While you and your eco-conscious buddies were busy protesting genetically modified herbicide-resistant soybeans, scientists from Newcastle University were busy creating genetically modified disease-resistant embryos. Viable genetically modified disease-resistant human embryos.
Advancements in assisted reproductive technology have changed the course of the human race. It effectively rendered sex for purposes of reproduction obsolete more than three decades ago. That's right. It's been thirty three years since Louise Joy Brown was conceived in a petri dish using a process that is now widely known as in-vitro fertilization (IVF). But being conceived in a petri dish? That's so 20th century. Two years ago, scientists in the United Kingdom decided to catapult reproductive technology into the future. Using an experimental and currently illegal form of IVF, scientists can now extract the nuclei from the sperm and the egg and place the nuclei inside of a donor egg that has had its nucleus removed. "So, what does all this scientific mumbo jumbo about sperm and eggs and nuclei mean?" you ask. Well, to put it in simplest terms possible, it means that a woman can now give birth to a child with three biological parents.
While whoever thought of it definitely deserves to have their name go down in scientific history, the ability to create an embryo using the eggs of two women seems pretty worthless when you think about it. It’s an undeniably amazing yet utterly worthless discovery. One has to wonder if there's even an actual need for this technology, considering the fact that traditional IVF methods, egg donation, and surrogacy are already widely available to the public and far less controversial. Who would really use it and why? Aside from the basic human instinct to procreate, 1 in 5,000 children are born with mitochondrial diseases like myoclonic epilepsy with ragged red fibers (MERRF syndrome) and Leber's hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON). These conditions cause disabilities such as deafness and blindness. In worst case scenarios, mitochondrial diseases can even result in children dying in infancy. This technology allows for a woman with a mitochondrial disease to have her genetic material implanted into the disease free mitochondria of another woman, meaning she can have a disease-free embryo that is biologically related to her. It would be impossible to achieve the same outcome with the technology currently available on the market. The ability to create a child with two biological mothers would also be a huge leap forward for LGBT rights: it would allow same-sex couples to have biological children together. In a world where so many people refuse to acknowledge same-sex couples with children as "real" families, the ability for two people of the same gender to have a biological child together would, at the very least, render the infamous "homosexual-relationships-are-wrong-because-they-can't-produce-biological-children" argument permanently invalid.
While this IVF method would give hope to millions of women and couples who have hit a brick wall in their quest to become biological parents, its legalization wouldn’t be without its problems. Would the child's birth certificate list three biological parents? What happens in the event of a custody battle between three parents? Will a child be entitled to any and all citizenships held by both mothers? Then there's there question of whether or not society can handle it. When we can't even handle a few pieces of genetically modified corn our dinner plates, can we really handle a genetically modified human living next door to us?