I have mixed feelings: Firstly, I was a bit worried about the "3 parents" angle, but that statement is not entirely accurate.

Then I remember reading somewhere that mitochondria may well have been (somewhere far in out distant microbial past) "intruders" into our early cells anyway?

And of course we should try to improve the lot (and reduce the risk of disease) for all humans on earth. That requires research.

Did Edward Jenner, who first inoculated people with cow-pox to provide protection against pox, not also "experiment on people"? No doubt there were various religious groups at that time who must have been very angry with him.

Progress requires taking risks. Of course we should attempt to control and reduce these as much as possible.

As I see it, the issue is not that one should not experiment and take risks, but that we should all consider the implications each and every time something new is tried, and help ensure that there is a (responsible and accountable) management and control system in place.

Tricky.

You are referring to endosymbiotic theory, which essentially states that mitochondria (who produce the cells energy in the form of the molecule ATP) were once independent organisms (bacteria) and were engulfed by an early ancestor of ours which, instead of digesting them, developed a symbiotic relationship with them.

There's a bunch of cool evidence/facts about this:

- Mitochondria have their own DNA in a circular structure (much like bacteria do)
-They have a double membrane, a product of being engulfed by an early cell
- It's thought that EVERY SINGLE mitochondria in every living creature today is the result of a SINGLE event of mitochondrial absorption and thus every creature with mitochondria is descended from the "mitochondrial mother".
-Evolutionary branching can be tracked by statistical analysis of mitochondrial mutations, since everyone started with the same mitochondria, and mitochondria have an unusually low mutation rate.

I love this stuff. Check wikipedia if you want to know more.

I <3 cellular biology.

Given the resounding failure of gene manipulation to treat diseases thus far, safe mitochondrial manipulation in just 3 years seems optimistic to me.
It's sexy science, for sure. Someone's enjoying the headlines, but is it realistic?

I don't think it's realistic within 3 years, maybe in 30.

Sounds like the begining of Children Of Men!

Did anyone read "Y: The Last Man"? It was a comic series that just ended this month. All men on the planet fall dead at once, except for a young guy named Yorick. Very well written and drawn.

Alas poor Yorick, I knew him well. Lucky stiff. World full of just him and women.

But as to the gene manipulation thing.. Didn't these people ever watch old sci-fi? Godzilla? Any one of a million "mess with DNA and the results are a bad horror movie" style plots?

As for studying on humans.. The first non-human Diabetic insulin was tested on the inventors WIFE as she was dying for a lack of insulin. It was either this or nothing and all he could do was send in someone to give her a shot and walk away to pray. It's an amazing story the risk he took to try to save a life not knowing what would happen.

And yes, 3 years sounds EXTREMELY optomistic for any kind of medical research.

I can't help but think of my son when I started teaching him PERL. After a few weeks and several projects he was convinced he was a programmer. Wonderful, but shockingly naive. I can't wait to see the look on his face when I introduce pointers in C. The look on these scientist's faces will be about the same in 10 years when someone at a faculty lunch shows them these articles.

We haven't even begun to properly ask after the things we don't know we don't know (with thanks to d**k Cheney for the phrase ;)), and already they have plans for perfecting humans in 3 years. Awesome!

Cheers.