‘한 아빠와 두 엄마’ 사이에 태어난 아기 Three-parent babies is not 'playing God', says Cameron...(VIDEO)

영국 하원이 최근 세계 최초로 ‘세 부모 체외수정’ 허용 법안을 가결했습니다.

유전질환의 대물림을 막기 위해 엄마의 난자핵을 건강한 기증자의 난자에 심는 방식인데요.

결국 ‘생물학적 엄마’가 두 명이 되는 셈이어서 생명윤리를 둘러싼 논란이 뜨겁다고 합니다.

• 

  
  

  

  
  

  

  
  

  

  
  

  

  
  

  

  
  

  

  
  

  

  
  

  

  
  

  

  
  

  

   

  http://news.kbs.co.kr/news/NewsView.do?SEARCH_NEWS_CODE=3014776

Three-parent babies is not 'playing God', says Cameron as MPs vote to legalise IVF technique in BritainPM backs laws to allow babies to be born using DNA from three people

382 MPs vote in favour of the controversial technology, 128 against

It can prevent serious diseases from being passed down to children 

If legalised, Britain will become first country to approve new process  

But critics say technology is a slippery slope towards 'designer' babies  

By Matt Chorley, Political Editor for MailOnline

MPs today backed new laws which will allow babies to be born using the DNA of three parents from as early as next year.

A free vote in the Commons saw 382 MPs vote in favour of the controversial technology, which would prevent serious diseases being passed down from mother to child. Some 128 voted against.

David Cameron, who voted in favour of the change, said it was not 'playing God' but the chance to hep parents have a 'healthy and happy baby'.

Britain will become the first country in the world to permit the creation of IVF babies with genetic material from three different people, despite warnings from some experts warn it would be an 'historic mistake'.

Today's vote will be followed by one in the House of Lords. If the change is passed there, it would not become law until October. The first babies could be born next year. 

Mr Cameron told LBC: ‘I’m supporting it because I think it’s going to give parents who want to have a healthy and happy baby the chance to have that baby.

'As someone who has had the experience of having a severely disabled child I have every sympathy with those parents. This is something that can be done and something from all the research and evidence is not playing god with nature, this is much more like a kidney donation or a lung donation rather than some sort of fundamental change that’s being made. 

'We have a very responsible in this country of investigating these changes, fully researching them and then voting on them. But I think when’s there a chance to vote for life and for happiness for parents I’ll be voting in favour.' 

More than 80 Conservative MPs voted against the regulations to allow IVF babies to be created with three people's DNA, while 47 of the party also stayed away from the Commons for the historic vote.

Some 31 Labour MPs joined the 81 Tory opponents, as did five Liberal Democrats.

Also opposed were two members of the SNP, two from the SDLP, one independent and Ukip MP Mark Reckless.

Several ministers, including Justice Secretary Chris Grayling, voted against the measure which was carried by a majority of 254. 

In the Commons debate today, Tory backbencher David Burrowes criticised the idea, which he said involved procedures which are cell nuclear transfer.

He told health minister Jane Ellison: 'That's what regulations four and seven do and make clear. By that they very implicitly do explicitly alter the nuclear DNA in the egg and therefore one has to agree an honest clear definition is what we're dealing with is genetic modification.' 

David Cameron, who voted in favour of the change, said it was not 'playing God' but the chance to hep parents have a 'healthy and happy baby

Health minister Jane Ellison said the techniques offered the 'only hope' for some women who carry the mitochondrial disease to have 'healthy, genetically-related children'

Today's vote will be followed by one in the House of Lords. If the change is passed, it would not become law until October. The first babies could be born next year

Progress: Scientists at Newcastle University have developed a way of swapping the mother-to-be's diseased mitochondria – the 'batteries' that give cells energy – with healthy ones from another woman's egg

But Miss Ellison rejected the term, insisting: 'No, I can't accept that description. I recognise you have objections to the procedure but I don't recognise your description and no nuclear DNA is affected by this. Mitochondrial DNA is different.'

She told MPs the techniques provided in the regulations offered the 'only hope' for some women who carry the disease to have 'healthy, genetically-related children' who will not suffer from the 'devastating and often fatal consequences' of mitochondrial disease.

She said mitochondrial DNA is 0.054 per cent of a person's overall DNA and none of the nuclear DNA which determines personal characteristics and traits.

Mitochondrial donation would not alter the nuclear DNA, Ms Ellison said. 

Labour's shadow public health minister Luciana Berger said the techniques could break a 'chain of misery' that would otherwise affect multiple generations.

She told MPs: 'We have within our reach the possibility of eradicating mitochondrial disease and families who have been blighted by it for generations, families who have endured a disease for which there is no cure.

'They have suffered daily battles with painfully debilitating symptoms and have sadly lost their children prematurely.

'Families who have had to face up to the risk and perhaps the certainty that to be a parent must come at the expense of a difficult and, in too many cases, painful life for their children.

'Not only would children born through such techniques be free of these conditions, but so would their children and grandchildren, breaking a chain of misery that would have otherwise ruined generations of lives.'

The Church of England and others have called for more evidence that the technology is safe. Critics say the move marks the start of a slippery slope towards 'designer' babies.

But the British scientist who invented the technology welcome the vote.

Prof Doug Turnbull, Professor of Neurology, Newcastle University, said: 'I'm delighted for patients with mitochondrial disease. This is an important hurdle in the development of this new IVF technique but we still have the debate in the House of Lords, and importantly the licensing by the HFEA. 

'Finally, I think the quality of the debate today shows what a robust scientific, ethical and legislative procedure we have in the UK for IVF treatments. This is important and something the UK should rightly be proud of.' 

David Cameron supports the technique, which will allow clinics to replace an egg's defective mitochondrial DNA with healthy DNA from a female donor. 

Supporters of the amendment, such as IVF pioneer and broadcaster Lord Winston, argue that it would be immoral not to take advantage of a technique that could prevent devastating and potentially lethal diseases. 

They point out that even though no medical technique has zero risk, three in-depth reviews by experts have concluded that mitochondrial donation is 'not unsafe'.

Graphic shows how the three-parent baby process works. However critics argue there is a small risk of diseased mitochondria could be carried over too (point 4)

They also stress that even if the change goes through, it does not follow that women will automatically be treated. It will be up to the fertility regulator, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to judge each application on its merits and decide whether or not it should be approved. Licences permitting mitochondrial donation will only be granted if the Authority is satisfied that women or their babies will not be put in harms way.

Mitochondrial DNA only accounts for 0.1 per cent of a person's total DNA, and affects metabolism but not individual characteristics such as facial features and eye colour, which are determined by nuclear DNA. Changing the law to allow mitochondrial donation in no way affects the firm ban on altering nuclear DNA or reproductive human cloning, it is claimed. 

However critics, such as the group Human Genetics Alert and Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, maintain that despite the scientific reviews, the decision to legalise mitochondrial donation is being taken too hastily.

One of the chief arguments against the vote being taken today is that the procedures have so far only been tested in the laboratory and on animals. 

No clinical trial has taken place to show conclusively that the treatments are safe in humans. The first women to be treated will therefore be human guinea pigs.

Opponents point out that potentially serious problems might only arise once the procedures are carried out for real. For instance, it might turn out that mDNA affects personal traits as well as metabolism in unforeseen ways.

Epigenetic effects are seen as another hazard. These are environmental influences that can affect the way genes work, either switching them on or off to produce permanent changes.

More generally, critics say mitochondrial donation is a step too far, and crosses an ethical boundary. It could mark the start of a slippery slope that leads to the creation of 'designer babies' whose genes are tweaked to provide desirable characteristics. Rather than risk a future Brave New World of human genetic engineering and eugenics, a line should be drawn in the sand now, it is claimed.

Flawed mitochondria can cause degenerative genetic diseases which kill in infancy. Women carrying damaged mitochondria can also miscarry repeatedly and often face the heartbreaking choice of whether it would be best to remain childless.

Research shows mitochondrial donation could potentially help almost 2,500 women of reproductive age, with 150 babies a year likely to be born using the technique.

The technology involves swapping a mother's diseased mitochondria with healthy genetic material from an egg donated by another woman.

Supporters say the legislation would allow those living in the shadow of incurable disease the chance of having a healthy child. But opponents who say the move marks the start of a slippery slope towards 'designer' babies.

Flawed mitochondria can cause degenerative genetic diseases which kill in infancy. Women carrying damaged mitochondria can also miscarry repeatedly and often face the heartbreaking choice of whether it would be best to remain childless.

Those backing the law change include five Nobel Prize winners, who said the decision should be put in the hands of parents.

Prime Minister David Cameron is expected to back laws which will allow babies to be born using DNA of three parents

But Church of England argues it would be 'irresponsible' to legalise the procedure without more research. 

Its influential Mission and Public Affairs (MPA) division of the Archbishops' Council has raised concerns that the ethical issues involved 'have not been sufficiently explored'. It has also questioned the speed of the move towards legislation.

One of the church's leading figures, Rev Dr Brendan McCarthy, its national adviser on medical ethics, reportedly told the Daily Telegraph: 'Without a clearer picture of the role mitochondria play in the transfer of hereditary characteristics, the Church does not feel it would be responsible to change the law at this time.'

The Catholic Church is staunchly opposed to any technique involving artificial insemination.

Dr David King, director of the watchdog group Human Genetics Alert, said: 'This is not about protecting embryos but about protecting children from the severe health risks of these unnecessary techniques and protecting everyone from the eugenic designer baby future that will follow from this.

'The public has been grossly misled about both the science and the ethics of these techniques.

'Advocates say we shouldn't worry about 'slippery slopes'.

'Yet in my experience, they are the very same people who, a few years later, push us to take the next step and the one after that.'

Josephine Quintavalle, from the pro-life organisation Comment on Reproductive Ethics, added: 'It will be a shameful day for robust, objective and virtuous science if the UK Parliament votes in favour of germline genetic modification of the human embryo.

'The proponents' arguments are flawed scientifically and ethically, and we need to find cures for mitochondrial diseases which do not rely on destructive manipulation of early human life.'

DAILYMAIL

"from past to future"

데일리건설뉴스 construction news

콘페이퍼 conpaper 

.