human eggs or sperm in such a way as to alter the characteristics of future children.

It is sometimes claimed that mitochondria are only batteries in cells and carrying no significant hereditary characteristics but if that is the case, how is it that they are able to carry heritable disorders? As both the responses of scientists and of the churches have pointed out, we simply do not know the risks involved in this kind of interference in the germ line. The technology involved in the process has not been known for its success in therapeutic cloning or in the creation of "cybrids", over which there was much hype in the last government. How can we be sure of its success this time around?

A large number of eggs will have to be "harvested" from women willing to donate. This is, in itself, a hugely invasive procedure with considerable health risks for the women involved. How many embryos will be created and destroyed during research? One of the techniques involved could make future destruction of embryos likely.

The psychological and social implications should also be considered. There are questions here about a person’s identity and wishing to know all the genetic characteristics which make me who I am. Will children be able, in future, to ask for the identity of the "second mother"? Will donors be able to know the identity of children they help bring to birth? Lord Winston has himself warned of the risks of "meddling with nature". We should take this warning seriously in this context.

Conservative MP Fiona Bruce’s motion is well-taken and to the point: safety tests have yet to be carried out and reviewed. No other country has legalised this procedure for ethical reasons. The procedure would cause the germ-line to be interfered with and changed and human embryos could be destroyed in the process. It is unclear whether the UK would be violating international agreements on germ-line interventions and there has been no informed debate on the issue. I hope MPs will support this sensible and moderate motion today.