In a six-minute segment last week on CNN, the anchor Brooke Baldwin was so excited to talk about "designer babies" and playing God that she couldn't let go, even when her guests tried to tell her to.
The story was prompted by an FDA meeting on the scientific issues concerning a new technique to prevent mitochondrial disease. This occurs when genetic mutations arise in the cellular energy factories called mitochondria. These are spread throughout the cytoplasm of a human egg–not in the nucleus. And their genomes are separate from the genes found in the nucleus, which are responsible for most of our genetic attributes and most genetic ailments. (Sperm are almost all nucleus and contain very little mitochondrial DNA.)
The idea considered by the FDA's panel was that in a woman carrying mitochondrial mutations, the nucleus of her egg might be clipped out and inserted into another woman's egg from which the nucleus had been removed, and which had normal mitochondrial DNA. The idea is interesting, and new, because it would create a child with genes from three individuals, not two. And this new combination would be passed to future generations–a so-called germ-line alteration.
It has nothing to do with "designer babies," as Baldwin–or her producer–seemed to almost grasp. In explaining the technique, Baldwin said "doctors then take out the egg’s nucleus which contains, you know, factors like eye color, height, and gender.” See? The characteristics we might want to change to make "designer" babies–hair color, height, and gender–are in the nucleus, not the mitochondria.
But then when she questions her guests, she persists in suggesting that the technique could lead to designer babies. "Could there come a day when, you know, you have this parent that says, 'Hmm, I really like the idea of brunette, blue eyes, tall…' Could we make that baby happen? How will we make sure that doesn’t happen, that we don't play God?"
She says this even after one of her guests, Dr. Alan Copperman, an infertility specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, says, "This is not a story about designer babies. This is saying that people with a mutation in their mitochondria might have the opportunity to have healthier mitochondria, [to] provide power for their own cells to become a healthy baby."
I suppose we can't expect Baldwin to understand very much about mitochondrial DNA. Her CNN bio says that in 2013 she reported "live from the red carpet" at the Golden Globe awards. In criticizing Baldwin, I'm painfully aware that I might know less about designer fashions than she does about designer babies. On the other hand, you won't find me on television confusing Prada with Versace.
I was about to wrap up this post when, unhappily, I decided to Google "designer babies."
Alas: CNN wasn't the only news organization to raise that canard. Elizabeth Lopatto at Bloomberg wrote that the new technique could be lead to potential "redrawing of ethical lines for designer babies." I was sorry to see that, especially because she provides a nice history of experiments that led up to the FDA's decision to call the meeting.
At Reuters, Sharon Begley, a highly respected science reporter, writes in her lede that "critics" believe the technique "could lead to designer babies." But that isn't backed up in the story. Oddly, the word "designer" appears only one more time, near the bottom of the story, when John Gearhart, a stem-cell researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, undercuts Begley's premise. He says that the phrase "designer babies conjures up the wrong message…That leads to a complete misunderstanding on the part of the public of what this is all about." But that didn't stop Begley from putting "designer babies" in her lede.
At The Washington Post, Ariana Eunjung Cha and Sandhya Somashekhar wrote that the technology "could open the door to creating 'designer' babies, whose eye color, intelligence and other characteristics are selected by parents." No, eye color and intelligence are not found in mitochondrial DNA. As with the Reuters story, the only person quoted saying "designer babies" is trying to demolish the myth. "There are no designer babies here. We are trying to stop a horrible, horrible disease," said Susan Solomon, chief executive of the New York Stem Cell Foundation.
Sabrina Tavernise at The New York Times wrote that the technique is "a therapy that critics say is an ethical minefield and could lead to the creation of designer babies." And yes–that is the only appearance of the word in the story.
Some critics are unhappy with this technology and fear it could be harmful. But they are not telling reporters that it could lead to designer babies, at least not in those words.
The reporters are making that up.
I was about to swear that I would never read a science story again when I came across a piece by Jessica Grose in The XX Factor on Slate. The headline reads, "'Designer Babies' Aren't Coming. The New York Times Is Just Trying To Scare You." And it begins:
Whenever a new fertility procedure is introduced, some medical ethicists and commentators will conjure up a Gattaca-style eugenic future in which all embryos are presorted to look like Uma Thurman and think like Bill Gates. So it goes with a new procedure the Food and Drug Administration is considering this week called mitochondrial manipulation technology…
She's mostly right. But in the stories I read, the reporters conjured up the eugenic future themselves. Who needs medical ethicists and commentators?
Nevertheless, I was happy to find Grose's story. Until I did, I was this close to switching my beat to the red carpet.
-Paul Raeburn
Leave a Reply