Should we proceed with mitochondrial replacement technique (MRT) research and clinical practice? There has been a lively debate on the topic in this journal, in which John Harris has argued in favour of this position and Inmaculada de Melo-Martin against it. This paper broadens the scope of this debate by presenting a richer account of the MRT phenomenon and by exploring some areas that naturally follow from Harris’s and de Melo-Martin’s discussion of the topic. First, I present what mitochondrial diseases and MRTs are. I expand on Harris’s portrayal of ‘mitochondrial disease’, which de Melo-Martin seems to follow. Secondly, I address how MRTs could prevent mitochondrial diseases, and if they would be effective in doing so. I do this by unpacking the differences between the types of MRTs. A detailed examination of the differences between MRTs shows that the ethical panorama is more complex than first thought. Thirdly, and finally, I present and defend the thesis that parents have strong reasons to disclose to their children that they were MRT-conceived. I show how both Harris’s and de Melo-Martin’s discussion of the ‘right to know our genetic origins’ can be complemented.
展开▼
机译:我们应该继续进行线粒体替代技术(MRT)的研究和临床实践吗?在该杂志上,对此话题进行了热烈的辩论,其中约翰·哈里斯(John Harris)主张这一立场,而因马库拉达·德·梅洛·马丁(Inmaculada de Melo-Martin)反对这一立场。本文通过对MRT现象进行了更详尽的介绍,并探索了哈里斯(Harris)和德梅洛·马丁(De Melo-Martin)关于该主题的讨论自然而然的一些领域,从而扩大了这场辩论的范围。首先,我介绍一下线粒体疾病和MRT。我进一步阐述了哈里斯(Harris)对“线粒体疾病”的描述,德梅洛·马丁(De Melo-Martin)似乎也遵循这种描述。其次,我讨论了MRT如何预防线粒体疾病,以及它们是否有效。我通过拆解MRT类型之间的差异来做到这一点。对MRT之间差异的详细检查表明,道德全景比最初想到的要复杂。第三,最后,我提出并捍卫这样一个论点,即父母有充分的理由向孩子透露他们是捷运的。我展示了哈里斯(Harris)和德梅洛·马丁(de Melo-Martin)关于“了解我们遗传起源的权利”的讨论如何可以得到补充。
展开▼