Search

In 2015, the UK became the first country to approve the use of mitochondrial donation. This novel in vitro fertilisation treatment was developed to prevent transmission of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) disease and ultimately give more reproductive choice to women at risk of having severely affected offspring. The policy change was a major advance that surmounted many scientific, legislative and clinical challenges. Further challenges have since been addressed and there is now an NHS clinical service available to families with pathogenic mtDNA mutations that provides reproductive advice and options, and a research study to look at the outcome at 18 months of children born after mitochondrial donation., (© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Portland Press Limited on behalf of the Biochemical Society and the Royal Society of Biology.)

The mitochondria are intracellular organelles, and just like the cell nucleus they have their own genome. They are extremely important for normal body functioning and are responsible for ATP production - the main energy source for the cell. Mitochondrial diseases are associated with mutations in mitochondrial DNA and are inherited exclusively from the mother. They can affect organs that depend on energy metabolism, such as skeletal muscles, the cardiac system, the central nervous system, the endocrine system, the retina and liver, causing various incurable diseases. Mitochondrial replacement techniques provide women with mitochondrial defects a chance to have normal biological children. The goal of such treatment is to reconstruct functional oocytes and zygotes, in order to avoid the inheritance of mutated genes; for this the nuclear genome is withdrawn from an oocyte or zygotes, which carries mitochondrial mutations, and is implanted in a normal anucleated cell donor. Currently, the options of a couple to prevent the transmission of mitochondrial diseases are limited, and mitochondrial donation techniques provide women with mitochondrial defects a chance to have normal children. The nuclear genome can be transferred from oocytes or zygotes using techniques such as pronuclear transfer, spindle transfer, polar body transfer and germinal vesicle transfer. This study presents a review of developed mitochondrial substitution techniques, and its ability to prevent hereditary diseases.

Study Question: Does an informed group of citizens endorse the clinical use of mitochondrial donation in a country where this is not currently permitted?, Summary Answer: After hearing balanced expert evidence and having opportunity for deliberation, a majority (11/14) of participants in a citizens' jury believed that children should be able to be born using mitochondrial donation., What Is Known Already: Research suggests that patients, oocyte donors and health professionals support mitochondrial donation to prevent transmission of mitochondrial disease. Less is known about public acceptability of this novel reproductive technology, especially from evidence using deliberative methods., Study Design, Size, Duration: This study comprised a citizens' jury, an established method for determining the views of a well-informed group of community members. The jury had 14 participants, and ran over one and a half days in 2017., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Jurors were members of the public with no experience of mitochondrial disease. They heard and engaged with relevant evidence and were asked to answer the question: 'Should Australia allow children to be born following mitochondrial donation?', Main Results and the Role of Chance: Eleven jurors decided that Australia should allow children to be born following mitochondrial donation; 7 of whom added conditions such as the need to limit who can access the intervention. Three jurors decided that children should not (or not yet) be born using this intervention. All jurors were particularly interested in the reliability of evidence, licensing/regulatory mechanisms and the rights of children to access information about their oocyte donors., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: Jurors' views were well informed and reflected critical deliberation and discussion, but are not intended to be representative of the whole population., Wider Implications of the Findings: When presented with high quality evidence, combined with opportunities to undertake structured deliberation of novel reproductive technologies, members of the public are able to engage in detailed discussions. This is the first study to use an established deliberative method to gauge public views towards mitochondrial donation., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This study was funded by a University of Sydney Industry and Community Collaboration Seed Award (2017), which was awarded contingent on additional funding from the Mito Foundation. Additional funding was provided by the Mito Foundation. The Foundation was not involved in jury facilitation or deliberation, nor analysis of research data., Trial Registration Number: Not applicable., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

In a recent paper - Lesbian motherhood and mitochondrial replacement techniques: reproductive freedom and genetic kinship - we argued that lesbian couples who wish to have children who are genetically related to both of them should be allowed access to mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRTs). Françoise Baylis wrote a reply to our paper - 'No' to lesbian motherhood using human nuclear genome transfer - where she challenges our arguments on the use of MRTs by lesbian couples, and on MRTs more generally. In this reply we respond to her claims and further clarify our position., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The development of any novel reproductive technology involving manipulation of human embryos is almost inevitably going to be controversial and evoke sincerely held, but diametrically opposing views. The plethora of scientific, ethical and legal issues that surround the clinical use of such techniques fuels this divergence of opinion. During the policy change that was required to allow the use of mitochondrial donation in the UK, many of these issues were intensely scrutinised by a variety of people and in multiple contexts. This extensive process resulted in the publication of several reports that informed the recommendations made to government. We have been intrinsically involved in the development of mitochondrial donation, from refining the basic technique for use in human embryos through to clinical service delivery, and have taken the opportunity in this article to offer our own perspective on the issues it raises.

In October 2015 the UK enacted legislation to permit the clinical use of two cutting edge germline-altering, IVF-based embryonic techniques: pronuclear transfer and maternal spindle transfer (PNT and MST). The aim is to use these techniques to prevent the maternal transmission of serious mitochondrial diseases. Major claims have been made about the quality of the debates that preceded this legislation and the significance of those debates for UK decision-making on other biotechnologies, as well as for other countries considering similar legislation. In this article we conduct a systematic analysis of those UK debates and suggest that claims about their quality are over-stated. We identify, and analyse in detail, ten areas where greater clarity, depth and nuance would have produced sharper understandings of the contributions, limitations and wider social impacts of these mitochondrial interventions. We explore the implications of these additional considerations for (i) the protection of all parties involved, should the techniques transfer to clinical applications; (ii) the legitimacy of focussing on short-term gains for individuals over public health considerations, and (iii) the maintenance and improvement of public trust in medical biotechnologies. We conclude that a more measured evaluation of the content and quality of the UK debates is important and timely: such a critique provides a clearer understanding of the possible, but specific, contributions of these interventions, both in the UK and elsewhere; also, these additional insights can now inform the emerging processes of implementation, regulation and practice of mitochondrial interventions.

This paper examines whether there are moral differences between the mitochondrial replacement techniques that have been recently developed in order to help women afflicted by mitochondrial DNA diseases to have genetically related children absent such conditions: maternal spindle transfer (MST) and pronuclear transfer (PNT). Firstly, it examines whether there is a moral difference between MST and PNT in terms of the divide between somatic interventions and germline interventions. Secondly, it considers whether PNT and MST are morally distinct under a therapy/creation optic. Finally, it investigates whether there is a moral difference between MST and PNT from a human embryo destruction point of view. I conclude, contra recent arguments, that regarding the first two points there is no moral differences between PNT and MST; and that regarding the third one MST is morally preferable to PNT, but only if we hold a gradualist account of the moral value of human embryos where zygotes have slight moral value.

Mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRT) are intended to avoid the transmission of mitochondrial diseases from mother to child. MRT represent a potentially powerful new biomedical technology with ethical, policy, economic and social implications. Among other ethical questions raised are concerns about the possible effects on the identity of children born from MRT, their families, and the providers or donors of mitochondria. It has been suggested that MRT can influence identity (i) directly, through altering the genetic makeup and physical characteristics of the child, or (ii) indirectly through changing the child's experience of disease, and by generating novel intrafamilial relationships that shape the sense of self. In this article I consider the plausibility and ethical implications of these proposed identity effects, but I focus instead on a third way in which identity may be affected, through the mediating influence of the wider social world on MRT effects on identity. By taking a narrative approach, and examining the nature and availability of identity narratives, I conclude that while neither direct genetic nor indirect experiential effects can be excluded, social responses to MRT are more likely to have a significant and potentially damaging influence on the generation of MRT children's narratives of identity. This conclusion carries some implications for the collective moral responsibility we hold to ensure that MRT, if implemented, are practised in ethically justifiable ways., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRTs), known in the popular media as 'three-parent' or 'three-person' IVFs, have the potential to enable women with mitochondrial diseases to have children who are genetically related to them but without such diseases. In the debate regarding whether MRTs should be made available, an issue that has garnered considerable attention is whether MRTs affect the characteristics of an existing individual or whether they result in the creation of a new individual, given that MRTs involve the genetic manipulation of the germline. In other words, do MRTs affect the qualitative identity or the numerical identity of the resulting child? For instance, a group of panelists on behalf of the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has claimed that MRTs affect only the qualitative identity of the resulting child, while the Working Group of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics (NCOB) has argued that MRTs would create a numerically distinct individual. In this article, I shall argue that MRTs do create a new and numerically distinct individual. Since my explanation is different from the NCOB's explanation, I shall also offer reasons why my explanation is preferable to the NCOB's explanation., (© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The classification of techniques used in mitochondrial donation, including their role as purported germ-line gene therapies, is far from clear. These techniques exhibit characteristics typical of a variety of classifications that have been used in both scientific and bioethics scholarship. This raises two connected questions, which we address in this paper: (i) how should we classify mitochondrial donation techniques?; and (ii) what ethical implications surround such a classification? First, we outline how methods of genetic intervention, such as germ-line gene therapy, are typically defined or classified. We then consider whether techniques of mitochondrial donation fit into these, whether they might do so with some refinement of these categories, or whether they require some other approach to classification. To answer the second question, we discuss the relationship between classification and several key ethical issues arising from mitochondrial donation. We conclude that the properties characteristic of mitochondrial inheritance mean that most mitochondrial donation techniques belong to a new sub-class of genetic modification, which we call 'conditionally inheritable genomic modification' (CIGM)., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In February 2015 the UK became the first country to legalise high-profile mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRTs), which involve the creation of offspring using genetic material from three individuals. The aim of these new cell reconstruction techniques is to prevent the transmission of maternally inherited mitochondrial disorders to biological offspring. During the UK debates, MRTs were often positioned as a straightforward and unique solution for the 'eradication' of mitochondrial disorders, enabling hundreds of women to have a healthy, biologically-related child. However, many questions regarding future applications and potential users remain. Drawing on a current qualitative study on reproductive choices in the context of mitochondrial disorders, this article illustrates how the potential limitations of MRTs have been obscured in public debates by contrasting the claims made about the future beneficiaries with insights from families affected by mitochondrial disorders and medical experts. The analysis illuminates the complex choices with which families and individuals affected by mitochondrial disorders are faced, which have thus far remained invisible. An argument is presented for improved information for the public as well as an intensification of critical empirical research around the complex and specific needs of future beneficiaries of new reproductive biotechnologies., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Jürgen Habermas is regarded as a central bioconservative commentator in the debate on the ethics of human prenatal genetic manipulations. While his main work on this topic, The Future of Human Nature, has been widely examined in regard to his position on prenatal genetic enhancement, his arguments regarding prenatal genetic therapeutic interventions have for the most part been overlooked. In this work I do two things. First, I present the three necessary conditions that Habermas establishes for a prenatal genetic manipulation to be regarded as morally permissible. Second, I examine if mitochondrial replacement techniques meet these necessary conditions. I investigate, specifically, the moral permissibility of employing pronuclear transfer and maternal spindle transfer. I conclude that, according to a Habermasian perspective on prenatal genetic manipulation, maternal spindle transfer (without using a preselected sperm and egg) and pronuclear transfer are morally impermissible. Maternal spindle transfer is, in principle, morally permissible, but only when we have beforehand preselected a sperm and an egg for our reproductive purpose. These findings are relevant for bioconservatives, both for those who hold a Habermasian stance and for those who hold something akin to a Habermasian stance, because they answer the question: what should bioconservatives do regarding mitochondrial replacement techniques? In fact, the answer to this question does not only normatively prescribe what bioconservatives should do in terms of their personal morality, but it also points towards what kind of legislation regulating mitochondrial replacement techniques they should aim at., (© 2017 The Authors Bioethics Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In 2015, the UK became the first country permitting the clinical application of mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRT). Here, we explore how MRT have led to diverging international policy. In response, we recommend focused regulatory efforts coupled with United Nations (UN) leadership to build international consensus on the future of MRT., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Several objections against the morality of researching or employing mitochondrial replacement techniques have been advanced recently. In this paper, I examine three of these objections and show that they are found wanting. First I examine whether mitochondrial replacement techniques, research and clinical practice, should not be carried out because of possible harms to egg donors. Next I assess whether mitochondrial replacement techniques should be banned because they could affect the study of genealogical ancestry. Finally, I examine the claim that mitochondrial replacement techniques are not transferring mitochondrial DNA but nuclear DNA, and that this should be prohibited on ethical grounds.

Introduction or Background: The UK is at the forefront of mitochondrial science and is currently the only country in the world to legalize germ-line technologies involving mitochondrial donation. However, concerns have been raised about genetic modification and the 'slippery slope' to designer babies., Sources of Data: This review uses academic articles, newspaper reports and public documents., Areas of Agreement: Mitochondrial donation offers women with mitochondrial disease an opportunity to have healthy, genetically related children., Areas of Controversy: Key areas of disagreement include safety, the creation of three-parent babies, impact on identity, implications for society, definitions of genetic modification and reproductive choice., Growing Points: The UK government legalized the techniques in March 2015. Scientific and medical communities across the world followed the developments with interest., Areas Timely for Developing Research: It is expected that the first cohort of 'three parent' babies will be born in the UK in 2016. Their health and progress will be closely monitored., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Mitochondrial replacement therapy (MRT) utilises nuclear transfer technology to replace defective mitochondria with healthy ones and thereby minimise the risk of a mitochondrial disease passing from a mother to her child. It promises much but comes with ethical controversy, significant risk of harm and many unknowns. Forming a position on MRT requires accurate information about the current state of knowledge, and an appreciation of the ethical issues at stake. Ethical deliberations will vary depending on the framework used. There are in principle objections to MRT on the grounds of direct harm to human embryos and germline genetic modification. But even without these objections MRT can be weighed in terms of the balance between risks and benefits, alternatives and uncertainties. This paper explores the evidence and lays out the relevant issues to assist such a deliberation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), as its name implies, is an embodiment of the mitochondrial genetic information that constitutes about 1% of the mammalian genome. It fills a vital niche in tracing matrilineality; the mtDNA is inherited solely from the mother and plays a crucial role in genealogical research. Even a single mutation in the mtDNA can have debilitating and life-altering consequences. Mothers carrying mtDNA mutations will inevitably pass it on to the future generation. Three-parent In vitro fertilization (IVF), a breakthrough technique, shows promising potential to prevent mothers with mtDNA defects from passing it on to their future generation, while also maintaining the genetic link to their posterity. In this review, I delve into the intricacies of this technique, compare and analyze the difference between maternal spindle transfer and pronuclear transfer, discuss the prospective therapeutic effects, and highlight the ethical concerns surrounding this procedure. Considering the various challenges and ethics of this contentious technique, the paper seeks to answer the rousing question – Is three-parent IVF the answer to preventing mitochondrial defects?

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), as its name implies, is an embodiment of the mitochondrial genetic information that constitutes about 1% of the mammalian genome. It fills a vital niche in tracing matrilineality; the mtDNA is inherited solely from the mother and plays a crucial role in genealogical research. Even a single mutation in the mtDNA can have debilitating and life-altering consequences. Mothers carrying mtDNA mutations will inevitably pass it on to the future generation. Three-parent In vitro fertilization (IVF), a breakthrough technique, shows promising potential to prevent mothers with mtDNA defects from passing it on to their future generation, while also maintaining the genetic link to their posterity. In this review, I delve into the intricacies of this technique, compare and analyze the difference between maternal spindle transfer and pronuclear transfer, discuss the prospective therapeutic effects, and highlight the ethical concerns surrounding this procedure. Considering the various challenges and ethics of this contentious technique, the paper seeks to answer the rousing question - Is three-parent IVF the answer to preventing mitochondrial defects?. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The first live birth following the use of a new reproductive technique, maternal spindle transfer (MST), which is a mitochondrial replacement technique (MRT), was accomplished by dividing the execution of the MST procedure between two countries, the USA and Mexico. This was done in order to avoid US legal restrictions on this technique. Sources of data Academic articles, news articles, documents obtained through freedom of information requests, laws, regulations and national reports. Areas of agreement MRTs are new reproductive techniques that present novel ethical and legal challenges, since genetic material from three people is employed to create a child. Areas of controversy Could the first MST procedure that culminated in a live birth negatively impact reproductive medicine in Mexico? Growing points The USA and Mexico need specific and clear legislation on MRTs, in order for such techniques not to be governed by prior existing legislation on assisted reproduction that is inadequate for dealing with the new challenges that these techniques present. Areas timely for developing research There is a pressing need for work to be done on the international governance of new reproductive techniques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

News about the first baby born after a mitochondrial replacement technique (MRT; specifically maternal spindle transfer) broke on September 27, 2016 and, in a matter of hours, went global. Of special interest was the fact that the mitochondrial replacement procedure happened in Mexico. Oneof the scientists behind this world firstwas quoted as having said that he and his team went to Mexico to carry out the procedure because, inMexico, there are no rules. In this paper, we exploreMexico's rule of law in relation to mitochondrial replacement techniques and show that, in fact, certain instances ofMRTs are prohibited at the federal level and others are prohibited at the state level. According to our interpretation of the law, the scientists behind this first successful MRT procedure broke federal regulations regarding assisted fertilization research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]