Slashdot Mirror


Fighting Mosquitoes With GM Mosquitoes

doug141 writes "Scientists are releasing genetically modified male mosquitoes that produce flightless female offspring. The male offspring go on to wipe out another generation of females. This is similar to the way screwworms were eradicated in the U.S., except with nature itself making more of the modified males. Field trials are already underway."

96 of 521 comments (clear)

  1. Do I get to say... by migla · · Score: 5, Funny

    What could possibly go wrong?

    --
    Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    1. Re:Do I get to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      But they're only creating males - you know, like in Jurassic Park.

    2. Re:Do I get to say... by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      No in Jurassic Park they didn't make Males.

      Females can in theory spontaneously reproduce... Males cannot.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Do I get to say... by Starboyforever · · Score: 2

      What could possibly go wrong?

      Maybe we get to scratch our heads next year and wonder where all the frogs and spiders went...

    4. Re:Do I get to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Are you joking? Could not genociding mosquitoes cause trouble for birds or unseen advantages to some other insect and couldn't trouble for birds or any other ripple of a consequence lead to a chain of effects of an unforeseen kind and magnitude?

    5. Re:Do I get to say... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      The issue for me is that these scientists are, making decisions that should be evaluated well before they act, and not just by them, but by a larger audience.

      According to the article, the scientist is still doing controlled cage trials. It's his corporate partner, the company who actually developed the mutation, that has already started releasing them in the wild. I'm not sure that science is to blame here.

      Oxitec's historic first release of GM mosquitoes in 2009 killed an estimated 80% of the A. aegypti population on the Grand Cayman island in the Carribbean - a geographically isolated area.

      More mutant, autocidal mosquitoes have been released in Malaysia, and the technique is reportedly going into large scale production in Brazil.

      James sees Oxitec's full-speed-ahead approach as a potential risk to the entire science of genetic modification. "That's the difficulty of working with corporations," he told Scientific American, "I can't control corporate partners."

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    6. Re:Do I get to say... by DavidTC · · Score: 2

      Even if it's replaced with other mosquitoes, only a few species of those actually drink blood and thus spread disease.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    7. Re:Do I get to say... by DRJlaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The issue for me is that these scientists are, making decisions that should be evaluated well before they act, and not just by them, but by a larger audience.

      * * *
      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.

      The irony when I contast your sig and your sudden approval of mass consensus has literally blown my mind. Fortunately, my muscles remained able to type this in the absence of centralized motor control.

    8. Re:Do I get to say... by wiedzmin · · Score: 2

      What happens when flightless female offspring continue to reproduce? Looking forward to being afraid of lying down on the ground out of fear of being attacked by millions ground-dwelling blood sucking parasites, who have developed supernatural running speeds to compensate for their inability to fly :)

      --
      Bow before me, for I am root.
  2. Obligatory turd in punchbowl by stevegee58 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry to break up this anti-mosquito party, but don't mosquitos serve a useful purpose in nature?
    Is it OK for us to blindly eradicate them just because they cause disease in humans? It's not like mosquitos are going to kill us off or anything.

    1. Re:Obligatory turd in punchbowl by LoudNoiseElitist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Although I don't immediately know the specifics for mosquitos, not everything in nature serves a useful purpose.

    2. Re:Obligatory turd in punchbowl by LostOne · · Score: 5, Funny

      Although I don't immediately know the specifics for mosquitos, not everything in nature serves a useful purpose.

      Like, for instance, humans. Nature would get along much better without us, probably.

      --

      If it works in theory, try something else in practice.
    3. Re:Obligatory turd in punchbowl by Pieroxy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But the question is not "are they harmful to humans" but rather "will the harm done by their eradication be worse or not?"

    4. Re:Obligatory turd in punchbowl by dvice_null · · Score: 5, Funny

      > Like, for instance, humans. Nature would get along much better without us, probably.

      Not quite, there are mosquitoes that need humans as a food source.

    5. Re:Obligatory turd in punchbowl by Taibhsear · · Score: 4, Informative

      Since clearly a lot of people didn't read the article or the link in the article that directly addresses this...

    6. Re:Obligatory turd in punchbowl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I found this on the Internet.

      http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html

      [[Ecology: A world without mosquitoes

      Eradicating any organism would have serious consequences for ecosystems — wouldn't it? Not when it comes to mosquitoes, finds Janet Fang.]]

    7. Re:Obligatory turd in punchbowl by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 2

      I thought everything has its place in the ecosystem, but I've always wondered about mosquitoes and ticks.

      --
      Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
    8. Re:Obligatory turd in punchbowl by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 2

      Nature can survive without this particular species of mosquito. There are hundreds of other flies that fill the same niche.

      --
      "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
    9. Re:Obligatory turd in punchbowl by Baloroth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Typically specist human thinks all creatures exist to serve him, hmm?

      Well, yes, the entire point of the human intelligence is that we survived by mastering our environment. I suppose you would also protest lions eating deer?

      Part of that mastery, of course, is to care for the environment and not destroy it.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    10. Re:Obligatory turd in punchbowl by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 5, Funny

      Like, for instance, humans. Nature would get along much better without us, probably.

      My theory is that nature wanted plastics, and since there was no natural way to produce plastics nature created humans to make plastics. Unfortunately for nature this plan has gone slightly had some unforeseen side effects.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    11. Re:Obligatory turd in punchbowl by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 3, Informative

      The article links to this Nature story that asserts that completely eradicating mosquitos would have no measurable effect on the environment. They don't really do anything but spread disease. They might have a role as a food source for other animals, but they don't appear to be very significant.

      But we might be missing an important part of the chain, and wiping out the mosquitos might throw the world completely out of balance. Then again, humans have so many reasons to hate the little buggers that it still might be worth it.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    12. Re:Obligatory turd in punchbowl by Swanktastic · · Score: 2

      Less than 10% of mosquito species carry plasmodium. It's about 100% certain that killing off the species that do will result in the other non-lethal mosquito species filling their niche.

    13. Re:Obligatory turd in punchbowl by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Nothing, until you need a lawyer. But sense all the judges and prosecutors would be gone too.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re:Obligatory turd in punchbowl by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nature wants to survive

      As far as I know, nature doesn't and can't want anything.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    15. Re:Obligatory turd in punchbowl by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      They didn't. "Cows" are domesticated, and are a far cry from the animals that were around before we were...

      Keep in mind we are not talking water buffalo here.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    16. Re:Obligatory turd in punchbowl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Like, for instance, humans. Nature would get along much better without us, probably.

      My theory is that nature wanted plastics, and since there was no natural way to produce plastics nature created humans to make plastics. Unfortunately for nature this plan has gone slightly had some unforeseen side effects.

      Thats George Carlins hypothesis.

    17. Re:Obligatory turd in punchbowl by Broolucks · · Score: 3, Funny

      I suspect this is what God is doing.

    18. Re:Obligatory turd in punchbowl by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      Well, we are. To us.

      If we were to die off, why would we care about anything else? We are not subservient to anything else.

      That doesn't mean we have to be dicks about it, but being overly self-sacrificing is just doing ourselves a disservice.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    19. Re:Obligatory turd in punchbowl by mcmonkey · · Score: 2

      You say that as if human deaths are a bad thing, you know we're in the middle of a major population and food crisis right?

      Actually, we're in no such middle, at least in terms of population. Those areas with food issues are victims of politics, mostly, or economics.

      When food aid to drought-stricken areas is stolen by gangs (government-affiliated and otherwise), are those people left hungry because of the world population?

      When the USA is afflicted with inner city 'food deserts' with bodegas and fast food joints only serving over processed fats and salt in the shape of food and no access to markets with real food, is that because the USA can't feed its people or just won't?

      There's no technical or environmental reason for humans to not be 100% well fed. Our population isn't close to the limits of the food we can produce. The reasons there are hunger and malnutrition are political.

    20. Re:Obligatory turd in punchbowl by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2

      The earth wants us to transform her into a gigantic electronic brain. She thinks the Internet is awesome progress. Oh, and she doesn't really give a fuck about lions, tigers or baby seals...

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    21. Re:Obligatory turd in punchbowl by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      The Dust Bowl was caused by humans. And some others, like the Sahara was arguably caused by humans as well. We destroy the planet indirectly enough that we don't accept blame.

    22. Re:Obligatory turd in punchbowl by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2

      I read an interesting article a while ago in NG or Nature or some other magazine regarding the elimination of sharks from reefs. Turns out sharks are vital to reef ecosystems, since they keep smaller predators under control. Without the sharks (top predators in these ecosystems), the smaller carnivorous fish wipe out the even-smaller carnivorous fish that keep the reef-destroying coral-eaters from overrunning the coral.

      Banning the harvest of sharks in these reefs resulted in much greater biomass for the reef system, healthier corals more resistant to higher temps and disease, and a fishing industry with a sustainable higher yield.

      Now if only I could find that article...

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    23. Re:Obligatory turd in punchbowl by kEnder242 · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-wipeout-gene&page=6

      "Some people wonder if it is ethical—or safe—to eliminate an organism, even in just a small geographic area. Proponents argue that A. aegypti is an invasive species that has evolved to exploit a solely human niche. “Urban A. aegypti is not part of any significant food chain,” says Phil Lounibos, a mosquito ecologist at the Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory. Yet Lounibos doubts whether eliminating A. aegypti would stop dengue transmission permanently. “A previous campaign to eradicate this species from the Americas in the 1950s and 1960s, when it was the primary vector of urban yellow fever, failed miserably,” he says. The invasive Asian tiger mosquito—another good dengue vector—readily occupies niches vacated by A. aegypti. Moreover, both the Cayman and Tapachula mosquito strains, even if successful, are not permanent. Migration of mosquitoes from neighboring regions into Tapachula could foil eradication attempts and mandate frequent releases of the modified males to keep the population in check."

      --
      my associative arrays can kick your hash - TCL
    24. Re:Obligatory turd in punchbowl by BurningFeetMan · · Score: 2

      A gradual approach can sometimes work against you; have a read about the history of rabbits in Australia;

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia

      If the CSIRO had released both Myxomatosis & Calicivirus at the same time, I'm assuming we'd have much less of a rabbit problem here in OZ.
      Half doing something can sometimes lead to total failure, as opposed to 100% success rate if done correctly and at full potential.

    25. Re:Obligatory turd in punchbowl by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't anthropomorphize nature. It really hates that.

  3. Nature... will find a way! by arcite · · Score: 5, Informative

    Or maybe not. Actually I would be more in favor of releasing wave after wave of bats. Fruit bats preferably, they're cute!

    1. Re:Nature... will find a way! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While fruit bats certainly are cute, I don't think they'll be very effective at eating mosquitoes. ;)

    2. Re:Nature... will find a way! by ascrewloose · · Score: 4, Informative

      At least the fruit bats won't starve if we kill all the mosquitoes.

    3. Re:Nature... will find a way! by msauve · · Score: 5, Funny

      "fruit bats certainly are cute, I don't think they'll be very effective at eating mosquitoes. "

      We just need mosquitoes which genetically altered to taste like mangos.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    4. Re:Nature... will find a way! by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ignorance and superstition. Bats eat insects -- LOTS of insects. They do no harm to society, other animals, or anything else. Little brown bats are insectivores, eating moths, wasps, beetles, gnats,
      mosquitoes, midges and mayflies, among others. You like mosquitos, cockroaches, flies, and moths?

      You wouldn't like your neighborhood without bats.

    5. Re:Nature... will find a way! by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 5, Funny

      You can't stay there. It's a bat country.

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    6. Re:Nature... will find a way! by jcgam69 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except for the occasion rabies infection: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/05/020506074445.htm

    7. Re:Nature... will find a way! by evil_aaronm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Be careful what you wish for. There was an article - google it - regarding the number of bats killed by wind turbines and the direct cost increase to farmers who had to increase their pesticide usage in response. Food prices, of course, also go up. Just as killing mosquitoes wholesale would be "bad" for the "cycle of life," killing off bats would be about as bad, I'd guess.

      Personal anecdote: one night earlier this summer, my grand-daughter and I watched a flock of bats at dusk and, though they swooped and came close a few times - we were standing near the pool where the bats would dive bomb to get a drink - they never once threatened us. In addition to being a fascinating show, it was a good lesson for her: bats may -look- scary, but are usually harmless; no need to panic. I'm trying to get her - and her grandmother, and her mother - not to be so frightened by spiders, too, though less successfully.

    8. Re:Nature... will find a way! by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Just as killing mosquitoes wholesale would be "bad" for the "cycle of life,"

      I'm not at all convinced that mosquitoes aren't an exception. Most of their "positive utility" is in serving as food for critters higher on the food chain, but in that respect they're pretty fungible with most other insects. If we killed all the mosquitoes, it wouldn't kill all the bats -- they would just eat other insects.

      The primary other thing they do is draw blood from various animals (which has a negligible effect on anything) and spread disease (which is pretty firmly in the net negative category).

    9. Re:Nature... will find a way! by Surt · · Score: 5, Funny

      Umm ... your parent poster complained about bat guano. Which of ignorance or superstition was it to claim that a large number of bats were responsible for his unwanted surplus of bat guano?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    10. Re:Nature... will find a way! by RulerOf · · Score: 5, Funny

      Which of ignorance or superstition was it to claim that a large number of bats were responsible for his unwanted surplus of bat guano?

      We may never know---I suspect he has gone batshit crazy.

      --
      Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
    11. Re:Nature... will find a way! by icebike · · Score: 4, Informative

      Be careful what you wish for. There was an article - google it - regarding the number of bats killed by wind turbines and the direct cost increase to farmers who had to increase their pesticide usage in response.

      Sorry, but that is totally false myth perpetrated by anti-wind power crowd. Modern wind turbines do not kill birds or bats in any great numbers. Ask any farmer who walks around under the turbines on his land. Ask Google.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    12. Re:Nature... will find a way! by rogueippacket · · Score: 5, Funny

      The bats would be optional then - I'd eat the mosquitoes if they were mango flavored!

    13. Re:Nature... will find a way! by bryan1945 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then you release owls to eat the bats. If the owls get out of control, we'll need to GM a fox into a flying fox to eat the owls. Then GM a flying mountain lion to take care of the flying foxes. Not sure if you can GM a flying bear, though.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    14. Re:Nature... will find a way! by JRowe47 · · Score: 2

      So Slashdot's variation on the solution is... giant mango flavored genetically engineered vampire bat bugs? I for one welcome our new fruity overlords.

    15. Re:Nature... will find a way! by gr8_phk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is this a bot posting in response to the word "fungible"?

  4. Genocide by wisnoskij · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You would think that some organization like the UN would step in and tell the US that genocide of an entire species is not a good thing.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Genocide by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It saves human lives. fsck the mosquitoes. Did you complain when they eradicated small pox?

      --
      "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
    2. Re:Genocide by elewton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We shouldn't eradicate them. We should keep thousands of samples from all over the world frozen and maintain a limited breeding population in zoos.

      But the wild population? The one that keeps killing HUMANS? We should probably get rid of that. We do a ton of damage to the environment and wipe out a great many species just by existing as is. We can worry about mosquitoes after we solve all the other problems.

    3. Re:Genocide by geekoid · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's a new disease, so I expect you haven't heard of it: Malaria.

      malaria accounts for 2% of deaths worldwide. most of which are children.

      and secondly:RTFuckingA. the discuss that specific topic.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  5. Re:Wait a second... by TheCRAIGGERS · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As far as I know, there aren't too many actual horror stories about GM animals messing up ecosystems.

    However, there are hundreds of years worth of horror stories from introducing some species of animal or plant to help control another bothersome species. Plus many accidental, but no less problematic, introductions.

    I'm not saying that GM as a species control is safe, but I am saying we've tried it that your way and it doesn't work well.

  6. Itchy by Ogive17 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anyone else start to itch while reading this article?

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  7. Mosquitoes will go the way of the dinosaur! by bogaboga · · Score: 3, Informative

    What could possibly go wrong?

    The mosquito could become extinct in a few generations. Here's how this could play out:

    Mosquitoes usually fly when fleeing danger. These flightless mosquitoes will not be in position to flee! In a situation where they could survive a whack by flying away, they will surely be killed!

    Killed in enough numbers, there will be no female mosquitoes to produce the 'next generation!'

    Result: Males will find it difficult to find a mate, resulting in fewer mosquitoes all together.

    Folks, the mosquito could get extinct in a few years. Scary indeed.

    1. Re:Mosquitoes will go the way of the dinosaur! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed. Without a vector for malaria, what will we do about all those poor brown people?

    2. Re:Mosquitoes will go the way of the dinosaur! by john.r.strohm · · Score: 2

      There are places in the world today where eradication of mosquitoes would definitely be seen as a Good Thing.

      Malaria, sleeping sickness, ...

    3. Re:Mosquitoes will go the way of the dinosaur! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Use them as food?

    4. Re:Mosquitoes will go the way of the dinosaur! by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Folks, the mosquito could get extinct in a few years. Scary indeed."

      Well, A mosquito species could be come extinct. According to TFA, Aedes aegypti to be exact. This particular mosquito can carry several major human pathogens including dengue hemorrhagic fever, yellow fever, and chickungunya, which are all viral diseases. Ae. aegypti originated in Africa but is now found throughout tropical and subtropical regions including the USA, where it used to be in only Florida and the southeast but has since spread north to New York and Illinois. Especially alarming is the fact that there have been outbreaks of dengue recently (in 2010 at least) in Florida.

      Eradication of Ae. aegypti might not necessarily be that big of a deal environmentally. While mosquitoes are an important part of the diet of many predators, there are over 40 genera comprising thousands of species of mosquitoes. Any reasonably sized chunk of land probably has more than one species of mosquito, for example here in Wisconsin we have not less than 58 species. Even tiny Rhode Island is home to at least 46 mosquito species!

    5. Re:Mosquitoes will go the way of the dinosaur! by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Any reasonably sized chunk of land probably has more than one species of mosquito, for example here in Wisconsin we have not less than 58 species. Even tiny Rhode Island is home to at least 46 mosquito species!

      Hell, here in Louisiana, the mosquito is the fscking state bird....

      :)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    6. Re:Mosquitoes will go the way of the dinosaur! by Scarletdown · · Score: 5, Funny

      Result: Males will find it difficult to find a mate, resulting in fewer mosquitoes all together.

      And then those mateless male mosquitos will either go into IT, become imaginary property lawyers, or become politicians.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    7. Re:Mosquitoes will go the way of the dinosaur! by quickgold192 · · Score: 2

      While mosquitoes are an important part of the diet of many predators, there are over 40 genera comprising thousands of species of mosquitoes

      And while pork is an important part of my diet, I can do just fine without it, thank you.

    8. Re:Mosquitoes will go the way of the dinosaur! by icebike · · Score: 2

      Other than feasting on warm blooded animals, there is probably no other significant niche that mosquito fill that could not be filled by other insects, so even if some mosquito species are more or less suppressed (eradicated seems un-likely), there are a dozen other insects that will fill the bellies of the the mosquito eaters.

      Further, since it is (allegedly) only the female mosquitoes that seek blood, simply reducing the flying ability of females may give the perception that mosquito are reduced without actually killing them off as a species. There are plenty of ground animals that these mosquitoes can bite to obtain the blood they need.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    9. Re:Mosquitoes will go the way of the dinosaur! by Ossifer · · Score: 4, Funny

      Will they be mango-flavoured?

    10. Re:Mosquitoes will go the way of the dinosaur! by Ossifer · · Score: 2

      Like we wouldn't have evolved at all in the presence of dinosaurs?

    11. Re:Mosquitoes will go the way of the dinosaur! by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 3, Funny

      Result: Males will find it difficult to find a mate, resulting in fewer mosquitoes all together.

      Or, worse, you're going to end up with a bunch of horny male mosquitos humping your leg.

    12. Re:Mosquitoes will go the way of the dinosaur! by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 4, Informative

      Male mosquitoes feed on nectar from flowers, in the lab we feed them sugar water. Female mosquitoes on the other hand require a blood meal for the proper development of their eggs. Mosquitoes live in the water as free swimming larvae, which will develop into similarly free-swimming pupae. When development is complete, the pupae floats to the water surface and the adult mosquito emerges. The adult mosquito stands on the water surface while its new exoskeleton and wings dry and harden. The adult mosquito can't swim, and while it can walk on water it only does so when emerging from the pupae and for some species when depositing eggs. It minimizes water walking in both cases and flies away as soon as possible. That's what makes this so cool. The female, and only the female mosquito, is stuck on the water unable to fly and practically motionless. It's a free lunch to any mosquito-eating predator around. The males on the other hand are free to escape and then free to mate and pass that gene on to their offspring--again fatal to their daughters, and no harm to their sons, who repeat the cycle.

    13. Re:Mosquitoes will go the way of the dinosaur! by bryan1945 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Many many years ago I read a study that determined that the only species that could go poof and it wouldn't matter was the mosquito. It wasn't this one, but it said more or less the same thing-
      http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  8. That's nuts.... by RobinEggs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Much as humans hate them, mosquitoes constitute a potent food source to smaller vertebrates. Mammals represent massive concentrations of energy, and blood is a high energy substrate. Mosquitoes are a huge power source of fish, bats, etc. when they're caught still full of blood, and they're easy to catch.

    I read in the one of the article links that the ecological impact isn't expected to be a serious problem, but I find that difficult to accept. And there are certainly detractors to that theory in the scientific community.

    Is eradicating malaria, West Nile, etc. really worth the risks? They may be highly threatening to humans, but ultimately we still have to live here after the mosquitoes are gone...

    1. Re:That's nuts.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "The humble mosquito, and the deadly diseases it carries, is estimated to have been responsible for as many as 46 billion deaths over the history of our species. That staggering number is even more frightening in context - it means that mosquitoes are alleged to have killed more than half the humans that ever lived."

      Besides eliminating one species of Mosquito isn't going to affect the others that live in the same places. (like eliminating Chihuahuas won't affect other dogs species much)

    2. Re:That's nuts.... by geekoid · · Score: 2

      You are being stupid. Stop being stupid. RTFA and you will see why your post is a very stupid post.

      It's 1(one) species of mosquito.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  9. Re:Lets fuck it up. by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Your comment is difficult to understand, but I'm pretty sure you are implying that the GM mosquitoes will mutate and become some kind of super-bug.

    However it is a non-problem. The modified flies have defective offspring, who also have defective offspring. The population will soon go extinct, long before there have been enough generations to mutate into something else. That whole extinction thing is the whole point of releasing these bugs!

    -d

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
  10. Re:Lets fuck it up. by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Informative

    Partially agreed but...at the same time... who knows what doesn't mean it wont work...or will result in problems later, just that we don't fully know...and I might argue, can't fully know until we try.

    That said, I think it has a real chance of working, mostly because of how drastic of an effect this could have by shifting the reproductive cycle in such a way as to massively overpopulate males vs females. If this works for the first few generations, it could quickly put a hurting on their numbers. This leaves a couple of possibilities.

    Actually.... this reminds me of some of the talk of cancer evolution....in fact, its probably a good model here. To go from being a human cell to a cancer cell generally takes not just one, but several evolutionary steps. At each of those steps, a cell line could die off (either via chance or via a cleaning mechanism designed to take out mutated cells). Chances are, if you have cancer, your body came close to cancer several times before one cell finally finds the right mutated configuration.

    So the chance of developing cancer actually is dependent on the number of steps required to become cancerous, down all of the paths that it can. This is an identical situation here.... it comes down to how close the populations genetic makeup is to being able to circumvent this. If it only takes one or two mutations to make females who avoid GM males, or to produce something which compensates for the change, then.... this is unlikely to work. Similarly, if they already have the genes required to make females that are not susceptible, then this will simply make sure that they dominate.

    That said, if there are no coping mechanisms already in their population, and if developing them is more than a few mutations away.... it could come damned close to eradicating them. Once their numbers are vastly smaller, it would also slow the rate of total mutations in their population, making them less likely to make it over the hurdles.

    It could work.... but... what that will mean in the long term is unclear.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  11. Science fiction story by wisebabo · · Score: 2

    I believe there was a science fiction story that once something like this:

    Some super space aliens/God came to earth and after seeing what Man had done to the planet gathered up all the animals and asked:

    "If two of you will say that Man was good to you, I will spare him, otherwise he will be made extinct like he has done to so many of you."

    The dog, stood next to his master, loyal in his hour of need. The cat on the other hand merely licked his paws and sauntered away.

    "Is there no-one else who will vouch for Man?". Just silence. Finally, the mosquito came, remembering all the juicy meals it had sucked from that soft, hairless flesh.

    THAT SAID I REALLY HATE THE BUGGERS. (I live in Vietnam and I had Dengue fever last year, horrific.) Where, oh where is that mosquito vaporizing laser demonstrated at TED? Can't someone buy the patent rights fom Paul Allen and develop it already?!

  12. Re:How about driving their evolution instead? by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, for instance, we could create a way to selectively wipe out just the one species of mosquitoes that carry these diseases, while leaving other closely related species unharmed. Perhaps we could make it so that their females can't feed or flee from predators.

    --
    'Sensible' is a curse word.
  13. Re:How about driving their evolution instead? by Rerracoon · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's exactly what they are doing. They are concentrating on one single strain of mosquito that is the only one that carries the virus. by eradicating only this one strain, they hope to eliminate the virus without eliminating the Mosquito as a species.

  14. Simpler solution by dbc · · Score: 2

    Just put the California Department of Fish and Game in charge of maintaining a self-sustaining breeding population of mosquitoes.

  15. Re:Lets fuck it up. by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No,. What he is saying is:
    "I don't understand the scary science or evolution, therefore bad stuff will happen"

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  16. Evolution by PPH · · Score: 2

    So the flightless females will just sit around the house, eating cake and watching soap operas. While the males go out and work to support the family, eventually dying at their desks from massive coronaries.

    Whew! That certainly was cathartic.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  17. GM Mosquitos by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

    GM used to make good mosquitos a generation ago- but to be perfectly honest, the Japanese, and lately the Koreans make better Mosquitos.

    Now if only Ferrari made Mosquitos.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  18. Re:Crawling moquitos by vlm · · Score: 2

    We have killed ..., beavers, ...

    I always knew shaving them would lead to problems in the long run.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  19. Re:them and us. by Jerry+Rivers · · Score: 2

    The effort to warm the planet will increase the population of mosquitos. We have to eradicate them to enjoy our swan song.

    Ever been to Winnipeg?

    --
    The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
  20. Re:How can I help? by Bucky24 · · Score: 2

    Every comment here should begin and end with "How can I help?"

    The attitude that we should just say "oh they say it helps people so we should help them do it" is incredibly naive, and in fact a very dangerous idea to have. If someone is proposing to eradicate an entire species, then we really SHOULD think about if it's a good idea, not just say "well it will fix some problems so lets do it!"

    I have no problem telling that to a victim. I fully agree that we need to find some way to deal with the malaria and West Nile and all the other horrible things mosquitoes carry, but I think we can find a way to do that without ripping apart the food chain and doing God knows what to the ecology.

    And don't use "think of the children" as a defense. Around here that's just going to get you mocked, at at best ignored.

    --
    All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
  21. WHERE'S THE MOSQUITO VAPORIZING LASER? by wisebabo · · Score: 2

    C'mon everyone, this is a news for (mainly) tech nerds into hardware/software not wetware (sorry biologists).

    We should be demanding progress on that mosquito vaporizing laser demonstrated at TED by Paul Allen's company. It seemed remarkably free of "side effects" and would not put a dent in the overall mosquito population (at least not until the "Star Wars" space based global anti-mosquito laser netwok is set up). They claimed that they could manufacture it (in quantity) for $50.

    I had Dengue fever last year and I'd buy one for ten times the price (I know that won't work for the developing world but hey, what can I say? I'm selfish and one less food source available for mosquitos the better for everyone).

    Anyone out there know how to get this thing "kickstarted"? How much would Paul Allen ask for the rights?

  22. Some info on malaria by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Informative

    MALARIA FACTS Of the 300-500 million clinical cases of malaria that occur globally each year, 90 percent of them are in Africa. Malaria is endemic in more than 90 countries. Forty percent of the world population is at risk for malaria. Ten percent of world population gets sick each year with malaria. DEATH BY MALARIA Number of fatal cases of malaria each year: over 1 million Most common age at death: 4 years Every 30 seconds, a child dies of malaria Five percent of African children are killed by malaria, almost 3,000 each day, or the equivalent of seven jumbo jets full of children crashing every day. Up to 23 percent of African infants are born with the malaria parasite.

    (http://malaria.jhsph.edu/about_malaria/)

    Personally, I think killing large numbers of mosquitoes is a good thing, especially considering malaria is quickly becoming resistant to the drugs used to treat it. A reduction in mosquito numbers would greatly reduce the transmission of this disease.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  23. Re:this is just wrong by canajin56 · · Score: 2

    There are 3500 species of mosquito. You are asserting that if you eradicate ONE none of the other 3500 will fill in that niche, that even though things that "depend on mosquitoes" typically eat almost entirely non-mosquito insects, they will nevertheless also be eradicated.

    --
    ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  24. Re:Crawling moquitos by canajin56 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    None. No species eats only one specific species of the 3500 different kinds of mosquito.

    --
    ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  25. Re:Lets fuck it up. by mcmonkey · · Score: 2

    No, what he is saying is:
    "Many times before we've seen people do things on this scale that supposedly would only have benefits with no downside. And many times before we've seen there were in fact downsides. Why is this the exception?"

    In other words, TANSTAAFL. Tell me the side effects are minor or are out-weighed by the potential benefits, I may be convinced. Tell me there are no side effects, then I know either you are lying or haven't thought this through all the way.
     

  26. Re:Lets fuck it up. by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 2

    If you're trying to imply that GE mosquitoes will have some sort of crazy unforeseen consequences, those are pretty bad examples to make your point with. Neither of those really have much to do with genetic engineering. As far as I know there are a handful of theories for CCD, but no one has linked it to GE crop in any way (besides the typical crazies who blame GE crops for animal sterility, autism, cancer, droughts, missing socks, ect).

    As for the so-called superweeds, there is no such thing. Maybe you were talking about glyphosate resistant weeds? That's certainty a topic worth discussing, but ultimately when you apply selection pressure to a fast reproducing population (like weeds) eventually you see a genetic shift, and it doesn't matter how. Resistant weeds have emerged in the past with previously used systems (if you think herbicide resistance in crops didn't exist until the advent of genetic engineering then you've got a lot to learn), they will emerge in future systems (although hopefully the new ideas of using a good multi-year rotation using numerous different herbicides with varying modes of action will help prevent this as it is mostly over-reliance a particular herbicide not over-use of the herbicide that creates resistance), and the fact that a transgene was involved doesn't change how population genetics works (although it has suddenly made it somehow controversial).

  27. Re:Lets fuck it up. by mark-t · · Score: 4, Informative

    The immediate side effect is that there will not be any mosquitoes.

    No serious negative repercussions are known to exist for such an event beyond that the diet of certain types of insect predators would be affected (fortunately for such predators, their diet is not exclusively dependent on the species of mosquito that this concept intends to render extinct). The net effect upon mankind should be positive, other than possibly causing companies that make mosquito repellent to possibly go out of business.

    But seriously.... did you *NEED* somebody to have to spell that all out for you? They're mosquitoes, for crying out loud... and not some vital part of the food chain on which we ourselves are part of.

  28. Re:How about driving their evolution instead? by s7uar7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We need a way to mod someone 'Actually read the article'

  29. Re:Wait a second... by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 2

    Vampire frogs. Awesome.

    --
    Dyolf Knip
  30. Re:Lets fuck it up. by mark-t · · Score: 2

    I wasn't pretending to know anything... if you re-read what I said above, I stated that there are absolutely no known adverse effects to the elimination of the mosquito on mankind, other than the possible implications it might have for people who work for companies that make mosquito repellant. This much is entirely true.

    Again, though... that is based only on what we know so far... if we always procrastinated with everything that we tried just because we were afraid of things that we might not happen to know about yet, we would still be living in caves.