Earlier this week, the UK House of Commons voted in favour of allowing the use of DNA from a third person in IVF to help eliminate mitochondrial disease. This was hailed as a major development – for those on both sides of the argument…
The ethics of the process seem unclouded to those who have lost children to mitochondrial disease. The DNA in question comes from outside the nucleus and is believed to contribute nothing to what we would consider to be the actual person, apart from fixing defects in cell energy metabolism.
Not a difficult choice it seems.
However, around one-third of MPs voted against developing the technology – why?
One of the arguments that often came up was that “once you’ve let the genie out of the bottle, you can’t put in back.” However, you could validly use this to describe the vast majority of scientific and social advances. Although Robert Oppenheimer may have some sympathy for the view.
The “thin end of the wedge” argument seems easily countered – as long as you stick to DNA from outside the nucleus, you should not be irreversibly on the road to designer babies.
It’s easy to dismiss arguments against “advances” like this as un-scientific or even down to fear of the unknown.
However, I remember a conversation I had with a reflexologist friend last weekend. She suggested that I was an “unbeliever.” I replied that honestly, I knew nothing about reflexology and so was not in any position to have a view on it.
It can be tempting to consider the ethical standpoint of someone with little specific knowledge as inherently less valid than an “informed” opinion.
But is this right?
Sometimes, maybe like a few of those MPs who voted “no,” you have a deep unease about something without being able to articulate why. Just because you can’t argue for something as lucidly as the opposing person, it doesn’t mean you are wrong.
Isn’t that the fundamental reason behind the ethics review process in the first place and the ideal mission statement for all IRBs?
After all, the non-expert voice is an essential one in governing medical ethics – as firmly enshrined in the principles of Good Clinical Practice.
|
|
 |
|
|
Share on LinkedIn |
