Now, the folks in the UK may want to correct me if I'm wrong, but I am under the impression that the Times of London is a respected and erstwhile newspaper. So, why is it that the comments to the linky-dink article are so negative? I have issues with a good deal of genetic manipulation when it's done for reasons that won't help the greater good. But, I don't don't see how this is genetic manipulation, nor do I see anything wrong with it. It does say something to me that people try to equate DNA parentage as the be all and end all. I suppose if the daughter gave a future child up for adoption, it would have a biological mother, a birth mother, and a adoptive mother. Fascinating, yes. Wrong, no. The only comment that got me thinking was the concern that this may be a biological defect, in which case using the mother's egg may propagate or expose a child to risk, but if it isn't, what's the big deal?