
First ‘three-parent' babies found healthy in scientific breakthrough
Dubbed 'three parent babies', the infants carry the genetic material of a 'second mother' to repair damage in their mitochondrial DNA, which powers the cells.
British scientists have spent decades perfecting the technique, which involves transplanting nuclear DNA – containing all the characteristics of a person – into a donor egg with healthy mitochondria.
Scientists hope the breakthrough can help women whose children would be at risk of mitochondrial disease.
Every year around one in 5,000 children are born with mitochondrial mutations in Britain, while 12,000 are living with a mitochondrial disorder.
These can lead to serious problems such as heart and liver failure, blindness, deafness, diabetes, respiratory problems and even death.
After following the infants for up to two years, scientists announced on Wednesday that the technique works and all the babies are healthy.
Professor Sir Doug Turnbull, Emeritus Professor of Neurology, at Newcastle University, who led the team said: 'I think everybody knows I'm a natural pessimist, so it's a relief.
'Mitochondrial disease can have a devastating impact on families. Today's news offers fresh hope to many more women at risk of passing on this condition who now have the chance to have children growing up without this terrible disease.'
The disease is passed down solely from the mother, and there is no cure, but in the late 1990s, scientists began to question whether the defective mitochondria could be replaced with healthy donor DNA.
While nuclear DNA is the blueprint for the entire cell, comprising around 3.3 billion base pairs, mitochondrial DNA only codes for energy production and is built from around 16,000 base pairs.
Nevertheless, the idea proved controversial, with both the Church of England and the Catholic Church in England and Wales questioning whether the technique was safe or ethical.
Experts from the Zoological Society of London warned that in 50 per cent of animal studies, faulty mitochondrial DNA had been transferred over during the procedure, while the US Food and Drug Administration deemed the process unsafe.
In spite of the objections, Parliament approved new legislation to allow the procedure in 2015, and the first licence was granted in 2017 to Newcastle Fertility Centre, which pioneered the technique.
The procedure involves transplanting the nuclear DNA - which contains all the genes that make up individual characteristics –from a fertilised egg to an egg donated by an unaffected woman which has had its nuclear DNA removed.
The resulting embryo inherits its parents' nuclear DNA, but the mitochondrial DNA is inherited predominantly from the donated egg.
Early attempts failed and it was not until 2023 that Freedom of Information requests showed the first baby had been born in Newcastle by these methods.
At the time, researchers were reluctant to discuss the case, leading to fears the child had not survived.
Now, two years on, scientists say the infant is growing well and has passed all developmental milestones. Seven other children have also been born through the process without any major complications, and all eight babies show no signs of having mitochondrial DNA disease.
Prof Bobby McFarlane, Professor of Paediatric Mitochondrial Medicine at Newcastle University said: 'All the children are well and they are continuing to meet their developmental milestones.
'While longer term follow-up of children born following mitochondrial donation is of paramount importance, these early results are very encouraging.
'Seeing the joy and relief these children have brought to their parents is such a privilege.'
Life and possibility
The parents did not want to be named but said they were 'overwhelmed with gratitude', and thankful to the scientists who allowed them to conceive healthy children.
One mother of a baby girl born following mitochondrial donation said: ' After years of uncertainty this treatment gave us hope –and then it gave us our baby.
'We look at them now, full of life and possibility, and we're overwhelmed with gratitude. Science gave us a chance.'
The mother of a baby boy added: 'This breakthrough has lifted the heavy cloud of fear that once loomed over us. Our little family is complete.'
Scientists hope the breakthrough can help around 150 women a year.
Unlike with egg or sperm donors, children are not entitled to know the details of their mitochondrial donor unless they have agreed to share the information. However in some cases friends or family members have donated their DNA.
Commenting on the research Dusko Ilic, Professor of Stem Cell Science, King's College London, said the healthy births were 'a remarkable accomplishment'.
Dr Andy Greenfield, Honorary Fellow at the Nuffield Department of Women's & Reproductive Health at the University of Oxford, added: 'It is a triumph of scientific innovation in the IVF clinic – a world-first that shows that the UK is an excellent environment in which to push boundaries in IVF.
A baby was born in 2016 in Mexico using a similar technique developed by British researchers, but it is not known if the child survived.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
13 minutes ago
- The Independent
Striking doctors willing to ‘discuss all options' to halt five-day walkout
Resident doctors are willing to 'discuss all options' in crunch talks with the Government to avert strike action, the co-chair of the Resident Doctors Committee (RDC) has said. A five-day walkout is scheduled to start next week and could cause significant upheaval to the NHS in England. The RDC – part of the British Medical Association (BMA) – is meeting with Health Secretary Wes Streeting on Thursday afternoon. Discussions could be tense after Mr Streeting told MPs on Monday that he did not see a 'reasonable trade union partner' in the RDC 'at this time'. The Cabinet minister has insisted the Government will not budge on pay, but said discussions could focus on improving working lives of resident doctors. RDC co-chairs were asked if they would accept an offer on working conditions as they arrived for talks at Portcullis House shortly before 3pm. Dr Melissa Ryan told reporters: 'We're willing to be here and discuss all options with Mr Streeting, we're very flexible – we're just interested to hear what he has to say.' It was put to the RDC co-chairs that the public was 'broadly on-side' for the previous round of strikes but support is now 'waning'. Dr Ryan responded: 'I think that the public is behind us in the sense that they want to see doctors paid fairly, they want doctors to be in the NHS, doctors retained, because ultimately they want good care and that's what we're here to talk to Wes Streeting about today.' Dr Ryan's co-chair Dr Ross Nieuwoudt said: 'We're hopeful and we're confident that Wes Streeting is going to come to us with a credible offer to avert these strikes, that's what we're here for today, that's what we're looking to achieve. 'So now it's up to him, the ball's in his court, we're here to talk – hopefully those conversations will go somewhere.' On Tuesday, NHS leaders said there was no extra money to cover industrial action by resident doctors, formerly known as junior doctors. The last round of strikes, which also included walkouts by other health workers, came at an estimated cost of £1.5 billion to the NHS in England. Some 1.5 million appointments, procedures and operations were postponed as a result of the stoppages. On Thursday, The Times reported that it had seen an audit which found that five patients died as a result of disruption linked to strikes by junior doctors in 2023 and 2024. One prevention of future death report detailed how 71-year-old Daphne Austin, who had a kidney injury, died after getting 'no medical input' on one of the strike days because the consultant who was covering was in charge of 25 patients. Another states that 60-year-old John Doyle died of 'natural causes against a background of missed opportunities to diagnose and treat cytomegalovirus infection, together with the impact of the resident (formerly junior) doctors' strike on the provision of consistent patient care'. The strikes ended last September when resident doctor members voted to accept a Government pay deal worth 22.3% on average over two years. The 2025/26 pay deal saw resident doctors given a 4% increase plus £750 'on a consolidated basis', working out as an average rise of 5.4%. Government officials said these two increases equate to a 28.9% pay rise. But the BMA said resident doctors need 29.2% to reverse 'pay erosion' since 2008/09. Earlier this month, the union announced that resident doctors in England would strike for five days from 7am on July 25.


BBC News
14 minutes ago
- BBC News
Poland: Doctors found guilty over death of pregnant woman
Three doctors in Poland have been found guilty in connection with the death of a pregnant woman, in a case that has been linked to the tightening of the country's already strict abortion woman, identified only by her first name, Izabela, died of sepsis in 2021 when she was 22 weeks into her pregnancy, which had family said life-saving care was delayed because the doctors feared breaking abortion laws. An investigation ruled that was not the case, but they were found guilty of directly endangering her death led to nationwide protests under the slogan "Not One More" and her face has become a symbol of the fight for broader access to legal abortion. Izabela, 30, entered hospital in September 2021 in the town of Pszczyna, southern Poland. Her foetus had already been diagnosed with severe developmental defects but she was not offered an abortion and later died from septic shock following the death of her to Polish media reports at the time, Izabela had sent a text message to her mother after being admitted saying: "The baby weighs 485g. For now, thanks to the abortion law, I have to lie down and there's nothing they can do. They'll wait until it dies, or something starts, and if it doesn't, I can expect sepsis."The hospital later said its decisions were based on concern for the health of the mother and death of Izabela and her baby came months after a Constitutional Court ruling took effect that banned abortions in cases of severe foetal malformation. The overwhelming majority (98%) of all legal abortions in Poland were performed for that reason in 2019, a year before the court a result, abortions could only be performed when the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest or when the mother's health was endangered. While Izabela's family believed the ruling meant doctors at the hospital were afraid to intervene, an investigation by prosecutors concluded in 2023 that it had no impact on the doctors' three doctors were charged with directly endangering Izabela's life. One of them, identified as Andrzej P, was also charged with causing involuntary manslaughter. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison and banned from practicing medicine for six years.A second, Michal M, was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment and barred from practicing for six years. The third, Krzysztof P, was given a one-year suspended prison sentence and barred from practicing for four doctors did not admit the charges and can appeal against their convictions. Following the verdicts, Antonina Lewandowska, national advocacy coordinator for Federa, a women's rights organisation, told the BBC: "No ruling is going to bring Izabela back. It's outrageous the ruling is so mild given the crime presented to the court. Izabela deserved better and the women in Poland deserve better."The ruling is a good thing, but justice was only partially served. Such a verdict will not resonate within the medical community which is hesitant about performing abortions to say the least," she an interview published by the website Izabela's sister-in-law Barbara Skrobol said: "She died consciously, suffering physically and mentally. "She begged for help, knowing she might die."


The Guardian
14 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Royal Society suggested to Elon Musk he consider resigning science fellowship
The Royal Society suggested to Elon Musk he should consider resigning his fellowship if he felt unable to help mitigate the Trump administration's attacks on research, the Guardian has learned. The owner of X, who is also CEO of Tesla and Space X, was elected a fellow of the UK's national academy of sciences in 2018 for his contribution to the space and electric vehicle industries. But over the past year, fellows and other scientists have repeatedly called on the Royal Society to take action over Musk's comments and behaviour, saying he has violated the academy's code of conduct, with open letters, resignations and the return of awards among their acts of protest against the academy's apparent inertia on the matter. Among other causes of the outcry was Musk's role as head of the US department of government efficiency (Doge), a body that has slashed research funding and has been accused of imposing a regime of censorship on academia. In March, the Guardian revealed the Royal Society decided Musk would not face an investigation for allegedly violating the code. It has now emerged that the president-elect of the society, Sir Paul Nurse, suggested to Musk in May that he should consider resigning his fellowship. In an email sent to the Fellowship, the current president of the Royal Society, Sir Adrian Smith, revealed Nurse first wrote to Musk on 19 March regarding the 'extensive damage' the Trump administration was inflicting on science in the US, and asking for Musk to 'step in and reverse this tragedy'. Smith added Musk replied immediately, 'emphasising his strong commitment to science, and asking for specific details regarding Paul's concerns'. Nurse then sent a further letter on 27 March suggesting Musk consult public sector scientists in the US to hear about the impact of the administration's actions. 'Paul did not receive a response to this communication nor a subsequent reminder,' Smith wrote. On 20 May, Nurse sent a letter raising concerns that had been shared with him by scientists in the US, including that 'some of the proposed budget reductions appeared nonsensical'. Smith wrote: 'Paul also suggested in that letter – in sorrow – that 'if you do not feel able to help, perhaps you should consider if you want to continue to be a Fellow of the Royal Society, the purpose of which is to promote and support science, and think whether you should resign your Fellowship.'' Musk did not respond, however, until providing a short reply only when Smith and Nurse informed him that the substance of the correspondence would be shared with the fellowship. A spokesperson for the academy confirmed Musk did not address the suggestion he should consider resigning his fellowship, stating: 'Elon Musk remains a Fellow of the Royal Society.' Smith's email to the fellowship went on to say: 'Officers and council of the society concluded that it was not in the interests of the Royal Society to pursue disciplinary action against Mr Musk.' He added that 'sharp and opposing' differences of views were aired at a previous meeting of the fellowship, but that all agreed the global defence of science was the most important activity of the Society. Not all fellows have supported calls to censure Musk, with some concerned it could raise questions about the position of others who have aired controversial views. However, one fellow with knowledge of Smith's email described the society's stance as 'terrible cowardice'. Another fellow with knowledge of the email said the leadership appeared to be taking the pragmatic rather than ethical view. 'Musk's opening of a new party, if it happens, predicts future fireworks, and that may also influence the closing of his [Royal Society] file at the time being,' they said. Stephen Curry, an emeritus professor of structural biology at Imperial College London, who is not a fellow of the Royal Society but organised the earlier open letter, welcomed the correspondence but said the academy should have taken a clearer and stronger stance. 'They have received no indication from Elon Musk that he shares the declared values of the Royal Society, so it should have been put to him that, absent this commitment, his fellowship would be terminated,' he said. 'I'm afraid once again the Royal Society has failed to stand by its own code of conduct, which must now be regarded as a meaningless document.' Musk's representatives were approached for comment.