LAUSR

Palacios-Gonzalez and Medina-Arellano present an insightful account of the world’s first birth following the use of mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRT) by a US doctor, Dr Zhang, through his affiliated clinic in Mexico. Their article contributes to understanding the complex local and global landscapes of reproductive technologies, and provides a counterbalance to the widely publicized statement that the US scientists crossed borders to perform the procedure because there are ‘no rules’ in Mexico. Their article is no doubt timely.Withmany other countries considering how to negotiate MRTs within their own legal frameworks, the birth of the ‘first’ baby, alongside the UK decision to explicitly legalize MRTs, could have international implications.1,2 By focusing on the UK context and our own understanding ofMexican law, this comment provides further explanation of the international significance of theMexico announcement and the difficulties of responding to the rapid pace of development of genetic technologies. Palacios-Gonzalez and Medina-Arellano conclude that the scientists have acted illegally, breaching several provisions of the federal and state law.We do not wish to dispute the authors’ interpretation of the law. However, we would like to suggest that an alternative view of MRTs could lead to different legal conclusions concerning the lawfulness of the technique in Mexico. The authors claim that the procedure conducted by Dr Zhang violated the General Health Law and its accompanying Regulations on