Search

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.

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.

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. 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 paper 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.

Is there any ethical reason why legislation should prevent the use of donor mitochondria in cases where children are likely to inherit mitochondrial disease from their mothers? The transfer of a donor's healthy mitochondria into a woman's egg or early embryo aims to prevent a child from inheriting mitochondrial disease from its mother. In Feb 2015 the United Kingdom became the first country to allow the technique, and last month the US Institute of Medicine also determined that mitochondrial donation is acceptable in some circumstances. Current laws and regulations in Australia are unlikely to allow this treatment to be used clinically so that children can be born with donor mitochondria. However, in all states and territories (except Western Australia), undertaking embryo research into at least some methods of mitochondrial donation may be possible under an appropriate licence. So far, no such licences have been granted. There are also no plans to review these laws, with the most recent review in 2011 rejecting any change to allow mitochondrial donation. Should Australia now follow these overseas developments?

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. One of the scientists behind this world first was quoted as having said that he and his team went to Mexico to carry out the procedure because, in Mexico, there are no rules. In this paper, we explore Mexico's rule of law in relation to mitochondrial replacement techniques and show that, in fact, certain instances of MRTs 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.

Background Bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (BM-MSCs) are capable of repairing wounded lung epithelial cells by donating cytoplasmic material and mitochondria. Recently, we characterized two populations of human lung-derived mesenchymal stromal cells isolated from digested parenchymal lung tissue (LT-MSCs) from healthy individuals or from lung transplant recipients’ bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL-MSCs). The aim of this study was to determine whether LT-MSCs and BAL-MSCs are also capable of donating cytoplasmic content and mitochondria to lung epithelial cells. Methods Cytoplasmic and mitochondrial transfer was assessed by co-culturing BEAS2B epithelial cells with Calcein AM or Mitotracker Green FM-labelled MSCs. Transfer was then measured by flow cytometry and validated by fluorescent microscopy. Molecular inhibitors were used to determine the contribution of microtubules/tunnelling nanotubes (TNTs, cytochalasin D), gap junctions (carbenoxolone), connexin-43 (gap26) and microvesicles (dynasore). Results F-actin microtubules/TNTs extending from BM-MSCs, LT-MSCs and BAL-MSCs to bronchial epithelial cells formed within 45 minutes of co-culturing cells. Each MSC population transferred a similar volume of cytoplasmic content to epithelial cells. Inhibiting microtubule/TNTs, gap junction formation and microvesicle endocytosis abrogated the transfer of cytoplasmic material from BM-MSCs, LT-MSCs and BAL-MSCs to epithelial cells. In contrast, blocking connexin-43 gap junction formation had no effect on cytoplasmic transfer. All MSC populations donated mitochondria to bronchial epithelial cells with similar efficiency. Mitochondrial transfer was reduced in all co-cultures after microtubule/TNT or endocytosis inhibition. Gap junction formation inhibition reduced mitochondrial transfer in BM-MSC and BAL-MSC co-cultures but had no effect on transfer in LT-MSC co-cultures. Connexin-43 inhibition did not impact mitochondrial transfer. Finally, bronchial epithelial cells were incapable of donating cytoplasmic content or mitochondria to any MSC population. Conclusion Similar to their bone marrow counterparts, LT-MSCs and BAL-MSCs can donate cytoplasmic content and mitochondria to bronchial epithelial cells via multiple mechanisms. Given that BM-MSCs utilize these mechanisms to mediate the repair of damaged bronchial epithelial cells, both LT-MSCs and BAL-MSCs will probably function similarly.