Why are we asking superstitious mumbo jumbo believers about mitochondria?

Ok. So, there’s the big debate about whether or not we can safely have ‘three person babies’. And of course, media wheels out those who are pro and those who are against.

The short version of what this is all about is that a baby is created using the DNA of one man and two women. It is a ‘work round’ for women suffering from mitochondrial disease, and stops children being born suffering from brain damage, muscle wasting, heart failure and blindness due to defective mitochondria. The healthy mitochondria of a donor woman is combined with the DNA of the parents in a procedure that doesn’t affect the characteristics such as height, eye-color, intelligence, etc., of the future child. Only 0.1% of the DNA comes from the donor, and the replaced healthy mitochondria is passed onwards to future generations.

In principle, a brilliant idea.  But, is the science saying it’s fine, or is there science saying that it’s not fine? What’s the consensus?

The debate, if any, especially in the media, should be between scientists who are pro the procedure and those who are against the procedure.

Instead, however, we get a debate between scientists and god-botherers.  Yep, people who base their reality and understanding of science on what was written by superstitious Middle Eastern desert children into a collection of books thousands of years ago, are debating against those who understand the science of what is actually happening.

Isn’t this a bit like asking a plumber to comment on the best way to paint a mural, or asking a painter to comment on changing a ball-cock?

I mean, why does ‘media’ drag out rent-a-gob god-botherers for a debate about something they have no understanding of and a superstitious fear of?

Why is ‘media’ forcing scientists to face superstitious non-scientists in a discussion about mitochondrial donation?  It makes absolutely no sense.

What next?  Media pulling out witch-doctors to discuss the pros and cons of how to land on Mars?