3 genetic parents = Hybrid children?

I posted the story elsewhere, but it got swallowed by other arguments.

I think it deserves a thread all of its own. This isn't just a surrogate mother scenario, as the surrogate does not contribute genetic material.

But this method DOES.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2089146/Children-genes-parents-born-years-thanks-new-IVF-technique.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

I can see how it can help, but the paranoid side o' me can't help but speculate just how badly this can go.

Your opinions are solicited.

"Why not find a cure for cancer instead of finding yet another way to make a baby? Face it, some ppl just can't have kids, get over it and adopt instead

- Roxy, nz, 20/1/2012 19:34"

?

There's a prospect of exactly that, check out statins.

What could possibly go wrong? And if/when they create a frankenstien someone will have to kill it.

Cholesterol lowering medication?

I keep thinking about the film Gattaca.

There is also evidence that they prevent cancers, I'll pm the link.

That is a simple question looking for a simple answer.
If there was one found, the big pharmaceutical companies wouldn't allow it to be published or produced . Just think how much in profits those companies would lose if a cure was found. If you think I'm just blowing smoke , read up on this, notice how these companies lobby the politicians check into how they conduct their business .

Eh. I don't find this Think of bone marrow being donated to create new healthy cells. Think of a blood transfusions, think of stem cell research, think of organ transplants. This is simply an extension of that in my view.

One story though that never fails to make me think 'wow' though are when twin siblings marry twin siblings. As in, two identical twin brothers both fell in love with and married two identical twin sisters. They all had kids, and their kids were genetically identical and looked exactly alike.

"Daddy loves you....and your TWO moms VERY much (and sometimes at the same time)."

I seen this in the other thread and thought it was just more ' ta da' about same sex couples and kids. But it isn't at all .
It seems that every thing these Scientists do anymore is try to improve on what isn't broken . instead of trying to prove up some of the mistakes that have caused serious problems. what I mean is just a century ago there was not nearly as many deadly diseases as there is today. yes I know we have all but eliminated small pox, polio , and all those child hood diseases , but just look at the number of new ones that we have .
I was reading some where that there are dozens more different types of cancer today than there was even 75 years ago . and the types or strains of infections and viruses today that wasn't even in existence 50 years ago .
and each 'new and improved' breakthru that comes out of a lab always starts out with these words
" In theory the _______ <<<<< insert new technique.

I think this new procedure may help a lot of families with genetic disorders but with one step forward, there could be two back.
This needs a lot more research before I would try it on a human.

Fo sho!

The surrogate mother may not be passing any genetic material onto the baby, but that doesn't keep the surrogate from passing somethingon to the baby. No amount of testing is going to prevent this somewhere down the road. It can be an infection, or RH factor problems. That is also something to think about. What if, because of the RH factors are different for surrogate and child, the surrogate's body reacts to the pregnancy as if it were an infection? The surrogate's body would reject the pregnancy, as if were a donor organ. Something to think about.....