Slashdot Mirror
Engineered Mosquitoes Could Wipe Out Dengue Fever
Christina Valencia points us to a Wired story about scientists who plan to use genetically modified mosquitoes to reduce the population of Dengue-carrying insects. The altered genes cause newly born mosquitoes to die before they are able to breed if they are not supplied with a crucial antibiotic. This is a more aggressive approach than the anti-Malaria work we discussed last year. From Wired:
"Mosquitoes pass dengue fever to up to 100 million people each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Up to 5 million die. If the scientists can replicate their results in real field conditions, their technology could kill half of the next generation of dengue mosquitoes, which scientists say would significantly reduce the spread of the disease. If all goes well the company envisions releasing the insects in Malaysia on a large scale in three years."
...from Jurassic Park!
A specific protein in the movies vs an anti-biotic in real life!
I guess I welcome our genetically engineered super mosquito overlords!
You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
Why am I picturing everyone turning into vampire like creatures???
Those mosquitoes might suck (pun intended :P), but they're food for a lot of animals that don't suck. If we just eliminate all the mosquitoes, we probably can't tell how we'll affect the rest of the ecosystem. Eliminating the dengue fever germs will have its effect, but I'm not too worried about depriving the worms of the corpses they're used to growing fat on.
--
make install -not war
I really don't know enough to speculate, but one question is: what's the long term ecological and biological impact going to be?
:D
If these things don't breed... then they start dying off? Then what happens when the mosquito population severly reduced, will other insects take their place, or will the ones naturally immune to this grow bigger etc...
Although, a world without mosquitos would be nice
Jesus, I hope they don't start raiding pharmacies for their fix!
Am I the only one that's noticed a ton of these "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tags recently. Did the mad scientist class of '07 get to work quickly or what? Who is throwing all this money at applying knowledge we barely have to applications we can't imagine the repercussions of. Some of this stuff could turn out a little worse than introducing cats to Australia, if you catch my meaning.
I have often wondered (living in the mosquito-ridden South), if mosquitoes have any benefit to the ecosystem at all. We often hear about how if you remove one creature from the ecosystem, the whole thing changes. But mosquitoes? I'm not sure they would be missed by any creature.
expandfairuse.org
That sounds suspiciously like an urban legend.
Hint: How the fuck are you supposed to breed lovebugs & mosquitoes? (Give them tiny little Jacuzzis and Play Barry White at them?)
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
what will they come up with next? Maybe they can genetically alter the mosquitos to carry our flu shots.
Lots of people worried about birds or "The Ecosystem". Very few seem to be worried about the millions of PEOPLE who die HORRIBLE DEATHS thanks to Dengue fever.
I guess it's to be expected from the "Silent Spring" crowd, who refuse to acknowledge that the REAL effect of banning DDT has been millions of deaths from malaria, against a hypothetical doomsday scenario. Sound familiar?
Eh, I don't know who the hell modded this interesting, but these guys (who look a lot more trustworthy than a random Slashdot post) would certainly disagree with it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_bug#Folklore
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/IN694
I am sure cane toads eat love bugs. I can get you a great deal on cane toads. They are priced per 100000 kilos
http://michaelsmith.id.au
"Engineered Mosquitoes Could Wipe Out Human Race"
There... fixed that for ya. Now queue overlord-welcoming comments....
Charles Darwin thinks that this idea is probably dumb.
Unless they manage to release some critical number of mosquitoes, the faulty ones will die and the normal ones will pass on their undamaged genes.
On a bad side, if the mosquitoes adapt to reproduce prior to their sudden kill time, this could severely increase the problem as they would be able to reproduce in even smaller and shorter lasting pools of water.
They've tried this before, I think...
Having read the article, it sounds like they'd just be releasing these Genetically Modified Anti Mosquitoes (GMAM) near urban areas with dense populations. Basically, these are places where the ecosystem is likely to be severely diminished already due to humans moving in. It's doubtful that using this technique to control mosquito populations in relatively small pockets is going to have any additional impact outside of those areas. Also, you can't really assume that this technique will eliminate 100% of the population. For one thing, there will always be new individuals from outside the affected area moving in. The cost of producing enough of these mosquitoes to guarantee the death of the whole population would be a bit prohibitive. Especially considering that it would likely be a recurring cost. The article pretty much says that this is to control mosquito populations, so it sounds to me as if they don't anticipate any possibility for this technique to eradicate entire populations of the target insect. So, from that point of view, it doesn't sound all that risky.
From the other perspective though, controlling the mosquito population in this way will definitely impact the ecosystem. If Dengue is no longer a problem, human populations will rise faster than it otherwise would have. More people means more ecological damage. Of course I'm not saying we shouldn't save the people, because I know if it were me living in an area with Dengue and my friends and family were getting sick from it, I'd want a solution no matter what the cost to the environment is.
I believe that dengue fever can be eradicated with this approach at least on an area basis IF DONE RIGHT ... but as I understand it, it's going to fairly difficult practically.
They are preventing the female mosquitoes from mating with the "normal" males, and at the same time (via mutant offspring) increasing competition for resources needed by "normal" offspring. This _should_ cause a reduction in the dengue fever mosquito (aedes aegypti) population. The question is, given there will always be a small percentage of normal males who will mate with the females, can they eradicate dengue 100% at least within a given isolated area?
I think so yes.
What they want is to release their mutants so they outnumber the normals by a MASSIVE ratio -this is key. Since their offspring die, this will ultimately reduce the number of female aedes aegypti mosquitoes. The actual percentage of dengue carrying mosquitoes (had to have gotten unlucky and bitten an infected person) is a sub fraction of the dengue carry capable mosquitoes. In turn, there will be a quick dramatic decline in infected people because the chance of a normal aedes aegypti mosquito actually biting a dengue infected person and then giving it to a normal person will become lower and lower.
However I think the public will oppose this for a few reasons:
1. Irrational paranoia about the G word (genetically modified), thousands of genetically modified mosquitoes (even if they are non biting males) being released OMG.
2. The reduction in aedes aegypti females may cause an increase in other mosquito species that compete with it (increase in anopheles (malaria)?).
3. Male mutant mosquitoes will have to be introduced in large numbers to the environment until either aedes aegypti or dengue fever is 100% eradicated (but mad profits if you own the company selling them).
4. Public may get pissed off at the sight of mosquitoes getting released in their neighborhood.
Probably they need to combine this with introducing a harmless (non disease vector) mosquito species suited to a given environment (for example some places may suit aedes albopictus).
I, for one, welcome our new genetically modified insect overlords.
So, release the mosquitoes in 3 years, 2011, which puts us on track for the end of the world in 2012 (according to the Mayan calendar).
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
Would it be accurate to refer to these insects as "Africanized Mosquitos"?
;)
whatcouldpossiblygowrong, indeed.
The thing that annoys me about the concern over certain mosquito species (some which aren't native) is that this ignores that poor people have the heaviest environmental impact. I doubt even a disruption of the local food chain is comparable. And what's one of the many ways to make lots of poor people? Sick people. Sick people miss work and incur health costs. They often get permanent disabilities. And that adds up especially when 100 million people get sick each year. And everyone that dies is someone who could have contributed to raising themselves and others out of poverty. And in case people have forgotten why poor people contribute more to environment problems, keep in mind that poor people cause more environmental damage both through lack of education, apathy, and because the small economic gain from considerable environmental damage can pay for food and such things. Further, they have a higher reproduction rate than wealthier people.
While disruption of food chains are well known, the current argument seems to be that we don't "know" what effects the proposed strategy will have on the environment. As I see it, the effects of poverty and overpopulation are well understood while the effects of food chain disruptions are also well understood. What else is there? And more importantly, if one were rational about it, how would you rank the potential for environmental damage either way? What mitigating factors can you use? As I see it, the effects of poverty and the role of disease in perpetuating that are clearly harmful in an environmental sense. The effects of food chain disruption are pretty clear as well. Keep in mind that humans have been killing mosquitos wholesale for quite some time and disrupting food chains when they do so. Finally, there seems to be unfounded concerns about the modified mosquitos with no justification given for that. Name the danger, the unintended consequence not some vague concern because humans did some unrelated and that had unintended consequences.
Programmers beware! You're next! This is only the tip of the iceburg:
A friend of a friend of mine got dengue in Indonesia. I was there after he had gotten over it, but from second-hand accounts it didn't sound like much fun. I think he had a mild form, where he ran a horrendous fever for about a week, and then had a full-body painful rash for about a week, and then had some serious depression for a few months until he figured out that you can take pills to counteract the neurological aftereffects (which I hear tend to last about a year). I'm not sure if he had to be hooked up to an IV during the fever, but I hear that's common practice.
I don't know what the right solution is, but I'm glad people are working on it.
well, the way it goes with diseases is,
random mutations cause some to be immune, they remain alive
the next year only the immune creatures breed and they fill the void made by the lack of breeding of the then dead ones
in 3 years time the population is back to the old level, but now the creatures have immunity for this affliction
i can't see why this wouldn't happen with an engineered disease or disorder, but then i'm no biologist either, so fee lfree to correct me
seriously, why is evolution that hard to believe for some people (religious fanatics mostly) ?
Birds are the primary predator for most insects (and fish feed on mosquito larvae), and insect populations recover from DDT sprayings much more quickly than birds or fish. And since they can now breed with impunity, as they don't have to worry about predators anymore, those insects will be a much bigger threat to the human population than they were before, and just spraying more DDT doesn't work, since at that point it starts to affect other wildlife (including humans), and the insects build up resistance quickly.
Is this really so hard to understand? There are plenty of examples of this in history.
Also, banning DDT didn't cause "millions of people" to die, no matter how popular that meme is with the anti-environmentalist crowd. Just repeating something over and over again doesn't make it true.
I'm all about saving lives, even if they're outside of my Monkeysphere. And others have mentioned issues with a mosquito replacement, or the problems with the species that eat the mosquitoes.
But what about the 5 million people per year that suddenly aren't dieing of mosquito transmitted diseases? That's a lot of new people! The people that are making all these new people are going to have to dramatically change their life style. It's no longer "make more babies and hope they life". They'll have to make fewer babies and keep them fed. We went through that in the United States a couple hundred years ago as our medications got profoundly better, but it took time for people to catch on.
The populations in the areas most effected by this big of a change are going to experience HUGE population growth, doubling in years instead of decades or more. Can their cultures support that kind of growth?
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
And I think rabbits would make a very nice pet in Australia. Rabbits don't cause any harm, do they?
Privacy is terrorism.
Milla Jovovich is naked on the shower floor........
I'm reminded of both Resident Evil and Aeon Flux, in that our arrogance destroyed the world on one hand and our rush to find a solution made us sterile on the other.
At least this company is doing this to save millions of lives. I can respect that and genuinely admire the scientists that have worked hard to do this. Monsanto programs organisms to die to protect intellectual property profits. I condemn that wholeheartedly.
I DO just LOVE these "mad scientists" though. We have been studying genetics, at the DNA and gene level for what.... a few decades? Now we already have the confidence to introduce organisms into the environment with altered genes which program them to die. I guess I have been in cave and missed all those extensive scientific peer-reviewed studies of the mosquitoes effect on those specific environments. Their specific interactions, their exact place in the food chain, etc. We don't need all that. It would take too long, lets just press the button now and find out what happens. We're so smart and capable and our "hairy reasoners" can come up with a solution if something bad happens. If I really have been in a cave and we have all that groundwork done, peer-reviewed, and verified we STILL don't have the experience of "programmed death" out in the open. I really do think that is shortsighted to believe that the world is so huge that we cannot have any large scale impact on the environment and ecosystems. It is even more shortsighted to believe that we fully understand genetics and these altered genes cannot hop from organism to organism. AFAIK genetic alteration can only occur through a few methods and viruses transmitting new codes into existing organism is one of them. I don't know everything about it, but I know enough to be nervous.
I appreciate the poster who pointed out that there are so many unknowns on either side, the ignorance of the real longterm effects is not a justification for inaction given the consequences of it. However, I would still point out that we are talking about introducing sterility into a population through a brand new science which is still not largely understood. One could argue otherwise, but I think it is overconfident or downright arrogant to think we have come that far that quickly.
I don't live in a tropical locale and I have tremendous empathy for those populations that do live there and have to watch children die due to these diseases. It's very easy for us to judge from a distance and weigh the pros and cons when our lives are not being weighted and measured. I know at some level I am being hypocritical, since my standard of living in the US DOES help destroy the world on a daily basis.
However, I will risk playing the role of the hypocrite, by asking if we really need to provide the solution in this way? We are not attacking Dengue Fever here. We are attacking its distribution mechanism to get at it indirectly with unforeseen consequences to the ecosystems which we are modifying. I instead favor their other method of developing an inoculation for the mosquitoes against the virus in the first place. A much more sensible and less risky proposal.
I also find it interesting that the discussion seems to have split into the "Eco-Nuts" Vs. "Manifest Destiny Assholes". Question the science and its impact on the environment and your an Eco-Nut, favor the human populations and invoke emotions you are shortsighted and arrogant. Perhaps there is a middle ground.
New Vaccination Technique May Work for Dengue Fever. There's no commercial vaccine yet, but working on one seems a safer bet then mass-releases of genetically modified insects.
Reduce, reuse, cycle