Stakeholder #2

DankMemes00.  "Another one" 1/23/16 via Wikipedia.  Public Domain

1.  Description of Stakeholder

This next stakeholder that I am going to discuss is a big federal organization, the FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration).  The FDA are a key stakeholder in the controversy because they are the ones who get to make the final decision regarding whether or not mitochondrial replacement will be allowed to be performed on humans.  The FDA is an agency whose decisions affect the lives of everyone in the United States every day.  People do not really think about it, but everything from food to drinks have to go through the FDA first.  Because of the FDA’s authoritative presence, scientists have to go through them to get the green light to perform mitochondrial replacement.  The FDA has headquarters based in White Oak, Maryland, but it is easier to access them through their website, www.fda.gov.  The FDA website is informative and intuitive, providing a plethora of information and resources about medicines, foods, and other drugs.  An interesting thing about the FDA in the context of this controversy is that the FDA slogan is, “protecting and promoting your health.”  The FDA are saying they are trying to help the people, but it will have to be discussed as to whether or not they are making the best decisions regarding this controversy.

2.  Claims

"There's overall great concern for the well-being of these kids" (Paragraph 13).  SOURCE

"There’s a whole other side of the argument that has little to do with safety and a lot more to do with how we think about children and whether we should be in the business of genetically modifying generations at all"  SOURCE

"I think there was a sense of the committee that at this particular point in time, there was probably not enough data either in animals or in vitro to conclusively move on to human trials . . . without answering a few additional questions"  SOURCE

3. Analyzing claims 

The main thing I noticed about many of the FDA's claims is that they are being very cautious with the way they handle this controversy.  The FDA is a branch of the government, and they have to make decisions that won't generate negative public opinion.  In short, it seems as though they are pandering to both sides of the argument.  They play to the ethics and emotions of the situation by bringing up the well-being of the kids, then go on to say how interesting the subject of mitochondria replacement is.  However, I don't think there is any doubt over the FDA's credibility, because if the FDA wasn't credible, all hell would break loose.

4.  Comparing the claims to the other stakeholders

Like I touched on in number 3, the FDA is very careful with what they say, and haven't come out with a 100% clear decision yet.  As it stands now, they appear to be leaning towards not permitting the experimentation.  I feel as though the FDA and the National Academies have a lot in common because they are both large, respected organizations that do not want to get on the public's bad side by making controversial decisions.