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.

Preventing Mitochondrial Disease: A Path Forward.

In a possible first, the heritable transmission of a fatal mitochondrial DNA disease (Leigh syndrome) may have been prevented by replacing the mutation-bearing mitochondria of oocytes with donated mutation-free counterparts. The procedure, carried out by a U.S.-led team, took place in Mexico in circumvention of a statutory U.S. moratorium on mitochondrial replacement. This development calls into question the regulatory utility of a national moratorium in a globalized world wherein cross-border care is increasingly prevalent. This development also calls to account the moral defensibility of a moratorium that acquiesces in the birth of gravely ill children whose afflictions could have been prevented. In this Current Commentary, we outline a potential path forward by analyzing the dual imprint of the moratorium, examining its legislative shortcomings, exploring its motivational roots, considering its national effect, and proposing its unlinking from the related yet distinct ban on editing the genome of the human embryo.