The Regulation of Mitochondrial Replacement Techniques Around the World.

Mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRTs, also referred to as mitochondrial replacement therapies) have given hope to many women who wish to have genetically related children but have mitochondrial DNA mutations in their eggs. MRTs have also spurred deep ethical disagreements and led to different regulatory approaches worldwide. In this review, we discuss the current regulation of MRTs across several countries. After discussing the basics of the science, we describe the current law and policy directions in seven countries: the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, Germany, Israel, and Singapore. We also discuss the emerging phenomenon of medical tourism (also called medical travel) for MRTs to places like Greece, Spain, Mexico, and Ukraine. We then pull out some key findings regarding similarities and differences in regulatory approaches around the world.

Public attitudes towards novel reproductive technologies: a citizens' jury on mitochondrial donation.

STUDY QUESTION: Does an informed group of citizens endorse the clinical use of mitochondrial donation in a country where this is not currently permitted? SUMMARY ANSWER: After hearing balanced expert evidence and having opportunity for deliberation, a majority (11/14) of participants in a citizens' jury believed that children should be able to be born using mitochondrial donation. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Research suggests that patients, oocyte donors and health professionals support mitochondrial donation to prevent transmission of mitochondrial disease. Less is known about public acceptability of this novel reproductive technology, especially from evidence using deliberative methods. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This study comprised a citizens' jury, an established method for determining the views of a well-informed group of community members. The jury had 14 participants, and ran over one and a half days in 2017. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Jurors were members of the public with no experience of mitochondrial disease. They heard and engaged with relevant evidence and were asked to answer the question: 'Should Australia allow children to be born following mitochondrial donation?' MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Eleven jurors decided that Australia should allow children to be born following mitochondrial donation; 7 of whom added conditions such as the need to limit who can access the intervention. Three jurors decided that children should not (or not yet) be born using this intervention. All jurors were particularly interested in the reliability of evidence, licensing/regulatory mechanisms and the rights of children to access information about their oocyte donors. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Jurors' views were well informed and reflected critical deliberation and discussion, but are not intended to be representative of the whole population. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: When presented with high quality evidence, combined with opportunities to undertake structured deliberation of novel reproductive technologies, members of the public are able to engage in detailed discussions. This is the first study to use an established deliberative method to gauge public views towards mitochondrial donation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by a University of Sydney Industry and Community Collaboration Seed Award (2017), which was awarded contingent on additional funding from the Mito Foundation. Additional funding was provided by the Mito Foundation. The Foundation was not involved in jury facilitation or deliberation, nor analysis of research data. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Overcoming bioethical, legal, and hereditary barriers to mitochondrial replacement therapy in the USA.

The purpose of the paper is to explore novel means to overcome the controversial ban in the USA against mitochondrial replacement therapy, a form of IVF, with the added step of replacing a woman's diseased mutated mitochondria with a donor's healthy mitochondria to prevent debilitating and often fatal mitochondrial diseases. Long proven effective in non-human species, MRT recently performed in Mexico resulted in the birth of a healthy baby boy. We explore the ethics of the ban, the concerns over hereditability of mitochondrial disease and its mathematical basis, the overlooked role of Mitochondrial Eve, the financial burden of mitochondrial diseases for taxpayers, and a woman's reproductive rights. We examine applicable court cases, particularly protection of autonomy within the reproductive rights assured by Roe v Wade. We examine the consequences of misinterpreting MRT as genetic engineering in the congressional funding prohibitions causing the MRT ban by the FDA. Allowing MRT to take place in the USA would ensure a high standard of reproductive medicine and safety for afflicted women wishing to have genetically related children, concurrently alleviating the significant financial burden of mitochondrial diseases on its taxpayers. Since MRT does not modify any genome, it falls outside the "heritable genetic modification" terminology of concern to Congress and the FDA. Correcting this terminology, the IOM's conclusion that MRT is ethical, the continuing normalcy of the first MRT recipient, and increasing public awareness of the promising benefits might be all that is required to modify the FDA's position on MRT.

Mexico and mitochondrial replacement techniques: what a mess.

Background: The first live birth following the use of a new reproductive technique, maternal spindle transfer (MST), which is a mitochondrial replacement technique (MRT), was accomplished by dividing the execution of the MST procedure between two countries, the USA and Mexico. This was done in order to avoid US legal restrictions on this technique. Sources of data: Academic articles, news articles, documents obtained through freedom of information requests, laws, regulations and national reports. Areas of agreement: MRTs are new reproductive techniques that present novel ethical and legal challenges, since genetic material from three people is employed to create a child. Areas of controversy: Could the first MST procedure that culminated in a live birth negatively impact reproductive medicine in Mexico? Growing points: The USA and Mexico need specific and clear legislation on MRTs, in order for such techniques not to be governed by prior existing legislation on assisted reproduction that is inadequate for dealing with the new challenges that these techniques present. Areas timely for developing research: There is a pressing need for work to be done on the international governance of new reproductive techniques.

Mitochondrial donation, patient engagement and narratives of hope.

This article develops the sociology of hope and patient engagement by exploring how patients' perceptions and actions are shaped by narratives of hope surrounding the clinical introduction of novel reproductive techniques. In 2015, after extensive public debates, the UK became the first country to legalise a mitochondrial donation technique aimed at preventing the transmission of inherited disorders. The article draws on the accounts of twenty-two women of reproductive age who are at risk of having a child with mitochondrial disease and would be the potential target of the technique. We explore the extent to which our participants engaged with the public debates and how they accounted for their support of mitochondrial donation. We show that while the majority of our participants were in favour of legalisation, they did not necessarily wish to use the technique themselves. We found that hope was multi-faceted, involving hope for self, hope for family and hope for society. We conclude by considering the implications of hope narratives for patients and families and the important but potentially limited role that patients can play as advocates for technology.

"Mitochondrial Replacement" Technologies and Human Germline Nuclear Modification.

In 2015 the United Kingdom became the first jurisdiction to approve "mitochondrial replacement techniques" (MRT), thereby dropping prohibitions against creating human embryos with a permanently altered genetic make-up for purposes of reproduction. MRT is a misnomer because in fact it is the nucleus of the oocyte of the woman who wants a genetically related child that is transferred to the enucleated oocyte of a woman paid to undergo IVF to provide the oocyte. MRT thus constitutes nuclear transfer, which is prohibited by criminal sanctions under sections of laws on reproductive cloning in Canada, the United States, Australia, and European countries that regulate assisted reproduction. By adopting policies permitting the use of MRT, the United Kingdom has become the first jurisdiction to counteract an international consensus prohibiting germline modification. Analyses of the legal, ethical, and societal implications of MRT in assisted human reproduction are essential.

Germline Manipulation and Our Future Worlds.

Two genetic technologies capable of making heritable changes to the human genome have revived interest in, and in some quarters a very familiar panic concerning, so-called germline interventions. These technologies are: most recently the use of CRISPR/Cas9 to edit genes in non-viable IVF zygotes and Mitochondrial Replacement Therapy (MRT) the use of which was approved in principle in a landmark vote earlier this year by the United Kingdom Parliament. The possibility of using either of these techniques in humans has encountered the most violent hostility and suspicion. However it is important to be aware that much of this hostility dates back to the fears associated with In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and other reproductive technologies and by cloning; fears which were baseless at the time concerning both IVF and cloning the use of both of which have proved to be highly beneficial to humanity and which have been effectively regulated and controlled. This paper argues that CRISPR should by pursued through researh until it is safe enough for use in humans but there is no reason to suppose at this stage that such use will be unsafe or unethical (Collins 2015).

Should Long-Term Follow-up Post-Mitochondrial Replacement be Left up to Physicians, Parents, or Offspring?

UK law permits parents to use mitochondrial replacement (MR) to have genetically-related children without serious mitochondrial disease. However, long-term follow-up is required for each case. Whether this follow-up should be left to physicians, parents, or offspring has not been established. Due to the experimental status of MR, physicians must inform parents of the risks and the importance of follow-up tailored to a specific mitochondrial disease. Given that the use of MR is a responsible exercise of reproductive freedom, parents should ensure that the follow-up is performed properly and in the best interests of their offspring. On becoming legally competent, the resulting children should be entitled to refuse follow-up provided that the prevention of mitochondrial disease with no adverse effects has been evident till then. This offspring-centred long-term follow-up approach might also be applied to the use of MR for infertility treatment, even though the primary endpoint is healthy live births.