straight forward conversations. no agenda, just hard hitting debate on the issues that matter to you. >> ray suarez hosts "inside story". weeknights at 11:30 eastern. only on al jazeera america. -- not a bad view. hello, i'm ray suarez. for all of human history, number just a few years ago, every human being in biological terms had two parents - period. the ability to use genetic material from three people has opened up a new era in human reproduction. are you ready. >> just as we had the arguments around i.v. f, people calling them test tube babies, no one refers to that any more. >> this week the british house of commence voted to allow invitro fertilisation using d.n.a. from three people.

this family's daughter suffers mitochondria disease, passed from mother to child. >> the brain is dying. it's a matter of time before it affects death. >> the cutting edge could help parents conceive a healthy child and stop a genetic disorder from being passed down the generations. if legal and ethical barriers can be overcome, can the u.s. be far behind. we ask a doctor who knows. we consider the eth ecks. fighting disease is one thing. do you stop there. 3-way babies - it's inside story. women who carry undesirable sometimes fatal flaws in their genetic make-up producing

children with devastating problems can get an assist from another woman whose own genetic material is introduced along with a male partner. the result, a child the genetic offspring of three people. the offside a child for a couple, free from threatening conditions. the downside - a closer step to designer babies, a departure of human history, and an occasion to ask whether everything possible is allowable. a new way of making babies, and now questions that must be asked this time on "inside story". how does this work? ing from a mother with unhealthy mitochondria, the material fuelling the cells engines, and eggs from a donor with healthy mitochondria are gathered. the nucleus is removed from each egg. the mother's nucleus is inserted into the donor egg, with the healthiest

mitocoppedria and whose nucleus is destroyed. in the next step it is fertilised by the father's sperm. it can be down using an embryo and a donor egg. this procedure, opening parenthood to more women and couples, by tinkering with the genetic make-up of an embryo is controversial. in the british parliament the arguments were heated. >> i think altering the goops of a child -- genes of a child, creating a new child, essentially opening the way to determining the type of person who is born, is a very difficult ethical boundary to cross, and i'll vote against the regulation this afternoon. >> i don't agree. i think it's emotive language. donating 37 tiny genes out of a compliment of 22,000 doesn't make you a parent in any way.

>> the final vote was 382 to 128. the hls -- house of lords needs to approve the measure. we want to look at the science, we begin with a senior research fellow at the new york research foundation. . >> thank you. >> have we known how to do this for a long time. >> research with this technique has been conducted in animals for 10-20 years, leading scientists to believe it could be effective in humans, a couple of years ago several groups, including ourselves showed that this can be done with human eggs, and can be done effectively. and the resulting cells - they have a new mitochondria na are fully functional. so this convinced many people that this should be translated

into the clinic. these people see the real needs of the patients, families affected by the disease. there is a clear need for them. the people want it, and there's a technique to deliver that. >> you know, the gold standard in science is to do something over and over again, and get pretty much the same result. are we at that stage where you can do - use the technique again and again and get predictable outcomes, and in this case the birth of a healthy child. >> we have done this a good number of times. some of the data is demonstrate yet publicly available. what is publicly available is pretty much fantastic. we have shown that the cells that are made after this technique work very well with the mitochondria, they are fully functional and in all measures that they have looked at, they are normal.

this has been very important argument for approving this technique in britain. >> in the case of this technique, you remove the nucleus from the third party. who is giving the donor egg. does any of her genetic nuance remain. when a child is born, nine months later, will the child include some of the genetic heritage of that third woman? >> the good way to answer the question - you know, i'm a man. if i have a child, this - i will consider this person my child as much as i would consider this child the child of my partner. and so we don't really we the mitochondrial component that heavily.

a man does not contribute any mitochondria, still the child that arises from human reproduction, natural reproduction is fully my child. so there's really bit of importance, in terms of identity, character, physical feature in the mitochondria. these things come from what both parents contribute equally, which is the nuclear d.n.a. i'm trying to understand how much of the second mother is inherent in this child. could it end up with the second mother's curly brown hair, or elongated nose or pointy chin. >> that's what i'm trying to say. a man does not contribute any mitochondria or genetic material. yet the child can often resemble

the father, it's the nuclear d.n.a. that determines hair, and nose, not the mitochondria that does that. what it does is give us the energy that the cells run on. there's something like a currency converter, it converts the energy that we eat into a cellular currency of energy. it is called a t perform. that is what all -- atp. that is what all cells use. they change the energy from one to another. >> any technique of this kind has to be approved in this country by our medical authorities. where in the process is this technique, this approach, and how long do you think it will be before we have cases of children born regularly states?

>> so the f.d.a. is considering the technique carefully. i think they do this seriously, and carefully, and we have been in contact with them. we have provided our evidence. and we appreciate working with them. it's been a good work with them. they have comment, and they want to see more. it can be provided. a precise time point when this happens in the united states cannot be tated at this point. but it is very clear that there's overwhelming support in the british parliament, and shows that this is doable, this is something that people want to do. it's a few, perhaps, outliers that rely on theoretical concerns that do not want this to happen. >> until it is approved in the united states, do you have to

content yourself with continuing animal research, continuing being? >> we have a remarkable programme that uses human egg sells for addressing the questions, and i have done this with my own hands i have taken an egg from one woman, and given it to another, removed the nucleus and placed it into another egg. and we allowed the other egg to divide. remarkably these cells can make stem cells and be investigated. what we found is that the nucleus col ab rates with the mitochondria of the other eggs. there's no issues. there's concerns that some mption that they that not work well with the nuke lease. this is a theoretical concern, there's no basis for that.

>> detailer, a senior research fellow. great to have you with us. >> thank you. >> we'll be back with more "inside story" after this short break. when we return, a closer look at the ethics of creating children with three biological personalities - the slippery slope argument and the risk of bringing more high-tech medicine to reproduction, where medical care is not in unlimited supply. is this where money and energy should be going. stay with us, it's "inside story". >> these people have decided that today they will be arrested >> i know that i'm being surveilled >> people are not getting the care that they need >> this is a crime against humanity >> hands up! >> don't shoot! >> hands up! >> don't shoot! >> what do we want? justice! >> when do we want it? >> now! >> they are running towards base... >>...explosions going off we're not quite sure... >> fault lines al jazeera america's award winning,

investigative series... on al jazeera america

>> an al jazeera america special report >> unfortunately, you can't "should have", all we can do is move forward >> a nation forced to take a closer look at race. >> ...check which ethnicity... i checked multiple boxes... this is who i am... >> what does it really mean to be the minority? >> black history comes up, everyones looking to hear what you have to say, because you're the spokesperson... >> how can we learn from the past? and create a better future? an al jazeera america special report race in america all next week part of our special black history month coverage on al jazeera america welcome back to "inside story" on al jazeera america. i'm ray suarez. what got us talking about this technique is a debate and vote in the british parliament that made the u.k. the first country to approve the fertility technique using third party mitochondrial d.n.a.

>> this is a bold step for parliament but is considered and informed. this is world-leading science within a highly respected regulatory regime. for many families affected, it is light at the end of a dark tunnel. house. >> another member of parliament, geena bruce said: in the british debate lawmakers were told they were crossing a new ethical threshold in aproofing the technique. did they, are we getting ready to do the same. arthur cap lain, a professor of bioethics at the department of population health, and marcy donoski executive director at

the center for genetics and society. arthur, you have written forcefully and made a strong why? >> well, i think the technique could be helpful to families, there are other things they may be able to do. if you are afflicted with having children that died from battery packs in your egg being defective. i think it may work. we have seen good results. human embryos have been made. they seem fine. the risk factor in terms of children, a lot of families try to have kids and produce children who are dead or deformed. it's a tough argument. to say it's too risky, i think at the end of the day this technique is not going to lead us down a path, although it's one we need to worry about, of you genics and designer babies, it's an organ transplant.

you are transferring to a donor, you are not engineering or tweaking genes, none have much to do with height or strength or intelligence or beauty or any other things that people may be interested in engineering. repair. >> marcy, you have come to a different conclusion and you are pushing back. how do you come down? >> well i'm glad to here art say we are not using this to open the door to further genetic modifications, that's a point we agree, and is the case in the u.k. they have carved out an exception to an existing law in their country and 40 plus other countries that say we will not alter the traits we pass on to future environmental or generations, but we are concerned that it is a big deal. it puts us over a line that has

been wide by agreed upon until now, and poses a lot of safety issues that i think are not well enough appreciated, which is surprising because in the u.s. our food and drug administration convene an expert panel, looking at the same evidence available to regulators in the u.k., and they came to the conclusion that it's way too early to go ahead with the techniques, even in clinical trials, let alone as will be the case under the u.k. arrangement in clinical use. they said they wanted to see a lot more evidence, as far as we know, the public nose, it has not been provided. there's a raft of scientific concerns and mounting evidence that mitochondria are not pat ris, they are different. they have an affect on development, cognitive ability,

and i'll send you a list of papers. >> i'd like to hear art respond to some of those points. are we told that this is more solid. more proven science than it really is? >> well, in terms of what goes on in terms of reproductive technologies, it probably has a bigger evidence base than for invitro fertilisation. i'd say it's not as great as one might hope, but it's solid. i'll come back to the evidence based compared to what? still-born babies, babies that are diseased and disordered. we'll see what the story is on mitochondria. we'll never get an answer until someone takes it into humans. i agree about an parent point. there needs to be a registry. it should not be sold as a therapy.

it's still research. >> are there things we are learning about cloned animals, that we go only know by doing the experiments and watching the new created beings aged. before dolly was born, i didn't know what a tally mare is and the difference between a long or short one. do we know enough about what children? >> that's a good point. there has been a handful of monkeys born in one lab in the world. they are still young. and mitochondrial disease doesn't show up until later in life. it has a wide-ranging of symptoms and can be devastating and debilitating, as you said. ironically the techniques could produce rather than prevent mitochondrial disease in offspring. if we think about a drug or

medical device, five or six monkeys, that wouldn't cut it. that's why the f.d.a. panel concluded that we need more invitro and other evidence. >> when we come back, we continue with a look at the door opened by the british parliament in allowing the reproductive technique from using genetic material from three parents. what they need to know before they start, and are there protection built into the law that can keep researchers away from abuse. stay with us. it's "inside story". >> sunday night. >> 140 world leaders will take the podium. >> get the full story. >> there is real disunity in the security council. >> about issues that impact your world. >> infectious diseases are a major threat to health. >> "the week ahead".

sunday 8:30 eastern. only on al jazeera america.

welcome back to "inside story" on al jazeera america i'm ray suarez. using genetic material from three parents to make offspring this time on the programme in debates of this kind, people who oppose an innovation point dire scenarios of the future and those that support the approach

say "we won't do that" much can you build barriers that will keep the slope from being quite so slippery. is it a matter of time until in a lab somewhere it was unthinkable, it becomes real and we move the goalpost. with me, arthur kaplan, a professor of bioethics, and marcy, executive director of the center for genetics and society. is there a legal scaffolding that we can build around the technique that will answer some of your concerns and allay some of your fears? >> you know, there is. in more than 40 countries there are laws that prohibit altering the traits passed on to future children and generations. actually that has been prohibited in a number of human rights international treaties. unfortunately in the u.s. we don't have any such regulation

policy or law. i think we need to put that in place. and this approval. the exception to the u.k. law underlines the importance of that. professor caplin, i wonder if we are getting ahead of ourselves. this is a country where some are afraid to eat g.m.o. food, where stem cell research is held up. are we a long way away from getting to the point where we have to worry about getting to the point here. >> i wouldn't say a long way, but i will add to the list of woes that we are talking about fighting in the middle of a measles. i name to this far. i think we need policies that are in place, the f.d.a. has to have authority to regulate the area. i'd like to see a u.k.-like model where government commissions are open and

transparent and can debate issues like this would be formed. we don't have that either. i disagree a little bit about where to draw the line i would rather draw it around nontherapeutic issues. if someone fixes haemofeelia and passes it on. i find myself thinking maybe i will not draw the line to rule out the therapeutic effort out. we talk about this as a 3-parent baby, i don't think it has much moral force behind it. a lot of people have more than two parents around. we have egg donations, sperm donation embryo don't i suggests. in high school i had a clunker of a car and let a buddy strip it for ports, and he took out different parts. i didn't think it gave me ownership over his car, i don'tated the parts. i'm not sure that that moniker is one that should scare us.

it scarce some. >> what do you think about that, marcy, that we are making too much of a third parent, and it's not that big a factor. >> i don't like that phrase either. concerns are around two sets of things - safety that we have talked about, and the mission creep, the slippery slope pt the line that has been drawn is bright technically and in policy terms. weighing against that the real desires of people to have children that don't have this particular kind of mitochondria disease, they are important. they have other alternatives. they can have a healthy child who is genetically related to one member of the couple using a donated egg, and, in fact, there's a technique of embryo

screening called pre implantation that is being developed so that women who have a very particular kind of mitochondrial disease, who would be a candidate can have their own genetically related children not affected by the disease. weighing it all up... >> doesn't it require destruction of embryos, that will put some people off if you use genetic testing of embryos. >> that is a concern for some people. that is not what we are talking about here. we are talking about safety, alternative paths that don't have the safety or policy risks. >> you are an eth sift. i wonder in a country where we debate the rationing of medicine, how much of natural resources we devote to medical care, whether we want to go down this road with high tech medicine for fertility, instead

of saying to women who carry this tragic and i am sure heart-breaking trait - you just shouldn't have kids? >> well, i don't think we are ready to say it. it seems to stretch credibility to chase fertility treatment. people want their own relationship to biological children, the drive to have a child is important in all cultures, all societies. i suspect this particular technique will not raise questions, it will not tip the budget one way or another. down the road, how much we use genetic engineering, where we use it, how, who has access. it will be a huge question that we'll have to grabble with. >> if we do see this technique being used in the united states, what will you want as your chief

warnings before we start down this road? >> well, first of all, we need to make sure that any woman, it will be a few dozen women, it's a narrow set of mitochondrial diseases, and i want to make sure the women are concerned about the risks for their future child and the alternatives available to them. i think we need a wider public debate on whether we want to cross the line and open the door material. >> marcy, art, thank you both for being with me tonight. that's all for this edition of "inside story". we want you to talk back to your television. visit our facebook beige and let us know what you think about what you see and hear on the programme. from washington, i'm ray suarez.

french and german leaders are heading to moscow in the latest attempts to solve the ukraine crisis. ♪ ♪ you are watching al jazerra live from our headquarters in doha. also ahead jordanians rally behind the government as amman launches new air strikes against isil to avenge the killing of its pilot. the world health organization expresses concerns over the rise in new ebola cases in west africa. plus. >> reporter: i am kristen saloomey at a new york state prison facility. coming up find out why the