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?"

Comments

Huh?

[AliasTheRoot]

Surely the better solution is to use drugs etc to control Malaria instead of make some superbug that will eventually have some supermalaria? It's not as if controlling Malaria is an expensive or unknown problem.

Re:Huh?

[bitt3n]

Surely the better solution is to use drugs etc to control Malaria instead of make some superbug that will eventually have some supermalaria? It's not as if controlling Malaria is an expensive or unknown problem.

That's just it. Current malaria drugs are all off patent. If we increase the resistance of mosquitoes, we can hopefully breed more powerful malaria that requires new drugs, which means new patents and a profit windfall, all for the sake of fighting this tragic and debilitating illness.

2-3 million deaths a year is a lark to you, is it?

[spun]

Read up on malaria before making dumb jokes, m'kay?

Frankenbugs!

[John Hasler]

> 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?

Could be serious. The malaria parasite is a major factor in the control of the endemic species homo sapiens. Its elimination could result in a population bloom and habitat destruction.

> Between the news we saw last week and biomagnification, could this wind up substituting
> one problem for another?

Frankenbugs! Frankenbugs! Giant, 100' frankenbugs rampaging through the landscape!

Might help control the homo sapiens overpopulation problem resulting from the elimination of malaria, though.

Note for Slashdot readers: this article may contain sarcasm, parody, or perhaps even irony.

So they will ADD a super mosquito...

[MichailS]

... so that people will both get malaria from the old ones PLUS have to battle the new and improved non-malaria type?

Genius.

Mod parent down.

[edunbar93]

Um, insightful?

The big problem with DDT is that while it may save humans, it makes it so that predator birds can't have baby predator birds. Bald eagles, peregrine falcons, and pelicans were nearly wiped out because of DDT.

Re:Setting up for disaster

[HiThere]

Yah, it's a risk. What isn't?

You always find yourself needing to do cost-benefit analyses. This one *looks* fairly safe, and the gain could be huge. So far I haven't seen any reasonable projection of large downsides. (Actually, I haven't seen any reasonable projection of *ANY* downsides...except the guy who said "Great, now I need a better bug spray!".)

Considering that malaria kills large numbers of people every year, and renders another large number minimally productive... the one cost I see is that equatorial areas might experience a surge in population. That seems ... well, not tolerable, but a "necessarily acceptable cost". One hopes that birth control will be accepted, also. If one starts eliminating all natural causes of death, one needs to drastically slow the birth rate. Preferably before it gets to the point where the government feels the need to do as China did. (It's a lousy policy. It's socially destructive. But it's better than increased population pressure. Personally I think they should have taken social costs into consideration and altered it to "You can have kids until you have a son. Then *NO MORE*, or else. With China's social history that would have been less socially destructive than it's current "Two kids, that's all" approach. But this is just fine tuning. Malthus rules.)