by NexDev | October 28, 2016 | Bioethics, Fertility and pregnancy
Since September 2016, when « New Scientist » published the report of the birth of the first genetically modified baby via “3-parent IVF”, the media has given widespread coverage of this event. Using a controversial “three-parent baby” technique, an in-vitro embryo was conceived using two ovules and a spermatozoid.
Dr. John Zhang and his team at the New Hope Fertility Center in New York City performed this unprecedented transgression. Zhang went to a laboratory in Mexico in utmost secrecy to create this baby requested by a Jordanian couple (thereby evading stricter regulations governing human-embryo modification since the rules in that country are less stringent.)
The purported objective cited by those who promote this technique, has always been to avoid transmitting maternal mitochondrial disease (tiny organelles present in the ovule). This same objective was also cited during the debates in the United Kingdom and in spite of numerous warnings it was finally legalized in 2015. The safety of this technique for the unborn baby has yet to be proven.
At the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s annual meeting on October 19, 2016 in Salt Lake City, Dr Zhang, who had previously reported the child to be in good health, eventually admitted that this is not the case. Non-negligible quantities of defective mitochondria were transmitted in the first embryonic cell, and thus are present in each and every cell of the young boy. In what way, if any, will this impact his health in the future? Dr Zhang has promised to perform a thorough medical exam of the child and to verify if the level of defective mitochondria remains stable.
For numerous scientists, this technique raises serious concerns regarding efficacy and safety. In the end, the compassionate motive to avoid transmitting this rare disease to children may just be an alibi to continue research on this technique. Apparently there are other motives. The assumption is: using a “young” ovule to incorporate the genetic material of certain women, especially those who have difficulty becoming pregnant due to their advanced age, would improve in-vitro embryo survival or their growth.
In a video published in February 2016 Dr John Zhang advocated using the technique for treating infertility, only briefly mentioning its potential for eliminating the transmission of mitochondrial disease. An article published in October 2016 revealed that apparently he has already attempted to use this technique in China in 2003. Three treated embryos were implanted, and the pregnancy had started but none of the fetuses survived. One was aborted by embryonic reduction after 33 days. The other two had membrane ruptures at 24 and 29 weeks respectively.
In Ukraine two women are pregnant with fetuses created with DNA from 3 people by Dr Valery Zukin from the Nadiya Clinique in Kiev, using the same technique. Since the mothers were not carriers of the disease, these babies were not conceived to prevent the mothers from passing on harmful genes to children through their mitochondria. In these cases the 3-parent IVF technique was used solely to overcome the parents’ infertility.
One woman, who has now reached 28 weeks of pregnancy, is expecting a baby girl, thus the gene editing performed to create this little girl will also affect her gametes, and be transmissible to future generations. The other woman has reached 22 weeks of pregnancy with a male fetus.
Dr Zukin’s team used a technique called pro-nuclear transfer involving two eggs – one from the mother and one from the donor which have both been fertilized by the father’s sperm. Then they extract the ‘pro-nucleus’ from the mother’s egg – that is the core of the cell that contains the mother’s and father’s chromosomes that forms after fertilization. Next they extract the pro-nucleus from the donor’s egg. The donor’s pronucleus is discarded, and replaced with the parents’ pronucleus. It means the newly created embryo gets all its nuclear DNA from its mother and father. The theory is that the cytoplasm (the content of the donor’s egg) is likely to be stronger, healthier and more resilient, thus improving the embryo’s chances for growth or survival.
Dr Dean Betts of Western University in Canada declares: ‘It does not mean that the underlying reasons why the growth of the embryos of these couples stopped in the first place, and we cannot assert that these underlying reasons have disappeared. Perhaps there was something which prevented the development of abnormal embryos. But I think it’s too risky. Further research is needed and I highly recommend banning this procedure in humans as long as we do not know more to ensure its safe use.’
We have gone beyond the purported therapeutic motive of preventing the transmission of rare genetic diseases. It now appears that the “fertility business” is being targeted.
_______
>> For further information on the technique and the ethical questions raised by this issue, please refer to Alliance VITA’s Expert Notes.
by NexDev | October 27, 2016 | Bioethics
On October 27, 2016 Alliance VITA’s study director, Blanche Streb, spoke during the public hearing of OPECST (the Parliamentary Office for Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Options). The subject was: “New technologies: possible applications and public discussion?” Her speech focused on the ethical and therapeutic implications for embryos.
« I wish to explore with you the new ethical challenges resulting from the use of the new bioengineering techniques and their impact on the human embryo.
1st point
The first genetically modified baby is already born: conceived in the secrecy of a lab, outside of any ethical regulation in a country where the laws do not explicitly forbid this practice. The child was conceived in-vitro using the controversial 3-parent IVF technique, by nuclear transfer in order to avoid transmission of mitochondrial disease.
With the baby’s birth announcement, the international community was confronted with a ‘done deal’. Once a child is born, it is more complicated to contest the manner in which he was conceived. Yet at least 5% of the defective mitochondria seem to have been “transferred” in the first fertilized cell. Besides this, there are many uncontrolled factors, which can be a threat for the future health of this child, who is a guinea pig for the technique used for his conception, and this is for life. The risk was taken: for this child, for his family. Are they not somehow manipulated? The American doctor who implemented this technique considers its use mainly for infertility problems.
The use of this technique did not heal anyone: it created someone.
We have been shocked to see how this event was publicized without practically any argument from the scientific community on such a violation.
More babies will be born soon in Ukraine using the 3-parent IVF technique. In these cases, it was not to avoid transmitting a genetic disease, but rather to “increase the fertility” of the sponsoring couple. The nuclear transfer took place in the donor’s eggs. A baby girl is expected: therefore the genetic modifications generated will be transmitted to future generations. No one can predict the future consequences.
Whether we like it or nor, this is setting a precedent. How can this headlong rush be reversed?
2nd point
In May, IFOP carried out a survey for Alliance VITA « The French and the CRISPR-Cas9 technique”. The results showed that 67% of the population is concerned by the fast growing research of scientists on the human genome. This must be heard: only clear ethical and fundamental guidelines can prevent science from being unfairly discredited.
A large majority (78%) is opposed to manipulations on the genome or on their own in-vitro embryos.
Sixty-eight per cent request that France commit to requesting international regulation for these practices.
France, as the emblematic country reputed for human rights and individual dignity has bioethical laws and organizations in place capable of defending these topics. Unlike some other countries, France does not have a utilitarian and limited vision of human beings. The CRISPR-Cas9 was implemented on human embryos in research laboratories in China, England, and Sweden. This technique, which today is neither safe nor efficient, will be improved. How can we be sure that one day scientists will not give in to the temptation of implanting transgenic embryos, as we have seen with the 3-parent IVF?
3rd point
In France, the total ban decided when writing the first bioethical laws is no longer applicable. The provision for research on embryos has changed inexorably.
It should be noted that “The law proclaims the primacy of the human person, forbids any violation of the individual’s human dignity, and guarantees respect of human beings from the moment of conception.”
With the new Health Law, the system allows biomedical research to be performed in a MAP context “on gametes intended to become an embryo, or research on the in-vitro embryo before or after its transfer for gestation purposes. The objective is to improve the efficiency of MAP or to prevent or cure embryonic pathologies.” But what are we talking about? We have the right to challenge and to ask questions.
When the Constitutional Court was consulted they emphasized the confusion in the formulation “there is no indication as to the objective of this research. The regulation is vague, ambiguous, and inconsistent.
This new regulation applied to the embryo falls under the general law for biomedical research, that is the general law for research on the human individual.
Science teaches us that nothing changes the embryo’s nature. How then can we explain that its status turns from laboratory ’material’ to a person, and vice versa, according to whether research is performed in a MAP context or not? Actually, doesn’t this Health law reveal the fraud of considering embryos as lab material?
How can we pretend to guard against the future risks of seeing genetic modifications applied on the human embryo, via a blurred and inconsistent system, which is not based on coherent, stable ethical principles anchored on human dignity?
4th point
These new biotechnologies challenge us and force us to understand the deeper objectives that are being pursued. And the means: one of which is the use of the human embryo.
The ethical debate about producing, manipulating, and destroying human embryos is still open. Having a more human conception of the embryo is possible, and more necessary than ever before.
An ethical reflection whose only concern is the technical applications leads us to a dead end.
Our position is to insist on the urgent need to protect human integrity, starting from its embryonic stage, against exploitation for individual or group purposes.
Isn’t our responsibility towards future generations to do everything possible today to maintain the respect of human rights for those who will live after us?
This is a health issue: to maintain safety, health requirements and ethical reproduction techniques.
Whereas genetic therapy with CRISPR-Cas9 and other possible techniques could prove promising for treating diseases, manipulating the human embryo, with the vision of correcting, transforming or improving it leads to commodification and fosters the delusion of refusing to accept that it is fragile.
Starting by « avoiding the worst case scenario » inevitably leads to pretending to search for the best, the perfect baby? Using these techniques to select genes is a slippery slope towards eugenics, whereby we all feel threatened.
These bioengineering techniques deserve the highest level of ethical vigilance. The only genuine research “progress”, cannot be disassociated from the good of mankind and all of humanity. It must be chosen, shared, reasoned and fair, aiming to improve the quality of life without altering his environment and henceforth human nature itself.”
>> See the 2nd video of the hearing on Alliance VITA’s YouTube:
OPECST Round Table – 27 October 2016
1Parliamentary Office for Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Options
by NexDev | October 18, 2016 | News
As announced, French socialist deputies have proposed a new legislation to broaden the scope of charges for the numerical obstruction to “voluntary interruption of pregnancy” against websites accused of giving information to dissuade a woman from having an abortion.
Filed on October 13, 2016 this legal proposal is intended to compensate for the government’s failure to force through an amendment in the Equality and Citizenship law. This new legislation contains only one article and it uses the same text verbatim as was used in the amendment.
In the explanatory notes, it is indicated that this law aims to crack down on some websites which « prevent surfers from obtaining reliable and unbiased information.” Alliance VITA whose crisis center SOS Baby (www.sosbebe.org) was cited by the government, denounces how the government is attempting to gag and censure those who do not want to trivialize abortion, by targeting sites informing women on abortion alternatives.
Caroline Roux, Assistant Chief Delegate and Coordinator of the Alliance VITA listening services declares:
« It’s stupefying to see the dog-headed obstinacy of this government that the social deputies are now endorsing. For the past 15 years, the quality of information on abortion published by public authorities has truly degraded. Currently when a pregnant woman consults for an abortion, the government no longer informs her of the benefits to which pregnant women are entitled. On its « official information site » the government makes no mention of this whatsoever. Additionally, on this same site, an alleged expert claims that after an abortion there are no long-term psychological side effects. This is in complete contradiction with our experience concerning what some women live through and with the results of the IFOP survey “The French and Abortion” published at the end of September 2016. The High Authority on Healthcare finds it is regrettable to see such a lack of clarity on this point. An overwhelming majority of women want a genuine prevention policy for abortion. Therefore, it is irresponsible to hide the reality of such an act which is anything but trivial, since in every case the destiny of a human life is at stake. We are often called upon to accompany these women who have been enduring these difficult consequences alone.”
Alliance VITA has launched a petition against this censure by the government, and in favor of promoting better information on financial aid and social benefits for pregnant women.
September 2016 IFOP Survey Results: The French and Abortion.
by NexDev | October 17, 2016 | Uncategorized
Tugdual Derville’s Speech
October 16, 2016. Spoken from the Human Rights esplanade, at the place du Trocadero in Paris – The Demonstration for All
Dear friends,
Four years! Four years of peaceful, unwavering loyalty to support our convictions, four years acting for children and families… which are still on the agenda today, more than ever.
Unlike so many words, many “so-called political” words, blown away by an autumn breeze like fallen leaves, we’ve held our ground! We’ve held our ground!
All observers – whether or not they agree with our motivations for demonstrating – are honestly willing to concede: our huge public movement has already had an effect. Already, dear friends, the groundwork laid by those who had been trying for years to “pulverize” society, step by step, following the philosophy of “deconstruction” has been ground to a halt.
No need to recall that if marriage was offered to same-sex couples it was for another purpose than equality. As early as 2004 the philosopher Jacques Derrida was in favor of the sham “gay wedding ceremony” in Bègles, while simultaneously advocating for the abolition of marriage. Likewise today Caroline Mécary, barrister, discloses the Trojan horse strategy (I quote her): “In order to abolish marriage, we first have to ensure that everyone has access to it”.
Additionally, and foremost, our social movement constitutes a promise! A promise to build a society which is no longer based on tyrannical desires. a society founded on altruism, on caring and on respect to the most vulnerable people in our society. Such a society is already on its way, thanks to you! It is using the three supporting beams of anthropological giving, of human ecology.
– First of all maternity: the physical gestation we want to protect for future generations from surrogacy, from body commodification, from disappearing purely and simply under pressure from transhumanists.
– Then sexual alterity: all reproduction stems from this original male-female parity, whereas those who stand for deconstruction intend to multiply alleged “social parents”; and scientists have already started making GM embryos and babies “with 3 parents”…
– Finally, the family, a human ecology, founded on – I dare say – love, sexual fidelity and engagement. This family, my dear friends, is the foundation of fraternity. This is the first « political » entity, the origin of all lawful authority, a comfort when the crisis comes, a safe investment from the beginning to the end of life, where genuine freedom, equality and fraternity is to be learnt.
At a time, my dear friends, when society is questioning its identity, its roots, its prospects, we are not calling for an uprooted man, enslaved by his own desires, but for a deep-rooted man, in relation with other men, who accepts to depend on other men, to be vulnerable and to respect human limitations.
To our current and future governments, we say: there is no such a thing as political leadership without a well-balanced vision of man, without respecting the basics of human ecology.
To all of you, my friends, those present, as well as those who were unable to come, I want to address a solemn appeal! I want to warn you against the temptation to feel helpless waiting for a providential leader. With all the due respect and gratitude we owe the elected officials who have supported us throughout these past years, I want to declare that:
– We are all politicians and responsible, fighting on our local level for justice.
– We are all social workers, helping the most vulnerable among us.
– We are all humanitarian entrepreneurs taking initiatives to relieve, console and support our fellow citizens in dire situations.
Those who have been doing their best since 2012 to minimize and crush our social movement, to predict its inevitable extinction, do not see clearly. They cannot see what is incessantly germinating in the grass roots of our society.
Confronted with the mainstream conformist thinking, with a totalitarian emptiness which cannot stand contestation, we are here, present, INERADICABLE. Like the Czechoslovakian dissident Vaclav Benda, we occupy the space left vacant by a government, which is incompetent, powerless, failing, in order to bring what his friend Vaclav Havel used to call: LIFE IN TRUTH.
This is our political program for 2017!
Together, this is what we will defend and achieve, unabated, without delay, and with many elected representatives to support us!
Thank you !
Tugdual Derville
by NexDev | October 14, 2016 | Medically Assisted Procreation
A debate between Barrister Gilbert Collard and Alliance VITA’s study director Blanche Streb
On October 13, the Administrative Court in Toulouse France gave a negative verdict on a new case of post-mortem insemination thus upholding the ban. The public rapporteur’s conclusions were presented during Thursday September 29th session. The court confirmed the Medical Center’s opinion by refusing the claimant’s request. The sperm samples of her deceased husband, currently frozen at the Study Center for Ovum and Sperm in Toulouse, should no longer be stored.
The Toulouse Administrative Court’s decision appears to reaffirm the principle of prohibiting post-mortem insemination in this country.
However, in another case the same week, the Rennes court ruled for the first time to give a young French woman the right to export her deceased husband’s frozen sperm in order to have an insemination abroad.
Post-mortem insemination or post-mortem in-vitro fertilization, (meaning after the father’s death), by using his frozen gametes, is a controversial practice and has been prohibited in France since the first French bioethics law was passed in 1994. The French Public Health Code specifies that Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) is only intended for couples with a medically confirmed pathological infertility. The law specifies that the man and woman forming the couple must be alive, of reproductive age and must have given prior consent for the transfer of embryos or for insemination.
On May 31, 2016, France’s highest legal authority the Council of State judged a similar case involving a young Spanish widow. The verdict provoked quite a controversial stir since it overrode the statutory law, by agreeing to the export of her late husband’s sperm.
Blanche Streb, Alliance VITA’s study director, and Barrister Gilbert Collard, who pleaded a similar case, debated this issue on Radio Sud on Thursday October 14.
