Why the mitochondria debate shouldn't be left to the popular media

Predictably,
the publication of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics' report (1) supporting
further research into a technique to prevent inheritance of mitochondrial
disease prompted a flurry of publicity. Equally predictably, nearly every newspaper
- whether broadsheet or tabloid - went for the sensationalist angle and used
the 'three parent IVF' tag in their headline. The exceptions were the Guardian (2)
and the Northern Echo (3).

These
were the only newspapers to respond in print to the pleas of the experts
involved in the discussions, who have asked repeatedly that 'all efforts should be made to discourage sensational
interpretation' (4). Indeed, in his comment
in BioNews last week (5), Dr Geoff Watts, who chaired the Nuffield working
group, referred to the 'three parent froth', and noted in resigned tones that
this debate now seems doomed to be labelled in this way.

Yet, as he pointed out, this distracts from the far more
significant issue raised by the potential treatment strategy under discussion,
namely that of moving a nucleus from one egg to another. This touches for the
first time on the issue of changing the genetic material, albeit a minuscule
amount, of the female offspring in future generations. The genetic material in
question is restricted to the organelles in the cytoplasm that provide cells
with energy, the mitochondria.

There is no escaping the fact that this takes us into a new
realm in terms of therapy; as Dr Watts says, 'it does cross a line'. Our
responsibility, therefore, is to ensure that further debate establishes beyond
doubt that what is under discussion is distinct from interference with the
nuclear germline; the debate concerns a technique that will enable faulty
mitochondria in the egg cytoplasm to be replaced with healthy ones, but along
with the mitochondria will go the tiny amount of DNA they carry.

Further discussion of this topic is imminent, because the Human Fertilisation
and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has been asked by Secretary of State for Health
and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to seek public
views on the development of the same technique that was considered by the
Nuffield consultation (6).

The
HFEA's public consultation will be launched in September this year, preceded in
July by a series of events across the UK that will give members of the public
the opportunity to discuss the issues in a bit more depth. With a chance for
people to come together, share their views and explore the real issues, it is
essential that these discussions are informed and level-headed, and not
obscured or distorted by the media's penchant for sensational catchphrases.

As a society, we have come so far since the 1980s, when
public opinion was influenced by figures like Enoch Powell. His Unborn Children
(Protection) bill posed a very real threat to any further innovation, any research,
or the development of treatment options for the infertile or families suffering
from the blight of inherited disease. The change has come through raised
awareness, information and education, familiarity, and demystification of the
field of reproductive technology. We owe it to those who campaigned in the 1980s
and 1990s, and to future generations, to ensure that the level of discussion
during this forthcoming HFEA consultation is intelligent, informed and
pertinent to the real issues.