Laura Hercher, Genetic Counselor, Sarah Lawrence College
Nathan Pearson, Genomicist
0:00 A little history on three parent babies
7:07 Should mitochondrial transfer be legal in the U.S. today?
13:06 The “Great Disappointment:” The FDA's Sarepta decision
There were many headlines this past week heralding the first three parent baby to be born. But in fact, as our commentators point out in today’s look back on last month’s genomics news, three parent babies have been around for some time. So why are couples going to Mexico for mitochondrial transfer today? Why is it not legal in the U.S.?
Nathan points out that every one of our ancestors back ten generations ago gave us a hundred times more DNA than the mitochondrial donor might give to a three parent baby. Yes, the donor is a parent, he says, but she’s also just a distant cousin. "This shouldn’t freak anybody out.”
Laura doesn’t like the term “three parent babies” at all:
"It’s like in the early days when we went around, ‘oh is that a test tube baby?’ This is a human being, a kid on this planet—you can’t call this boy a ‘three parent baby’. He has two parents. They are the people raising him.”
Our second story involves regulation as well. This month the FDA approved Sarepta’s drug to treat Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Here’s a new drug that could help a patient population desperately in need, and yet, most of the key opinion leaders in our industry are very disappointed with the FDA. Why? The answer comes down to whether the FDA should include more than "just the science” in their decisions.