Talk:Mitochondrial replacement therapy/Archive 1

NPOV
Please explain what the potential benefits of this procedure would be. Obviously there must be some, or at least some claimed, or else nobody would be trying to do it. Borock (talk) 04:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * An NPOV was an odd tag choice, I'm pulling it. The procedure is notable on its face. Nevertheless, the potential benefits are written into the article - eggs are removed from cells with faulty miochondrials and put into hollowed-out donor eggs. This removes the risk of some inheritable diseases. EBY (talk) 07:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The article didn't give that information when I tagged it. I agree that the topic is notable.  I was only asking that the article give both sides of the controversy. Borock (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I will find the info and add it, rather than put back the tag. Borock (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Could the donor of the nuclear DNA for the egg be male?
Would it work if a woman supplied the mitrochondrial DNA and egg, but the donor of the nuclear DNA for the egg were male? Because the mitochondrial DNA is a relatively minor player, this would allow two men to have a baby that was mostly their DNA. 216.66.5.43 (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe the whole nucleus of the mother is put into a donor egg. The nucleus is from the mother's egg, so I don't believe the nucleus of a man's cell could be used. 96.243.136.117 (talk) 06:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

"but none have yet been brought to term.[5]" is incorrect
I came here upon Google search for mitochondrial dna in vitro. The BBC News hour at 9 AM CDT USA interviewed a woman born in the 90's when the practice was done. It mentioned that quite a few people alive have triple DNA. They DID mention many were born with or experienced problems, implying a high ratio, in babies born, of relative failure to apparent success. It also said that (in my words) "the experiment is incomplete" in that this triple DNA is going to be passed down to future generations!

URL: BBC new story "The girl with three biological parents" - contains the line "Seventeen babies were born at Cohen's clinic, as a result of cytoplasmic transfer, who could have had DNA from three people."

WardXmodem (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've removed that sentence and requested a clean-up of the Ethics section. (Not something I feel prepared to attempt myself.) 86.134.200.29 (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've also requested assistance/suggestions at WT:GENETICS. 86.134.200.29 (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I also came across an article in the 26 August 2014 edition of I (Independent newspaper) with the title "One child, three parents: the 'GM babies' 17 years on." There is an internet link here to a similar on-line version of the article. This article says that there are believed to be worldwide about about 30 people alive today who were born using cytoplasmic transfer - including 17 from the IRMS in New Jersey. The FDA cited reports that two foetuses (which did not go to term) had Turner syndrome and one baby had 'pervasive development development disorder' a classification which includes autism. The FDA concluded that the sample size was too small to draw reliable conclusions.SylviaStanley (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Use a neutral name
The "pronuclei transfer" medical technique is surely notable, so it is right that there is an article about it. But the current name of this article, "three-parent baby", is not neutral. The word "parent" has an order of magnitude more connotations than the term "genetic parent". I know who my parents are. I presume they are also my genetic parents, but I've never actually asked - because I don't care.

Opponents of the technique are trying to popularize the term "three-parent baby" because they believe it has more negative connotations. The article talks about the possibility of "psychological damage" to the babies in question, but the tactics of these people will have the effect of making that psychological damage more likely, in what reminds me of a self-fulfilling prophecy. They would presumably like to rename the extra-marital sex article to bastard child, but they have lost the battle to stigmatize children of unmarried parents, so are fighting new battles instead. Open4D (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The relevant UK law is called The Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations. I suggest “mitochondrial donation” as a workable, neutral name. – Kaihsu (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Open4D, do you have any proof that "Opponents of the technique are trying to popularize the term 'three-parent baby' because they believe it has more negative connotations."? And stating that "They would presumably like to rename the extra-marital sex article to bastard child" makes no sense since those two topics are not the same thing. With this edit, I see that Kaihsu renamed the article to Mitochondrial donation. The three policies to keep in mind when naming this article is WP:Common name, WP:POVTITLE and WP:Precise. And the one guideline to keep in mind when naming this article is Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. I might ask WP:Med to weigh in on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

What are the reasons that the UK allowed the procedure to be used?
What are the reasons that the UK allowed the procedure to be used? I don't see any explanation in this article.
 * The first paragraph of the section "Technique" is written in a most peculiar way.SylviaStanley (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Excellent rewrite of this article
Very many thanks Jytdog for your excellent rewrite of this article. The article was a mess and really needed this.SylviaStanley (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Language fix needed here
The English in this section is a bit broken: "Implications for identity is another ethical concern with psychological and emotional impacts on a child's life regarding of a person's sense of identity. It debates whether the genetic make-up of children born as a result of mitochondrial replacement affect their emotional well-being when they are aware that they are different from other healthy children conceived from two parents." Waylah (talk) 04:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Article title and lead sentence
Anyone reading the article would see that the procedure is neither mitochondrial replacement nor donation. An egg nucleus, or its genetic material, is transferred (replaced, donated) into an enucleated egg. Mitochondria are nowhere manipulated. The legal arrangement by which the nuclear donor comes to own the product should not distort the biological characterization of the method. Naming it this way minimizes the magnitude of the technique, which is similar to cloning.StN (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Roya s.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Clinic in Ukraine
Why there is no mention of clinic in Ukraine (https://nadiya.clinic/services/pro-transfer/) that successfully conceived a child with pronuclear transfer method? Is there more countries and clinics that allow to do this legally? From article it seems this is only possible in UK but that Ukraine clinic proves this is not the case. Arvenil (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)