Mitochondrial Replacement Slippery Slope?

The UK's moves on mitochondrial replacement for IVF stirs an ethical debate.

Full-text access for registered users only. Existing users login here.
New to GenomeWeb? Register here quickly for free access.

I don't think

I don't think pre-implantation genetic testing would offer much as an 'alternative', save confim in every case that the mitochondrial disease had indeed been past to the fertilised egg. As the mitochomdrial genome is so small, does not recombine and demonstrates precious little person to person vaiability, this is just a more efficiant (and likely safer) means of eliminating the 'errors' in sequence that cause otherwise unavoidably inherited mitochondrial disease. Introducing a stable, recombining synthetic chromosome with a 'good copy' of all the known recessive gene diseases will be ethically challenging, but this is not what is being enabled here.

If the replacement of the

If the replacement of the diseased mitochonria can be done safely and effectively, then it should be allowed.

Those who are keenly

Those who are keenly interested in this decision might find the reports (a report from two years ago and this year's update) from the Nuffield Council of interest. They are beautifully clear explications of the sciences and clinical options and many of the moral implications. I find the arguments in Nuffield reports more persuasive than last week's Nature commentary.
http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/mitochondrial-dna-disorders/mitochondri...

'Lee Turnpenny writes that...

'Lee Turnpenny writes that... [Darnovsky] has essentially engaged in a slippery slope fallacy.'

I didn't write that.

'... Turnpenny notes that Darnovsky assumes that this mitochondrial replacement technology "is itself germline modification," making her article's title about a slope toward germline modification misleading.

I didn't note that. Darnovsky is not assuming; she is of the opinion that mitochondrial replacement constitutes germline modification (and I would guess she was not responsible for the 'potentially mis-readable' title of her article).

Thank you for the note.

Thank you for the note. Clarified your comments.