Mitochondrial replacement (MR aka “three-parent IVF” or mito donation) is out of the lab. Proponents say MR is a targeted way to reduce, not eliminate, the risks of mito disease being transmitted from mother to child when she has her own biologically related offspring.
GeneEthics’ chief concern is that MR also intentionally crosses into deliberately modifying the traits of future generations through the maternal line. In the UK eight babies were born using MR techniques. Australia’s MitoHope program at Monash IVF in Melbourne is also preparing for clinical trials of MR under Maeve’s Law which exempts the research from legal prohibitions on heritable human genetic manipulation (HHGM).
We consider that Australia and the UK have the first legally sanctioned form of inherited genetic alteration to humans in the world. MR is a Trojan horse as acceptance of HHGM in any form increases the rush to technologies aimed at redesigning human inheritance.
MR can’t be viewed in isolation as it’s part of a broad social, technological, and regulatory trajectory towards the selection, alteration, enhancement, and augmentation of future humans. The philosophical origins of these trends are in 19th and 20th century eugenics.
Influential advocates for legalised HHGM also agree that MR breaches current prohibitions. They include Canadian bio-entrepreneur Cathy Tie, CEO of Origin Genomics, who seeks more ambitious uses of reproductive biotech, and Harvard geneticist George Church, co-founder of Colossal Biosciences, who also supports some HHGM.
While Elon Musk’s company Neuralink focuses more on neural modifications than genetic engineering, his transhumanist philosophy intersects with debates around human enhancement, biological limits, and heritable traits.
Australia must not proceed to clinical MR trials without comprehensive long-term safety and governance reviews and an open debate on whether society may legitimise any HHGM. Otherwise, future proposals for designer babies may be far harder to resist.