Slashdot Mirror
Biotech Insects to be Released Into the Wild
willmc writes "I just caught an article on CNN.com talking about a genetically revised moth that will be tested in a controlled outdoor environment this summer, and is expected to be released into the wild in the not-too-distant future. The insect is a pink bollworm moth that is a pest to cotton fields. The change that they're testing first is the addition of a luminosity gene from a jellyfish, and later an alteration that will make them sterile so they can mate with non-altered moths and create sterile offspring, thus reducing or eliminating the moths' population. This sort of thing tends to make me very nervous..." Don't worry. We can always release killer bats to get the moths, and giant carnivorous hedgehogs to kill the bats.
Why bother with Nature? Nature doesn't need us to make her a favor. If this moth exists, it's probably for a good reason. After all, Earth did fine during billions of years without us, and probably started having problems when we came along. Maybe those kind of things should just be left as is.
"The answer to the Question of Life, the Universe and Everything is... 42"
Don't worry. We can always release killer bats to get the moths, and giant carnivorous hedgehogs to kill the bats.
This reminds me of that Simpsons episode where Bart saves those Brazilian Iguana looking things (which were supposed to be killed). It turns out that they were eating the pigeons and everyone liked that, but there population was too large, so they planned on bringing in snakes to kill them, and then to bring in gorillas to kill the snakes. The Gorillas would all freeze to death in the Winter.
...maybe I just watch too much tv?
Doh!
What else could be unnatural? Alien artifacts? Gnome-made objects?
The classical seperation is between that which has been formed by the influence of an intelligent mind (artificial and unnatural) and that which has not (natural). If you just decide that because man arose from nature, all the works of man are natural, then you'd just have to throw out the words "natural" and "artificial". It's pointless destructiveness due to bad semantics.
---
I believe that the glow effect is only for the original test. This will make it really easy to differentiate the moths that they placed into the field from the natural ones. Later, the modification done on the released moths will be switched from glowing to "sterility." This is just the test phase.
It's common practice to release sterile insects in order to control the population. For example, the Mediterranean Fruit Fly that plagues California from time to time. I can't recall the other cases I've heard, but there are more.
However, this new case is a bit different. They're talking about modifying the bug's genes to make them sterile, rather than the usual post-birth modifications. That's a little creepy, yes, but I feel it should be a benign change in this case. When you modify an organism, either through selective breeding, cross-breeding or through gene modification, you take the extreme risk of upsetting that creature/plant's place in the environment.
This can yield, and often has yielded catastrophic results. It's nearly impossible for us to predict the outcome when a modified or "foreign" (i.e. not native to the area) creature is released into the wild. There are actually only a few cases to my knowledge where this was done on purpose and had no unexpected consequences. Those cases were largely chance as far as I'm concerned.
This case is a bit different than most, though. The usual genetic mods we hear about are meant to "improve" an organism in some way, like the corn that kills predators (and every other bug in sight, unfortunately). The changes being considered here are intended not to improve the bug, but to kill it off.
Above all, this is very unlikely to cause a problem because the modified bug will be changed in such a way as to not be able to reproduce and pass on the genetic changes designed to make it sterile in the first place.
This is nothing new . . . the "eradication through release of great numbers of sterile insects" method has worked before on fruit flies, both in Florida, South America and Africa, and Australia. They weren't developed through direct genetic alteration, but the theory is the same.
Thank you for the first sane viewpoint I've read in this thread.
The sheer hypocritcal arrogance of people who cry "We are part of nature and must respect her", and then turn around and use phrases like "unnatural" is amazing. If we are part of nature, then how can anything we do be unnatural. Beyond the childish anthomorphication of an abstract idea, the very phrase "unnatural" is an impossibility. (Unless you say we *aren't* part of nature, at which point you forfit the arguement that we can't shape the world as we desire).
Just like all actions, it will hurt and help depending on what viewpoint you are taking at the moment (and if you can only take one viewpoint, your mind is very small indeed). The key is - is the help worth the hurt... from the temporal vantage point we have (look into the past, compare notes, and make a decision. It's easy to say "that was a bad decision" *after* the fact).
For decades people died of cancer from X-Ray research. But when my SO broke both legs, and they were able to set them so recovery would be total, rather than be crippled for the latter part of life, that was on the graves of those who have gone before. And I respect that. Technology *will* kill. Science *will* create horrible situations. It will also feed and heal the human race in prosperity never before seen.
--
Evan (who is sick, and is just hitting submit. Deal.)
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
:_)
hawk
Now we're talking about tampering with creatures for whom we have no idea of their capabilities nor their strengths or weaknesses in what will eventually be an uncontrolled environment. We have no idea if the mutations will take hold, if they will simply get breeded out of the gene pool, or if something else might occur to the modified moths that we can't forsee. Nature has a way of doing crazy things like that.
Usually, I don't fear the unknown too much, but something about doing this just frightens the heebie jeebies out of me.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
Actually, they don't glow in the dark, they're fluorescent. They look pretty much normal except under ultraviolet light...sort of like flowers (which often have features that show up in the ultraviolet).
Though maybe the moths will have to worry about harassment from bees trying to pollinate them...
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Everything on this planet is in a balance.
Um, right.. that's why all animal populations on the planet stay the same year after year, becuase we've reached equilibrium, right?
And that's why the weather is so predictable, becuase there is no inbalance in the planet's atmosphere...
Please, statements like this are just stupid environmental claptrap.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Why eliminate moths? They eat suits, which is truly progress.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
---
/bin/fortune | slashdotsig.sh
Great, so will we now be setting up little counciling centers for impotency in moths?
Next we'll see a study on the success of viagra on mutant moths.
You say you want a revolution?
And because all the moths released cannot reproduce, then this controls the spread of the modified genes in the population, and means that these "modified" creatures will not spread beyond the control of the people breeding them.
So we're not really in any danger of altering the bollworm species and endangering the ecosystem.
There are a thousand forms of subversion, but few can equal the convenience and immediacy of a cream pie -Noel Godin
Personally, I've been eagerly awaiting:
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
It reminded me of that song too -- so much that I hunted down a rendition of it on the net (geocities site).
--
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
to control pest populations. Basically the idea is that you release a lot of sterile individuals into nature, who compete sexual with the wild-type (normal) individuals. This decreases population growth rates.
The problem with irradiation is that it is rather hit-or-miss. Genetic engineering is much more likely to creat sterile individuals.
Couple of other things... many posters seem to think that these moths will be simulatneously glow-in-the-dark and sterile. No, these are different modifications.
ANnd yes, these moths can't propagate in the wild because they're sterile. They would have to be artificially bred and re-released.
My other sig is also a
He said "in balance," not "stays the same all the time." There's a huge difference between the balancing of nature (birth, death and extinction in all its rich variety) and human equilibrium (everything the same all the time - preferably paved with concrete).
C'mon - think about it (no, really - try). You're talking about year-to-year changes which are completely unimportant for the overall ecosystem. Exceptions to this are quick, catastrophic events like huge volcanos. Get a sense of scale, damnit: looking at Earth's ecosystems from a long-term perspective, the rise of homo sapiens is exactly that: a quick, catastrophic event. We're a blip in the history of this planet, but we've made more changes in less time than any other force, with the exception of a couple huge meteors.
This is a cognitive problem common to both "sides" of the environmtal vs. corporate movements: what's at stake. The health and future of Earth's ecosystem is not the issue here. Barring a complete saturation-bombing of the planet with nukes, we're not going to make significant long-term changes to the planet. We are, however, perfectly capable of FUBARing the system so badly that we can't survive.
Humans are pretty fragile, really. All we have going for us is our technology - tool-making. And that's dependent upon natural resources, which are dependent upon environment and climate. How long could we as a species live without sunlight - I mean none at all. A few years, tops? But 1,000 years with no light would be a brief catnap to the planet.
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
Sterile insect release programs have been around for decades. It's used extensively through the fruit-producing Okanagan valley, as protection against codling moth worm, which has the potential to devastate apple crops.
Here, take a gander at [The Sterile Insect Release Program]. More information there than you can shake a stick at (except, naturally, the criticisms that are routinely made about its expense and poor results...?)
Now, what I wanna know is... who the heck is performing all those itty-bitty vasectomies?!
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Why would they need to? It's not like he's in any danger of being a breeder.
[drum sting, please]
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Take all of the money that they've spent on this research and use it to buy thousands of flyswatters, so the scientists can run around the fields and kill the moths. They'll never be able to completely eliminate the moths, so we're not wiping out the entire population. Even better, the muscles the scientists get from running around killing moths will allow them to attract females and mate, thus producing more scientists. The circle of symbiosis has to start somewhere.
Heh. "If God hadn't meant for us to fly, he wouldn't have given us hands to build airplanes with!"
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Ah, NOW we're getting somewhere. A fairly rational alternative. I think the only problem with it is economic - I think it's probably a lot cheaper for a farmer to invest in, say, equipment and materials geared towards corn farming, than trying to support many crops at once (or even one different crop every year).
the first step would be to mimic him [The Diety®] in his ways.Oh, very well...
Ahem... I HEREBY COMMAND YOU ALL TO CUT OFF YOUR... ...oh, never mind... :-)
Or did you mean things like creating new organisms? Or even whole new worlds? But then, isn't that what the opposition to this experiment is objecting to?
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Yeah, they are. Brazillian scientists were trying to make better honey-producing bees and used an African bee (which is very tempermental) as hybrid material. For information regarding killer bees check out www.insecta-inspecta.com/bees/killer/.
The change that they're testing first is the addition of a luminosity gene from a jellyfish, and later an alteration that will make them sterile so they can mate with non-altered moths and create sterile offspring, thus reducing or eliminating the moths' population
Uhh... They're sterile, so they can mate and produce more sterile offspring?
I'm not sure what you guys are taking, but that's not the definition of 'sterile' in my dictionary.
Perhaps this is a new kind of 'sterile' where the sterile offspring can breed and produce even more sterile moths.
Seriously, sterility is something that should be included into *all* in-the-wild genomorphs. As has been suggested by the HGP's findings, the complexity of a form of life isn't created by the genes themselves, but by the way those genes interact. Just because it has extra genes that make is bio-luminescent doesn't mean that inclusion of those genes doesn't suddenly make it vulnerable to a killer virus or something.
Be smart. Don't release genomorphs into the wild without extensive, exhaustive testing.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Forget blaming modern gene-splicing over this, remember the old-skool hybridisation when some imported african killer bees mated with the local american bee population? And that was an unintended accident.
It's the deliberate meddling by humanity that's the problem, the way they do it continually changes. That's why I'm against calls for blanket GM bans, and I think every GM test should be viewed on its merits.
Does my bum look big in this?
Welcome to a little process we call evolution, people. Ooh, but it's at such an accelerated scale! Ooh, but everything is in a delicate balance! Get over it. Human beings are screwing with the genome. We're not going back. This is not a "good" or a "bad" thing. It may be incredibly dangerous to us as individuals and a species, and to civilization in general, but once out there in the wild, these genetic modifications are subject to the same processes as to those resulting from "natural" processes, whatever that means. Relax. Life has survived everything that's been thrown at it (and believe me, catastrophic comet impacts had about ten thousand times the impact on the oh-so-delicate "web of life" as any number of sterile moths) and it will survive genetic engineering. And as to the effects on the human species and human civilization? Hell, those'll take hundreds and thousands of years to show up -we'll all be dead by then. Unless of course we manage to turn off the death genes...
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
I know bioengineering holds great promise...but releasing genertically engineered insects into the wild (I'm assuming they will do that after this test...) is a crapshoot. There are an infinite number of variables in the ecosystem, there is just no way to account for them all.
Wasn't it just last summer that the we had a problem with some type of genetically enhanced corn that was being tested but decided to spread itself via the wind all across the midwestern US? I think hundreds of farmers were financially ruined because their "infected" corn was not FDA approved for human consumption...
Sorry, but I think that even if you do give them parachutes (and a plane to jump out of), the hedgehogs still have a very slim chance of actually catching a bat...
The "glowing" jellyfish protein they are introducing into these insects is probably Green (or Red, or Yellow) Fluorescent Protein. It is NOT a "glow-in-the-dark" gene! In fact, this would only allow analysis of a captured sample of the insects to determine easily which ones were the released ones. You illuminate them with one wavelength of light, and the protein flouresces back with another wavelength. This kind of technology also allows avoidance of things like antibiotic-resistance markers to determine which cells have been transformed in the original cloning experiment. That's a good thing. I don't think there's any way for this protein to harm anybody or anything.
Freedom: "I won't!"
Exactly so these moths can breed but their offspring can't, oh except for that .00001% that mutate and can and turn out to be a bunch of horny hungry little suckers and are an even worst pest that the originals :)
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
And don't forget Homer's toaster time machine. One sneeze from Homer in the past ended the dinosaurs and make it rain donuts in the alternative present. This points out that the (evolutionary) actions we take in the present can prevent certain possibilities from ever happening (like we haven't already been doing that?) while making others possible.
/dev/null
echo 'time travel personal world line arguments' >
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
Will the glow-in-the-dark mothes flitter around each other instead of the porchlight?
- - - If the sun is a star, why can't I see it at night?
When winter comes the gorillas will freeze to death.
Unless polar bear genes are spliced in.
This moth thing really upsets and disturbs me. In fact, I'm sure that a lot of my other posts will prove that I am the anti-environmentalist. No, I don't dump old tires into streams. But I *do* think that sooner or later the world's petroleum was gonna be combined with oxygen somehow, and nature probably wouldn't be as stoichiometrically correct as a modern car engine.
Further, I'm very much in favor of genetic manipulation. I think it's great. It really is harnessing life. But, like electricity which we harnessed, and then the power of the atom, there are risks that must be carefully controlled, though they shouldn't dissuade us from using the tools we discover/invent. After all, you can cut yourself, but does that dissuade you from using a pair of scissors?
Having said that, releasing the moth - or any other genetically engineered plant/creature - is as cavalier, fundamentally unsound, and will look like as bad an idea in retrospect, as building an object out of ferrous metals and other things that are denser than water, deciding that it is impossible to sink said object made of materials which are denser than water, and then steaming at high speed through the North Atlantic in an early April night almost thirty years prior to the invention of radar.
No moths.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
But how will a sterile anything ever produce sterile offspring?
That's the point. A sterile male can never impregnate a female, and a sterile female can never be impregnated by a male. Hence, the time that an unmodified bollworm has for breeding is wasted, which means that particular bollworm, over the course of its lifetime, produces less children. Then, multiply that by thousands or millions of bollworms, and you have a serious drop in the local bollworm population.
It's not about passing sterile genes on. It's about preventing conception in the first place by tying up all of the breedable bollworms with sterile mates.
--
God gave us a brain for a reason
Nature gave us a brain - and were doing our best to use it to destroy Nature.
after they mate, Mrs. Moth leaves smiling, only to find out later that Mr. Moth was firing blanks . . .
Aren't they making a HUGE assumption here, that all the moths already in the wild are going to want to do it with a bunch of freaky glow-in-the-dark moths??
The point is that they hope there will be no differences in, say, behavior, that impair its reproductive capabilities up until fertillization itself.
Introducing a large number of sterile, but otherwise identical, male moths into a moth population should in theory make it more difficult for the non-sterile males to mate, which means that there should be fewer fertillizations and perhaps a smaller second generation. Then the sterile strain dies out, since it fails to actually have any young; new ones can be introduced (by people) the next breeding season if need be. At least that's how the theory should work.
The glowing bit just helps the scientists track them better and check for any behavioral differences during this phase.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
All genetic engineering is, in the final analysis, is a more precise method of breeding things for desired characteristics. So, the barn door HAS been open for longer than any of us have been around. The point is, NOTHING is static, not breeds of a particular critter, not global temperature, not the average IQ of politicians (ok, maybe THAT is stable, but awfully low. . .)
To apply a patch put the mosquito on the moth for 2 minutes. Then reboot the moth.
---
Compared to the damage that has been wrought by countless accidental and deliberate alien species introductions, this has a minute potential for problems. They are not introducing a new species, but a mutation.
Now, mutations are introduced every second. However, because this is on such a large scale, this mutation probably has a much, much higher chance of success (but not guaranteed). Regardless, the moth is still a moth; by altering a gene you could possible cause some horrible mishap of nature. Still, the chance of this is quite low. Compare this to, say, the introduction of the mongoose to Hawaii. There are no natural predators of mongoose in hawaii, and birds were not adapted to avoid these animals. As a result, literally 100s of species of birds have gone extinct!
Your example with the foxes is one of an ecological niche being filled by a different animal. A great recent example is the north atlantic cod stocks off of the grand banks. A few years ago, the cod were fished to the brink of extinction. Now, it appears that, with fishing pressure much reduced, instead of the cod population rebounding (as one would expect), another species (artic cod--much less tasty) is beginning to take over the atlantic cod's habitat.
In sum: don't confuse mutation vs exotic invaders vs habitat distruction and subsequent niche invasion.
"Chill, Orrin!"---Trent Lott
They are not just "careful."
In fact, they are not merely "very careful."
These entomologists are being "very, very careful."
ok, if you're THAT careful, then I'm sure there's no risk these insects will get out of the cages. They'll never breed (we irradiated them!). And we won't find weird glowing things in our daily life... like this.
When Monsanto genetically modified their corn (the Bt strain) in the midwest, the same assurances were given, but there have been issues with Monarch butterflies unable to eat the milkweed in the corn fields containing the specialized corn.
I'm not opposed to genetic research, but I think there needs to be more lab time to ensure that the sterility gene works and that the (mate the females to death with horny males) approach is viable...
I love the smell of Karma in the morning
Sounds like the time the British, concerned about the rising levels of malaria, used DDT to kill all the mosquitos in the Congo area. It worked, but it poisoned all the lizards, birds, and bats that fed upon the contaminated insects. Then the local cat population began to disappear, having been poisoned from eating the dead and dieing critters and birds. With the cats gone, the local rat population exploded and now the risk was not of malaria, but plague. In true English style, the Brits decided that the best way to eliminate the rats was to inroduce cats back into the area...via parachute. Yep, wooden crates containing cats were air-dropped into the region. Rather than the WKRP meets Monty Python ending one might suspect, it actually worked. So rather than worrying about the moral/biological implications of this tampering with our ecosystem, we should really be investigating the cost of parachutes for giant, carnivorous hedgehogs...
------------------------------
I would just like to remind all of our Southern American and South and Central American readers of a little breeding experiment with insects that got out of control.
The Africanized bee (a.k.a. "Killer" bee).
Moving steadily Northward, as far North now in California as Santa Barbara.
The real threat from these bees is not necessarily their propensity for swarming and attacking humans and animals (more people die per year in car accidents - but man, what a way to go!) - but the damage they do to the agriculture industry by mating with other bees and contaminating the colonies with bees that don't produce as much honey, and are not as active in cold weather when farmers need them to get going and pollenate.
Can they bee stopped?
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Making moths that glow is going to be a field day for birds
I don't think it was intended for the glowing moths to be released. I understood it to be that the glowing moths were part of the experimental test group, presumably so that the researchers can locate 'em easily.
In the loosest sense, cross-breeding IS "genetic engineering" (as you say). Although most people don't think of it as such. I remember reading about when people first began hybridising plants to produce better crops - apparently even back then there was a lot of public protest from people afraid of what might be wrought. Not one person today though seems to think that the great crops we have now are a bad thing. Yet now there is much protest against "genetically modified foods", some countries even attempting to ban them. I suspect that in a couple hundred years, not one person will think its a bad thing.
I'm not so sure we should be modifying the creatures on earth like that. Its sure to backfire on us. Everything on this planet is in a balance.
Besides, i'm sure the moths, though a pest to cotton farmers, do serve a useful purpose, even if its just as a meal for bats (which eat other insects as well).
Isn't there some animal running rampant in the Midwest b/c the farmers there killed all the foxes that kept them under control?
as you think it might have. In order for a gene mutation to be successful, the organism must benefit in either reproductive ability or survival and longevity. Making moths that glow is going to be a field day for birds, and having them produce sterile offspring just means that there will be less glowing moths after a few years. So the effect on the moth population will likely be negligible.
--nick
As a molecular biologist this seems too rife with problems both ethical and biological.
Let's start with the moral: should the government be permitted to throw modified animal species into the wild? If so, then why can't Monsanto? Why not me on my own in a garage lab? Since it really is impossible to know what these moths will do in unexpected situations in the wild, should we even be doing this? Also, should we as a government, society, or profession take on the task of eliminating "annoying" species? Safe application of pesticides to bring down local populations is one thing, taking on species extermination is another. Hell, and they talk about the guy who wants to clone people as being unethical.
Scientifically, it would be statistically impossible to completely eliminate the offending moths. Sure, you let out your engineered moths, they have sterile offspring, but in no way could EVERY male moth females mate with be one of the sterile-offspring providing ones. Such selection would create only increased rates of survival for second-generation moths that CAN reproduce. The moth population may be affected, but trust that it'll only be temporary.
Further down the line, continuous injections of the sterile moths would theoretically cause natural selection amongst the species toward an aversion to the sterile moths, creating a sort of Dept of Agriculture/Cotton Moth arms race, where the government is forced to continually develop new sorts of sterile moths. All in all, waste of time.
Granted, I'm not a moth/agricultural biologist, but this sounds like the mother of dumb ideas.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
If they glow in the dark, does that mean they'll always fly towards eachother like they do w/ other light sources? that'd be kinda weird to see a big luminous ball of moths flying around...
terradot, growing awareness
Here's another example of the sort of screwup that occurs when we mess with the ecosystem: Cane Toads where introduced into Australia to eliminate some sort of insect pest. They are now the pest. They breed like rabbits and are poisonous.
It's fine and well for you to stand there and say "hey lets just try it and if it turns out to be a big fuckup we'll fix the mess afterwards". As you say, mankind has been following this strategy for progress for thousands of years. And time after time after time, almost without exception, experiments of new things have resulted in harm to other people (very often harm that could have been averted with even rudimentary precautions, but then, what the hell, as you say, lets throw all caution to the wind.)
Except the only problem with this is quite simply that as technology progresses, the stakes get higher, and the damage wider. A few hundred years ago, no matter what new technology you tried, the best you could probably do if you messed up was a bit of localized damage and a few people dead. Nowadays if you mess up, you mess up big (e.g. chernobyl, or the accident at a pesticide plant in India in the 80's which killed something like 10000 civilians.) Mistakes now have much bigger implications than ever before - if there was ever a time to be cautious, it is now. You are seriously naive if you believe that what we do now will take hundreds and thousands of years to show up. After all, it only took a few decades to rip a huge fucking hole in the ozone layer, and only 150 years of industrialization to set global warming off (assuming that this is the cause of course.) The genetic manipulation techniques that will be developed in the next 50 years or so can most definitely result in catastrophic screw-ups with the potential to wipe out millions of people. Nobody is saying "stop progress". But we *can* be cautious about it. If we can prevent accidents that could very well directly affect our own children (you don't have any, do you?) or grandchildren, then why shouldn't we? It's a pretty selfish attitude to say "hell we'll all be dead, let our descendants suffer". I'm there are many people here who have children who feel differently about what sort of legacy they'd like to leave to their offspring.
I believe that killer bees were created or spread as the result of a genetic engineering experiment (through cross breeding) that escaped into the wild. The problem with these sorts of things is that it is really hard to close the barn door once it's open.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
But how will a sterile anything ever produce sterile offspring?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
The scientists are releasing a bunch of sterilized moths in cages outdoors. They are given Lumeniscent genes so that they are easy to track. After that, the moths will be engineered to be sterile. The idea being, if a sterile moth gets it on with a non-sterile moth, the fertile moth can't get pregnant.
If you guys had your way, we would never have developed smallpox and polio vaccines. And for those that say "don't mess with Nature", God gave us a brain for a reason; let's use it.
Just remember, the genetic engineering moths to be sterile is much better than the original plan: Force all the moths to wear condoms.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
Yes, it was a joke. joe the motheater was the only one who seemed to notice that . . .
hawk
They mention in the article that farmers have 3 solutions against this pest. The first two involve pesticides, sprayed on or produced by the cotton itself. The last option is to put out irridiated moths that are sterile. Unfortunately, these irradiated moths are damaged by the process and do not mate well. To be effective you have to release 60X the number of normal moths.
Instead, this is just a refinement of the "terminator seed" idea. Each year, you have to buy only 5X the number who wish to wipe out since the existing moths have absolutely no way of telling the difference. (In theory anyway, that's why they're testing it first.) The next year, you have far less moths to worry about. Farmers already do this with the irradiated moths. This is just a much more effective way of doing things.
Personally, I prefer this -- by far -- over Monsanto's Bt cotton. We still aren't sure whether prolonged exposure to Bt is harmful to people or not, and I don't have to wear the side effects of that little experiment. If this idea takes off, we may be able to reduce or nearly eliminate the need for pesticides. If we systematically eliminate/reduce the numbers of pests affecting crops in a biological fashion, we can reduce the need for chemical treatments.
I hope it goes well. In the same light, I also like the mosquito-vaccine idea. If we can release mosquitoes that block/treat malaria in regions infested with in, we might be able to do a lot of good for third-world nations.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
When are they going to release a modified luminescent sterilized JonKatz into the wild?
--