"Three-parent babies" and the Human Germline Modification Debate

Human germline modification is back in the news. The current round of public conversation was launched in the UK by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). In the past few days, the media and the blogosphere have lit up with an intensifying debate. 

What HFEA wants people to consider is whether it is acceptable to use in vitro fertilization to try to avoid a specific category of genetic disease. Is it OK to help couples at risk for mitochondrial disorders by supplying donor mitochondria to the new embryo? If mom’s own mitochondrial DNA will lead to a disease, is it OK to add mitochondria from an outside donor?

PHOTO Transmission electron microscope image of a thin section cut through an area of mammalian lung tissue. The high magnification image shows a mitochondria. Source: Wikimedia. Credit: Louisa Howard, PhD. This work has been released into the public domain by its author.

Many refer to this as the “three-parent baby.” And for that reason alone, they object.

Others raise the stakes in the argument. They insist that the “three-parent baby” is just the tip of the looming germline modification iceberg. What’s really coming, they claim, is the era of “designer babies,” enhanced or improved versions of ourselves, a new form of high-tech eugenics.  And with that comes more mischief.

Consider what Stuart Newman (New York Medical College) had to say in his comment in The Huffington Post. Newman starts by asking whether the procedure is really as safe as it seems. Fair question. But then Newman writes that what is really going on here is “a new form of eugenics, the improvement of humans by deliberately choosing their inherited traits.” And then, a few short paragraphs later, he’s off to the Nazis, forced sterilization, and the Nurenberg Code.

Now it may be true that the “three-parent baby” is a pretty bad idea medically. But morally, is it really the fast-track to Nazi medicine?

Or consider Marcy Darnovsky’s comments in a press release from the Center for Genetics and Society:

“Changing the genes we pass on to our children is a bright ethical line that should not be crossed,” said Marcy Darnovsky, PhD, the Center's executive director. “It has been observed by scientists around the world, adopted as law by more than 40 countries, and incorporated in several international treaties. It would be wrong for the UK to disregard this global bioethical consensus, especially when there are safe alternatives available for the very few people who would be candidates for the procedures.”

The release concludes: “The Center for Genetics and Society calls for a domestic and international moratorium on approval of any procedures involving inheritable human genetic modification…”
Or consider the comment of David King of Human Genetics Alert as quoted by the BBC: 

Dr David King, the director of Human Genetics Alert, said: "Historians of the future will point to this as the moment when technocrats crossed the crucial line, the decision that led inexorably to the disaster of genetically engineered babies and consumer eugenics.

Is the “three-parent baby” really “crossing the germline barrier”? Back in 2001 when the first “three-parent babies” being created here in the US, Erik Parens and Eric Juengst wrote a response in the journal Science. They called it “Inadvertently Crossing the Germline.” Ever since then, many have agreed. Despite some really important distinctions, mitochondrial replacement is a kind of human germline modification.

A bit of a stretch, but OK, let’s call it that. But is that reason enough to condemn it? Is human germline modification itself morally wrong? It may be biomedically impossible. It may be excessively expensive considering all the other needs facing the world’s children. But is it intrinsically wrong? 

 

In 2008, I published an edited book that tried to take the temperature of religious opinions on the morality of germline modification. What I discovered surprised even me. Most religious scholars in my collection were not particularly troubled by the prospect of germline modification. Sure, they had their concerns—safety, social justice, over-controlling parents, an attitude of commodification. But in the end, almost without exception, they agreed: what can be religiously or morally wrong with wanting to use the latest technology to help parents have healthy children? For more on this, see Design and Destiny from MIT Press.

 

For many people, it comes as a total shock to hear that even some Vatican statements support the notion that germline modification is not inherently immoral—that, in fact, it could be “desirable.” The Vatican has specific constraints that must be met. No IVF, for one, so the “three-parent baby” strategy fails on that score. But if the means are acceptable, then the goal is laudable, at least according to this statement made by Pope John Paul II:

A strictly therapeutic intervention whose explicit objective is the healing of various maladies such as those stemming from chromosomal defects will, in principle, be considered desirable, provided it is directed to the true promotion of the personal well-being of the individual without doing harm to his integrity or worsening his conditions of life. Such an intervention would indeed fall within the logic of the Christian moral tradition.

I agree with the “three-parent” critics about the importance of the debate over human germline modification. For that very reason, I hope they tone down the rhetoric. This is not Nazi medicine.

 

There are sound moral reasons for wanting to move forward on human germline modification. Of course, there are incredibly important technical hurdles that must be overcome. Some of them, in fact, may prove impossible. If so, then of course human germline modification would be a bad idea because of the risks.

 

But if biomedical research can find its way through these technical barriers, what then? Yes, there are other objections, more religious or moral in nature, but there are also strong reasons for going forward. That, I suggest, is where the real discussion should focus.