EXPLORATORY INITIATIVE ON THE NEW HUMAN GENETIC TECHNOLOGIES
BULLETIN #2 MAY 9, 2001

Researchers Claim to Create Genetically Modified Children

A team of US scientists has set off a flurry of news stories with
the claim that they and others have created "genetically engineered
children." The researchers report in the March issue of the journal
Human Reproduction on the creation of "nearly 30 babies worldwide"
who, they say, represent "the first case of human germline genetic
modification resulting in normal healthy children."
<www.humrep.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/16/3/513>.

These events raise a red flag signaling the urgency of working toward
bans on the manipulation of the genes we pass on to our children--the
technology known as "human germline engineering."

The gene transfer procedure in question is not germline modification in
the usual sense: It cannot lead to the controlled alteration of traits
that most disturbs those working to prohibit human germline engineering.
But the procedure has put the future health of these children--and their
descendants--at possible risk of an extremely serious medical condition
that often develops later in life.

In addition, the procedure flouts the widespread conviction among
scientists, political leaders, and the general public that tampering
with the human germline is medically unnecessary and unsafe, and that
it could open the door to a "techno-eugenic" human future, with
potentially disastrous outcomes. In an increasing number of countries
world-wide, human germline engineering is being declared a criminal act.

How the Procedure Works

The researchers--Jason Barritt, Carol Brenner, Henry Malter and Jacques
Cohen of the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science at the St.
Barnabas Medical Center in New Jersey--were using a technique known as
cytoplasmic transfer. They injected cytoplasm (cellular material outside
the nucleus) from eggs of fertile women into "potentially compromised"
eggs of women whose difficulty in establishing pregnancies they presumed
to be due to defects in the cytoplasm of their eggs.

Cytoplasm contains structures called mitochondria, which produce energy
for the cell and which have a small number of their own genes. So when
cytoplasm is transferred, some mitochondria and their genes are likely
to be transferred as well.

Some of the babies born after the cytoplasmic transfers have been tested
and found, unsurprisingly, to have mitochondrial genes from both the
donor and recipient eggs. Since mitochondrial DNA is passed from mothers
to their children, the introduced mixed-mitochondria condition can be
considered a germline alteration.

The Medical Risks

A mixture of mitochondrial types is known to occur naturally, and
sometimes to cause life-threatening illness. The often debilitating
symptoms of "mitochondrial heteroplasmy," as it is called, can begin
at any point in life including well into adulthood. (See United
Mitochondrial Disease Foundation, <www.umdf.org>.) So the claim by
the St. Barnabas researchers that they have produced "normal healthy
children" may, tragically, be premature.

The St. Barnabas report in Human Reproduction asserts that naturally
occurring "pathological" heteroplasmy associated with disease differs
from the kind produced by cytoplasmic transfer, which it calls "benign
heteroplasmy [that occurs] after mixing two potentially normal
populations of mitochondria." But it offers no evidence for the
assertion that the mitochondrial heteroplasmy they have produced in
these children is, in fact, benign.

We do not know how much the parents seeking treatment for infertility
were told about the likelihood of mitochondrial heteroplasmy in their
babies, or about its association with mitochondrial disease. The St.
Barnabas website, <www.sbivf.com/cytpqa.htm>, continues to offer the
procedure without mentioning these risks.

"Inadvertent" Germline Engineering

Cytoplasmic transfers have been done for several years at a number of
infertility centers, and the mixed mitochondrial condition of the
children born after the procedures has been reported in the past. It
has also been recognized for some time that a form of germline
modification is therefore produced by cytoplasmic transfer. The real
news at this juncture is the St. Barnabas researchers' provocative
assertion that they have produced genetically altered children.

The St. Barnabas claim began drawing attention after the publication
of an editorial about it in the April 20 issue of the journal Science.
In "Inadvertently Crossing the Germ Line," bioethicists Erik Parens
of the Hastings Center and Eric Juengst of Case Western Reserve wrote,
"This news should gladden all who welcome new children into the world.
And it should trouble those committed to transparent public conversation
about the prospect of using `reprogenetic' technologies to shape future
children." (See <www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/292/5516/397>.)

Parens and Juengst go on to speculate why the researchers might have
felt justified in ignoring the NIH Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee's
de facto ban on germline interventions. One of their suggestions, later
confirmed by Cohen, was that the work was privately funded, and the NIH
committee technically has jurisdiction only when federal moneys are
involved. In many countries, the experiments would be illegal whether
or not government money was spent.

Parens and Juengst, who consider the act "unfortunate" but "perfectly
legitimate," conclude with the "hope that before any other inadvertent
steps are taken toward making IGMs [inheritable genetic modifications],
those interventions will receive the public discussion they deserve"--a
formulation that unfortunately can be read as assuming that such other
steps will ultimately be taken.

Controlling the New Genetic and Reproductive Technologies

There is little doubt that the St. Barnabas researchers understood the
medical risks and intensely controversial nature of the procedures, as
well as the legal technicalities of their situation. Yet they decided
to cross one of the most politically and ethically consequential
technological thresholds human beings have ever confronted. Their
disregard starkly demonstrates the urgency of bringing human genetic
and reproductive technologies--whether privately or publicly funded--
under effective societal control.

Some media coverage of the situation, notably by Gina Kolata in the
New York Times accepted the claim that cytoplasmic transfer is simply
a fertility treatment ("Babies Born in Experiments Have Genes From 3
People," May 5, 2001). Most articles featured headlines about
"genetically altered" or "genetically engineered" babies. Only the
non-profit group Institute for Science in Society considered the
babies' risk of future mitochondrial disease. (Joe Cummins and
Mae-Wan Ho, May 2 ISIS Report, <www.i-sis.org/first_gm_humans.shtml>.)

It would be unfortunate if headlines about "GE babies" and claims that
"the germ line has already been crossed" were used to demoralize
opponents of a techno-eugenic future. We need to begin immediately to
put in place global accords that ban human genetic manipulation and
establish participatory procedures for deciding about the acceptability
of other new genetic and reproductive technologies.

In the meantime, the St. Barnabas Medical Center and all other
institutions should suspend use of cytoplasmic transfer immediately.
In addition, the US Congress should determine how such a medically
and politically dangerous procedure was permitted in the first place.

The genetic redesign of human beings can and must be prevented.

# # #

For samples of media coverage, see
"Genetically altered babies born," BBC News Online, May 4,
<news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid%5F1312000/1312708.stm>,
"Gene-altered babies spark debate,"
<www.msnbc.com/modules/exports/ct_email.asp?/news/569043.asp>, and
"Bio-Babies Spawn Ethics Question," Wired, May 5,
<www.wirednews.com/news/print/0,1294,43579,00.html>.

------
Exploratory Initiative on the New Human Genetic Technologies
466 Green Street, San Francisco, CA 94133
tel: 415-434-1403
fax: 415-986-6779
email: humanfuture@publicmediacenter.org
subscribe to GENETIC CROSSROADS: teel@adax.com
staff: Richard Hayes, Dr. Marcy Darnovsky, Rev. Douglas Hunt, Tania Simoncelli
To unsubscribe send the message "unsubscribe no-cal" to <majordomo@geneticcrossroads.org>.