Changing the law to allow 'three-parent babies'

In 2015, the UK became the first country in the world to approve legislation allowing the use of mitochondrial donation in tightly controlled clinical settings. So how did they navigate the regulations? And how did they address ethical concerns about bringing in genetic material from a third person to new babies? Emily Jackson is a professor of law at the London School of Economics and one of the country’s leading voices on medical ethics and fertility law. Emily told me why she doesn't believe this is a step towards ‘designer’ babies…

Emily - I think what the arguments were for why this is maybe not so concerning as, for example, gene editing of embryos, is that there's no change to the nuclear DNA of the embryo. The embryo will continue to be a mixture of the genetic mother and the genetic father's DNA. The mitochondria, in a sense, provides the battery or the energy for the cells. So I think because it was a change to this very small number of cells that are to do with the mitochondria, it wasn't seen as making the substantial changes that could be made, for example, by gene editing.

James - Drawing the distinction then between preventing an incurable inherited disease versus making designer babies, so to speak.

Emily - There's pretty much a worldwide consensus that gene editing in embryos is not safe enough to be done in humans. The Chinese doctor who reported that he'd done gene editing in embryos actually went to prison in China for doing so. So I think there is pretty much a consensus on gene editing that it isn't safe enough yet. But there was a lot of research done into mitochondrial replacement which established that this would be safe.

James - So scientists were clearly involved with every step in drawing up this new regulation. How were the public policy makers contributing to this process?

Emily - Absolutely. So when the HFEA engaged in its really rigorous series of processes, preceding making a recommendation to ministers, obviously scientists were heavily involved in that. But I think what's important to remember is that scientists are involved in order to explore what this involves. Is it safe? How would it be provided? But there are other people involved in the decision about whether or not this should go ahead, including public engagement, but also engagement with people who are concerned about ethics and the patient voice and a whole range of different stakeholders.

James - And then to complicate the picture somewhat, we heard from Mary Herbert a little earlier that some of the babies still have some mutated mitochondrial DNA in their bodies and we don't really know why yet. So it's important, isn't it, that these are monitored going into the future?

Emily - With any new technique, in a sense, somebody has to go first. Louise Brown was the first baby born from IVF in 1978 and before her birth, people were really concerned about IVF and whether that was safe. And of course, 10 million babies worldwide later, we now know that IVF is a safe, effective technique which has led to lots and lots of incredibly wanted children and families that wouldn't exist without it. So I think what's really important is that safety is rigorously monitored after these children's birth.