Slashdot Mirror
GM Mosquito Could Fight Malaria
qw0ntum writes "The BBC is reporting that a genetically modified (GM) variety of mosquitoes could be effective in combating the spread of malaria to humans. These GM insects carry a gene that prevents them from being infected by the malaria parasite and has the added benefit of providing a fitness advantage to the mosquitoes. From the article: 'In the laboratory, equal numbers of genetically modified and ordinary wild-type mosquitoes were allowed to feed on malaria-infected mice. As they reproduced, more of the GM, or transgenic, mosquitoes survived. According to the researchers, whose results appear in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, after nine generations, 70% of the insects belonged to the malaria-resistant strain. [...] The modified mosquitoes had a higher survival rate and laid more eggs.' This has major implications for the billions of people living in areas with endemic malaria. The question in my mind, though, is what effects on the ecosystems of these areas will replacing an organism low on the food chain with a GM version? Between the news we saw last week and biomagnification, could this wind up substituting one problem for another?"
This is exactly what we need: mosquitoes that are more likely to survive longer. Now I need to go buy a better bug spray. Thanks, science!
www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
I, for one, welcome our new bloodsucking overlords. But, seriously folks, those new GM mosquitoes will probably just cross breed with Africanized honeybees and take over the planet.
Who would have thought that we would build a better mosquito rather than continuing to try and control/eradicate them. I am concerned about unintended consequences, but this is fundamentally a new approach to modifying our environment... rather than trying to kill them off and ending up hurting food chains, we just "tweak" them to keep millions of people from dying from them...
I think it is a good thing.
//now, let the killer bee comparison commence
Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
This is a really risky move. Sure, the mosquitoes are now immune to Malaria and will no longer carry it. But what if this immunity protects them from some other virus that is capable of surviving in the mosquito for longer? Now you have suddenly increased the mosquito population, made it harder to kill the population and made them carriers for some new pathogen that may be just as deadly as Malaria. Genetically modifying something that low on the food change can and will have dramatic effects on the rest of the environment. Why would we run that risk for a problem that can be handled through immunization and treatment? Sure, medical coverage sucks ass in the jungle, but things could get a lot worse if the new mosquitoes carry a new problem into all of the local villages.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Why do we have to create mutant mosquitos when we can use good old DDT? All we have to do is get rich, white people to get off their high horses at cocktail parties so the rest of the world can be saved from this horrible disease. Too many people have died from malaria because of Silent Spring.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
My question is "what about the other major mosquito-transmitted illnesses carried by the same type(s)? AKA yellow fever, west nile, etc.?" as I assume there is a limit to how many disease vectors could be prevented by this technique without introducing unintended and perhaps unstoppable effects later on.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Malaria kills millions of people each year. You're wrong, present methods of controlling malaria are expensive and unknown for the people that actually require them. I'm not sure that GM is the way to go, but I'm sure that something needs to be done, not for us holiday makers, but for those people that live in areas where malaria is rampant and the average wage is practically nothing a day.
And I'm a little worried that someone modded you as funny.
That depends on the strain of malaria contracted, and even then it is in dispute. (It is hard to tell if certain froms of malaria are cured or just dormant without removing your liver and dissecting it...)
This would do more than just prevent it, though: It has the potential to erradicate it: Malaria only spreads via mosquitos, and it needs a certain 'resident infected population' to remain viable in an area. If a large enough percentage of mosquitos don't transmit it, less people will be infected, and the desease could just die out from being unable to spread.
From what I see they are being careful: testing in contained environments the new mosquitos' reaction to various situations. This could be a very good thing...
'Sensible' is a curse word.
Exactly. Because every species that has been threatened has evolved to counter it, and nothing has ever gone extinct.
On top of that, there is no mention of yellow fever, dengue fever, epidemic polyarthritis, Rift Valley fever, Ross River Fever, and West Nile virus that mosquitos are also known to carry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito
There is no way of predicting how these GM mosquitos will interact in the wild. There is the distinct possibility that they may breed hybrids with wild species and regain their malaria carrying capability, effectively becoming supercarriers of the disease.
Personally I think this is another silly attempt of man trying to play God. We don't understand the entire DNA sequence, yet we are chopping and changing the very few known genes with the vauge hope that a desired effect will be acheieved, instead of being able to accurately predict what will happen. While it is a nice exercise in a lab, and helps us understand more about genetics, it has no place in the real world until we can do it accurately.
Surely, instead of spending millions developing a new mosquito (that could potentially carry other diseases if not malaria), a better solution to the malaria problem would be to develop some kind of vaccine.
you don't cure a people's inaccess to treatment by making different treatments.
Of course you do. This new treatment is not a new pill and does not necessarily have the same accessibility problems.
It may be more accessible because we don't need to distribute the cure to each individual person (you underestimate this cost). It may be a good idea and it may not be, but this development is exciting because it provides a new way to save the lives of millions of people from a horrible disease.
Your argument is no different from saying that cheaper clean water and food aren't necessary because we already have those things. Surely you wouldn't deny a clean water system and better agricultural methods to a poor region? You might as well tell them to hold their breath, because you're working on ending world poverty (clearly, you're working against ending world poverty).
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
I'm no expert in this sort of thing by any stretch of the imagination, but if it was all as easy and as cheap as you say, don't you think someone else would have also come up with the same idea?
I can just see some research scientist checking the front page of
If you make a better Malaria resistent bug, then only be the strongest strains of Malaria will survive. Now your chances of surviving infection are lower. This is just a guess but it seems resonable.
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit!
"Oh, this kind of "scare", "precautionary principle" actually led to DDT being banned in the world, while it had almost crushed malaria in Africa."
I don't see this as the same kind of debate, but I'm with you on DDT. The quintessential case of reactionary emotional responses overwhelming a logical cost-benefit analysis. For a while it was "DDT=good" so everybody decided they should use it to bathe their children and spray a 4" deep layer on every square inch of farmland. Then we discover that the stuff is having major environmental repurcussions and it's suddenly "DDT=bad" so it must be totally banned. Forget a pragmatic approach that might balance the incredible usefulness of the stuff with the potential for environmental damage.
Spraying it over hundreds of acres of farmland? Not a good idea.
Applying a light solution to indoor living spaces for mosquito control? Totally sensible with unparalleled effectiveness and = risk to humans vs. other pesticides.
Bringing back DDT for targeted applications is orders of magnitude more intelligent than releasing a GM insect into the environment.
Instead of modifying the mosquitos, let's figure out how to make us Malaria resistant. Then, introduce a retrovirus which the mosquitos can carry that will modify the whole of our population to protect us. In fact, let's do that with several diseases and ailments (damned 7 cycle limit on mammalian gene replication) and be done with this silly mortality crap already.
I'm only being partially sarcastic, too.