Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

Let me give you an example: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release."
The answer to this example can be: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Here is why: The paragraph mentions that "Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be." which is considered evidence for the output. Thus, the output is a valid claim.

OK. solve this:
Britain's parliament last year voted to change the law to allow the three-parent in-vitro-fertilisation (IVF) technique known as mitochondrial transfer, which doctors say could help prevent incurable inherited diseases. The technique involves intervening in the fertilisation process to remove mitochondria, which act as tiny energy-generating batteries inside cells, and which, if faulty, can cause fatal heart problems, liver failure, brain disorders, blindness and muscular dystrophy. The treatment is known as "three-parent" IVF because the babies, born from genetically modified embryos, would have DNA from a mother, a father and from a female donor. Research teams around the world have tested and trialled the techniques in a series of pre-clinical experiments, but as yet they have not been used to treat patients in Britain. The world's first and so-far only known mitochondrial transfer baby was born earlier this year after U.S. doctors working at a clinic in Mexico helped a Jordanian couple conceive using the new three-way treatment. In Britain, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) will decide whether to issue the first licence to a clinic. It had convened an independent expert panel to explore current scientific evidence and offer recommendations. Publishing its conclusions on Wednesday, the panel said the techniques should now be approved by the HFEA for "cautious" use in "specific circumstances". Various studies including one published in the journal Nature on Wednesday, have added to significant progress in the development of the techniques, the panel said, and they are "now at an acceptable stage for cautious clinical use". Specialists welcomed the review's recommendations. Robert Meadowcroft, chief executive of the charity Muscular Dystrophy UK, said the recommendations, if approved by the HFEA, would be "a major step towards the reality of offering an effective treatment to the 2,500 eligible women in the UK". Darren Griffin, a professor of genetics at Kent University said that "in the current climate, where it seems that hype and hyperbole appear to outweigh measured decision making based on the facts, it's pleasing to see a victory of common sense". He said the review was good news for families at risk of transmitting mitochondrial disorders "and infinitely better than the alternative of children suffering with horrible diseases".
Answer:
UK panel says new three-parent IVF technique now safe for 'cautious use'.