PET PET
  • My Account
  • Subscribe
Become a Friend Donate
  • About Us
    • People
    • Press Office
    • Our History
  • Get Involved
    • Become a Friend of PET
    • Volunteer
    • Campaigns
    • Writing Scheme
    • Partnership and Sponsorship
    • Advertise with Us
  • Donate
    • Become a Friend of PET
  • BioNews
    • News
    • Comment
    • Reviews
    • Elsewhere
    • Topics
    • Glossary
    • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Upcoming Events
    • Previous Events
  • Engagement
    • Policy and Projects
      • Resources
    • Education
  • Jobs & Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
    • People
    • Press Office
    • Our History
  • Get Involved
    • Become a Friend of PET
    • Volunteer
    • Campaigns
    • Writing Scheme
    • Partnership and Sponsorship
    • Advertise with Us
  • Donate
    • Become a Friend of PET
  • BioNews
    • News
    • Comment
    • Reviews
    • Elsewhere
    • Topics
    • Glossary
    • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Upcoming Events
    • Previous Events
  • Engagement
    • Policy and Projects
      • Resources
    • Education
  • Jobs & Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • My Account
  • Subscribe
  • Privacy Statement
  • Advertising Policy
  • Thanks and Acknowledgements
PETBioNewsCommentThree parents and a baby?

BioNews

Three parents and a baby?

Published 18 June 2009 posted in Comment and appears in BioNews 106

Author

Juliet Tizzard

Image by Alan Handyside via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts a human egg soon after fertilisation, with the two parental pronuclei clearly visible.
CC0 1.0
Image by Alan Handyside via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts a human egg soon after fertilisation, with the two parental pronuclei clearly visible.

It's strange how scientific studies become news stories. Usually, science journalists trawl the reputable journals for published papers which seem to have important or controversial findings. They write up the findings in layman's terms and get them published the following day. But the latest controversy in reproductive science has taken...

It's strange how scientific studies become news stories. Usually, science journalists trawl the reputable journals for published papers which seem to have important or controversial findings. They write up the findings in layman's terms and get them published the following day. But the latest controversy in reproductive science has taken a while to surface.

Over the weekend, many British and American newspapers, television programmes and websites have devoted many column inches and broadcast hours to a story from the US that a number of children have been born after cytoplasm transfer (see this week's top story). But the technique isn't particularly new: the first cytoplasm transfer baby was born four years ago. Nor is the study itself: the paper appeared in the journal Human Reproduction in March, but no-one outside the scientific world took much notice.


For whatever reason the story came to light now, the coverage of it has been curious. Most journalists and broadcasters covering the story described the babies as having two mothers: one who provides DNA in the nucleus and one who provides DNA in the mitochondria. But, as the authors of the study have said, mitochondrial DNA accounts for such a minuscule amount of the total genetic information in the resulting embryo that its origin has a vanishingly small impact on the child. A parent - even in its limited genetic (as opposed to social) sense - must surely mean more than just a provider of 27 of the approximately 30,000 genes in a human being.


But even if these babies born of cytoplasm transfer could be understood to have two biological mothers, why is this wrong? Adopted children have two mothers: the one who gave birth to them and the one who brought them up. Children born as a result of surrogacy arrangements have a biological mother (the woman who provided the egg) and a gestational mother (the woman who carried the pregnancy). If cytoplasm transfer babies have two mothers, this is nothing particularly new.


Cytoplasm transfer may not be a particularly welcome technique, not because it is morally wrong, but because its application in humans could be premature. It is not clear exactly what happens when mitochondrial and nuclear DNA come together in the egg from different sources. Subtle changes could occur which perhaps need further investigation in animals or human embryo research. Perhaps journalists should have concentrated on this issue rather than getting overheated about multiple parents.

Related Articles

Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the output from a DNA sequencing machine.
CC BY 4.0
Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the sequencing output from an automated DNA sequencing machine.
News
29 October 2012 • 2 minutes read

Study finds genetic link to premature birth

by Mehmet Fidanboylu

Researchers from Finland and the USA have identified a gene linked to an increased risk of premature birth. Previous research has looked at the mechanisms for synchronising fetal maturation and birth in animals...

Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the output from a DNA sequencing machine.
CC BY 4.0
Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the sequencing output from an automated DNA sequencing machine.
News
17 October 2012 • 3 minutes read

HFEA asks scientists for advice on mitochondrial disease treatment

by MacKenna Roberts

Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley has asked the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to convene an expert group 'to assess the effectiveness and safety' of a fertility treatment that would enable children to be born without potentially devastating, incurable mitochondrial diseases.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

« Does legal fatherhood matter?

Data-Label The UK's Leading Supplier Of Medical Labels & Asset Labels

RetiringDentist.co.uk The UK's Leading M&A Company.
easyfundraising
amazon

This month in BioNews

  • Recent
27 June 2022 • 4 minutes read

Thirty years of PET: our 'Fertility, Genomics and Embryo Research' report

27 June 2022 • 5 minutes read

Children's rights and donor conception: What next?

20 June 2022 • 4 minutes read

The problems with lifting donor anonymity earlier

20 June 2022 • 6 minutes read

An adaptive act: How should human fertilisation and embryology legislation respond to scientific and technological change?

13 June 2022 • 1 minute read

A new look for BioNews

Subscribe to BioNews and other PET updates for free.

Subscribe
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS
Wellcome
Website redevelopment supported by Wellcome.

Website by Impact Media Impact Media

  • Privacy Statement
  • Advertising Policy
  • Thanks and Acknowledgements

© 1992 - 2022 Progress Educational Trust. All rights reserved.

Limited company registered in England and Wales no 07405980 • Registered charity no 1139856

Subscribe to BioNews and other PET updates for free.

Subscribe
PET PET

PET is an independent charity that improves choices for people affected by infertility and genetic conditions.

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS
Wellcome
Website redevelopment supported by Wellcome.

Navigation

  • About Us
  • Get Involved
  • Donate
  • BioNews
  • Events
  • Engagement
  • Jobs & Opportunities
  • Contact Us

BioNews

  • News
  • Comment
  • Reviews
  • Elsewhere
  • Topics
  • Glossary
  • Newsletters

Other

  • My Account
  • Subscribe

Website by Impact Media Impact Media

  • Privacy Statement
  • Advertising Policy
  • Thanks and Acknowledgements

© 1992 - 2022 Progress Educational Trust. All rights reserved.

Limited company registered in England and Wales no 07405980 • Registered charity no 1139856