Mosquitoes Beginning To Ignore DEET Repellent

Copper Nikus writes "An article at the BBC makes a shocking claim about mosquitoes. It appears some individual insects in the wild have developed the ability to ignore the very popular DEET repellent after a first exposure. From the article: 'To investigate why this might be happening, the researchers attached electrodes to the insects' antenna. Dr Logan explained: "We were able to record the response of the receptors on the antenna to Deet, and what we found was the mosquitoes were no longer as sensitive to the chemical, so they weren't picking it up as well. "There is something about being exposed to the chemical that first time that changes their olfactory system - changes their sense of smell - and their ability to smell Deet, which makes it less effective."'"

Comments

Umm, yeah

[Desler]

Yeah, it's called evolution.

Re:Umm, yeah

[zoid.com]

Umm, yeah it's called we are running out of money so let's releas a report so we can secure more funding...

Re:Umm, yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you really that cynical about the world?

Re:Umm, yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

you shut your devil whore mouth

Re:Umm, yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

He probably is. Cynicism gets you modded up on Slashdot.

Re:Umm, yeah

[epyT-R]

Are you always so fallacious in your reasoning?

Re:Umm, yeah

[countach]

I must be evolving too, because I can't smell my aftershave as much when I've got used to it.

Re:Umm, yeah

[LordLucless]

Except that doesn't seem to be the mechanism here. In this case, it's the same individual which has a lowered sensitivity to DEET after a single application.

But, you know, don't let that stop this thread turning into another Evil Religion Suppresses Science flame-fest.

Re:Umm, yeah

[Desler]

Except that doesn't seem to be the mechanism here

Really?

Dr Logan said it was vital to understand both these permanent genetic and temporary olfactory changes that were taking place.

He said: "Mosquitoes are very good at evolving very very quickly."

So there are genetic chsnges being attributed to this along with the scientist saying mosquitos are good at evolving quickly. Yeah, clearly it's not evolution. *rolls eyes*

But, you know, don't let that stop this thread turning into another Evil Religion Suppresses Science flame-fest.

Funny, no one was doing that. Defensive much?

Re:Umm, yeah

[operagost]

This is a good point. Humans' sense of smell has "fatigue", which is why you eventually stop noticing a smell in a room, and why you notice your house smells like the cat until you go away for a few days. If mosquitoes have suddenly evolved this, that's news. But the phenomenon isn't.

Re:Umm, yeah

[Maxo-Texas]

There is a difference.

This is more like a human losing sensitivity to skunk or ammonia smells for the rest of their life... after smelling them once.

It is really more akin to some humans who have unhealthy very bad digestive systems until they get a stomach parasite infection.. once.

Then they are fine the rest of their lives.

Re:Umm, yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's called evolution.

Nonono, actually there obviously is an older bearded gentleman in a shining white robe Intelligently Designing this feature...

Re:Umm, yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's called evolution.

Actually its not evolution. Evolution is a change in the biologi over generations [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution]. This is a mutation since its a change in the biologi due to exposure

Re:Umm, yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

False. This is habituation. Individuals do not evolve.

Re:Umm, yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, you will blow Darwin in Hell!

Re:Umm, yeah

[wvmarle]

Not sure whether there is a mechanism or not. It's not so clear.

For evolutionary pressure to be present, there should be an advantage (may be rather minor) to mosquitoes that can bite people wearing DEET repellent over other mosquitoes.

Humans are not their only prey - if we were, all mosquitoes would be resistant to DEET by now.

Mosquitoes draw blood from many other warm-blooded animals, they live in many places where humans never set foot. I have no idea what ratio humans have in that diet, however I think humans could be a really convenient blood source for mosquitoes as we don't have a thick fur covering most of our skin.

Re:Umm, yeah

[smi.james.th]

And me without mod points... Good comment though, because evolution can't happen within a generation, so if the mosquitoes who had smelled DEET had offspring who weren't bothered then THAT would be evolution (on a very small scale) but not within a living organism's lifetime.

Re:Umm, yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

I went off sherry for about 5 years after a really stupid night once.

Is this the same thing?

Re:Umm, yeah

[ch0rlt0n]

Funnily enough, The doctor mentioned in the article deliberately infected himself with a stomach parasite for Channel 4's "Embarrassing Bodies" TV show last year.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/04/18/doctor-infects-himself-with-parasites-for-health-experiment/

Cleared up his allergies no end

Re:Umm, yeah

[ToThoseOfUs]

Really?

Dr Logan said it was vital to understand both these permanent genetic and temporary olfactory changes that were taking place.

He said: "Mosquitoes are very good at evolving very very quickly."

So there are genetic chsnges being attributed to this along with the scientist saying mosquitos are good at evolving quickly. Yeah, clearly it's not evolution. *rolls eyes*

That was two separate things, the genetic changes (introduced in the lab) and the temporary olfactory changes.

Earlier research by the same team found that genetic changes to the same species of mosquito can make them immune to Deet, although it was not clear if there were any mosquitoes like this in the wild.

Re:Umm, yeah

[thunderclap]

Umm, lets try to avoid this being derailed so call it adaptation. (that is what it is specifically). Whether evolution is true or not it is getting to the point where the world is like the swastika. An equilateral cross with four arms bent at 90 degrees. The earliest archaeological evidence of swastika-shaped ornaments dates back to the Indus Valley Civilization, Ancient India as well as Classical Antiquity. Swastikas have also been used in various other ancient civilizations around the world. It remains widely used in Indian religions, specifically in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, primarily as a tantric symbol to evoke shakti or the sacred symbol of auspiciousness. The word "swastika" comes from the Sanskrit svastika - "su" meaning "good" or "auspicious," "asti" meaning "to be," and "ka" as a suffix. The swastika literally means "to be good".
Yet now, when someone writes that, it summons evil imagery. So right or wrong, evolution is not summoning the correct imagery anymore.
As for the DEET, what do you expect? You use it alot and insects adapt to it.

Re:Umm, yeah

[thunderclap]

the smell of sulfur can never be adjusted too. Try it and see.

Re:Umm, yeah

[somersault]

You're assigning way too much intelligence to evolutionary processes. Evolution is more of a by-product than a directed process in the way that you are thinking.

Any one mosquito may have had a random mutation that makes them more or less tolerant of DEET. The mosquitoes the ones who are more repelled by DEET are more likely to die from lack of food, so each generation the mosquitos who are most tolerant - through whatever means - are the ones that reproduce. The cycle repeats for their kids. Overall the trend will be towards greater resistance.

Re:Umm, yeah

[thunderclap]

Yep, thats what Santa Claus does the other 364 days out of the year.

Re:Umm, yeah

[smi.james.th]

Okay, granted (disclaimer, I'm not a biologist) but the point remains: If you've already been born, your genetic material is pretty much fixed and you can't evolve due to happenings. I think this applies to mosquitoes as well.

Re:Umm, yeah

[Dunbal]

Except in Kansas, where it's the work of the Devil.

Re:Umm, yeah

[kenp2002]

No it's natural selection and adaptation. Evolution requires going from a lower to higher order of life. Some reptiles evolved into birds. Some ancient fish evolved into a whale. A bird getting a different beak is adaptation. When the mosquito gets a new organ, an extra set of legs, then we'll call it evolution. When a cook develops a tolerance to spicy food, he hasn't evolved...

Re:Umm, yeah

[Anne_Nonymous]

Well the rest of us can smell it just fine; how about toning things down a notch there, Tony Bennett?

Re:Umm, yeah

[BumbaCLot]

Saying something doesn't make it true. Evolution has no direction, nor plan. Humans aren't 'more' evolved than any other creature. Every species out there is just as evolved as every other species until it is extinct.

Re:Umm, yeah

[jbengt]

Yeah, it's called evolution.

Except this article was about individual insects becoming tolerant of DEET after initial exposure, not about evolution of traits making the species resistant to DEET (which TFA mentions is also happening).

Re:Umm, yeah

[morgauxo]

Maybe. But why?

Are humans an important enough part of the average mosauito's diet to drive evolution? It isn't like all the wild animals out there are using mosquito spray. If mosquitos are evolving in response to our DEET usage then what does this tell us?

Re:Umm, yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

the smell of sulfur can never be adjusted too.

Wow, can't spell a two letter word correctly. What grade did you drop out of, kid? Third? How the hell can you post on a messageboard where educated people post without dying from ambarrassment at your ignorance?

Re:Umm, yeah

[morgauxo]

No, you are paritally correct, evolution doesn't happen within a generation. They aren't evolving at the moment they aquire imunity to DEET though. If this is evolution it happens before that. What is happening is the mosquitos are being conceived with a mechanism that allows them to develop an insensitivity to DEET with one exposure. That mechanism already exists within the mosquito before it is exposed and could very well be a product of evolution.

Re:Umm, yeah

[citizenr]

Cleared up his allergies no end

actually it cleared his allergies _for the duration if infection_

Re:Umm, yeah

[somersault]

Well that's not exactly true either, since viruses can affect your genes.. and there are probably other things too that I'm not aware of. Food can change how your genes "express" themselves for example. I'm not a biologist either..

Re:Umm, yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Really. We should be surprised? Nature's first law - adapt or die! :-)

Re:Umm, yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me immunity to DEET would be a recessive trait. DEET doesn't kill mosquitoes; it keeps them away from humans. The ones who don't stay away from humans are pretty likely to get squished and not pass on their DEET immunity.

Re:Umm, yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

let them evolve my fly swatter, then.

Re:Umm, yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, DEET actually *protects* a mosquito from getting squished by an angry human.

It's like a bird that loses the ability to recognize which berries are poisonous. If this is evolution at all, it's a mutation that is going to fail.

Re:Umm, yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, ignorance is modded up now? Natural selection IS evolution. Evolution isn't "going from a lower to higher order of life", evolution is a species being naturally selected for its environment. If an ice age comes, the animals that aren't immune to the cold die and don't leave offspring.

Reptiles didn't evolve into birds, dinasaurs did, and dinasaurs weren't reptiles. Fish didn't evolve into whales, they evolved into the first land-dwelling creatures, which much MUCH later evolved into little rodents (the first mammals). Some of those rodents evolved to be us, some evolved to be whales and dolphins, both of whicg are mammals like us, not fish like tuna or catfish.

The only thing you got right is that organisms don't evolve, species do.

Re:Umm, yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yes and no. A line of organisms evolve - original(s) and copy(ies) so to speak.

Species (collections of like organisms labeled/grouped as such typically but not exclusively by their ability to interbreed) are a consequence of evolution, not the purpose.

Re:Umm, yeah

[jellomizer]

That is how you know if your an expert on something, you need to have something negative to say about it.
If you have something nice to say about something you are obviously been brainwashed to like it.

Re:Umm, yeah

[tech.kyle]

I'm no biologist either, but yes, your genetic material is (as far as I'm aware) typically fixed. Evolution isn't about mutating once you're born, it's about rolling the genetic dice before you're born. If you roll the dice and end up with an advantage over the rest of the population, you're more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce which spreads your advantage to your offspring. If, say, one of your offspring manages to end up with more of that same advantage, that offspring would be even more likely to reproduce before the rest of the population without it.

If, say, a species constantly had to race each other to get food and, for the sake of an example, hunted in parties of three, and whoever got to the food first was the only one who could eat it, the slower of that species (in our example, the other two) would die off and the faster would live to come back home and reproduce. Those offspring will carry the parent's advantage. If three siblings grow up to hunt together, the one who's rolled the dice the best will live and the others will perish. Repeat for many generations and, over time, that species as a whole will be able to run much faster than their great, great, great grandparents.

Another, more real world, and less-about-death example would be blue eyes, which if memory serves, is a recessive trait. Having blue eyes doesn't mean you're more likely to survive (or, for the sake of neutrality, better in any way), but people typically like other people with blue eyes and that, in history, often pushes the average above the expected 25% baseline if eye color did not matter at all. If having blue eyes makes you more likely to attract a mate a little sooner, even by a very small percent, that trait will slowly become more common.
If, for some odd reason, a deadly, unstoppable virus that affected only blue eyed people were to pop in to existence, we'd likely see an instant drop in people born with blue eyes since everyone with the two necessary recessive traits will have died, therefor the the only people still alive have either two dominant genes or one dominant, one recessive. Given many, many, MANY generations, the recessive gene for blue eyes would most likely disappear almost completely.

Re:Umm, yeah

[GameboyRMH]

ambarrassment

Hahahaha classic. And the GP only mis-stroked a key a second time, you hit a key 2 keys from the target.

Re:Umm, yeah

[GameboyRMH]

You might want to look up "epigenetics"...who says the DNA has to change?

Re:Umm, yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about? GP spelled "too" just fine. For proof, lets replace "too" with a synonym and see what happens.

the smell of sulfur can never be adjusted also. Try it and see.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Re:Umm, yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

No it's just the alcohol on your breathe.

As to deet, I quit using it in the 90s. Mosquitoes were actually more attracted to it if you wore it, and it's cancerous.

Re:Umm, yeah

[Golddess]

Exactly. When we say this is evolution in action, we aren't talking about the mosquito who touches it today suddenly evolving an immunity to DEET. We're talking about the generations of mosquitoes before it that have had to face DEET, and how those mosquitoes least impacted by it ended up reproducing more, effectively selecting for what we see today.

Re:Umm, yeah

[geminidomino]

How many generations of mosquitoes are born every summer?

Re:Umm, yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

That is how you know if you're an expert on something, you need to have something negative to say about it.
If you have something nice to say about something you are obviously been brainwashed to like it.

Fixed that for you.
We can skip the next Grammar Nazi's step with the below:

I fixed that for you.

Re:Umm, yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless of the evolution debate, this is NOT an instance of it. The situation is that the SAME mosquito, once exposed to DEET once, loses sensitivity to it. There is nothing about it being passed to the next generations.

Re:Umm, yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

The mosquitoes the ones who are more repelled by DEET are more likely to die from lack of food

1. mosquitoes do not eat blood for food. Mosquitoes survive on pollen for their energy
2. mosquitoes use blood for reproduction - they cannot synthesize their own proteins they need for eggs
3. hence, only females bite.
4. mosquitoes lifecycle is about 2 weeks - you can have many generations per year, but can be as fast as 4 days.

So, no blood, no reproduction. Ignore DEET and reproduce.

http://www.mosquitoes.org/LifeCycle.html

Re:Umm, yeah

[Yaotzin]

Well, there's always epigenetic changes... But those changes wouldn't be passed along anyway.

Re:Umm, yeah

[LordLucless]

Really?

Yah, really. That quote you got was right from the bottom of the page. From just above that quote:

Earlier research by the same team found that genetic changes to the same species of mosquito can make them immune to Deet

Yes, evolutionary resistance to Deet has been observed before. No, that's not what this research is about.

Funny, no one was doing that. Defensive much?

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3483731&cid=42976213
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3483731&cid=42976021
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3483731&cid=42976185

Next step?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh great, the next step is anyone with DEET gets swarmed by these little bastards. Think about it, once they learn it's not that bad, where else do they smell DEET but fresh blood sources?

Re:Next step?

[fustakrakich]

Daisy daisy give me your answer, do

Re:Next step?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong gender. Only females bite.

Re:Next step?

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite your 'funny' mod, I'd think that would be an actual concern. Much like Pavlov's dogs salavating at the sound of a bell, or my cats running up and going batshit psycho when I shake their kitty treat bag, I can't see why mosquitos who aren't driven away by DEET wouldn't quickly learn to associate the smell with a meal. Think about it, anything that smells like DEET is pretty much 100% guaranteed to either be something they can drink blood from, or is on the tent door, inside of which is something they can drink blood from.

Re:Next step?

[theripper]

Bastards are fatherless children of either sex.

But DEET and DDT are the miracle cure!

[Anonymous Coward]

They'd save billions of people's lives if only the evil environmentalists hadn't caused them to be universally banned!

Yes, sure, they would be brown people, and that's bad, but damnit, we need to blame the Left for more things that didn't happen, like the Sinking of Atlantis and the Invasion of the Decepticons.

Re:But DEET and DDT are the miracle cure!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and I am sure that the people of central Vietnam would agree with you...

Re:But DEET and DDT are the miracle cure!

[wiredlogic]

DDT is still used regularly in the 2nd and 3rd world.

Re:But DEET and DDT are the miracle cure!

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess my overblown sarcasm was too subtle for you?

Simplez

[Anonymous Coward]

Extract the smell of RMS's feet. Nothing will survive that.

DEET to begin bankruptcy filings

[Sigvatr]

"The mosquitoes are takin' our jerbs."

Re:DEET to begin bankruptcy filings

[Anonymous Coward]

THEY TUK YUR JERRB!

evolution

[simoncpu was here]

I wish humanity was still subjected to evolutionary pressure, like these mosquitoes, that would drive gross human evolution. Right now, our species would no longer improve unless we use genetic engineering.

Re:evolution

[mark-t]

Do you believe humanity is at some sort of evolutionary dead end? Why do you think that humans are no longer evolving?

Re:evolution

[ArsonSmith]

Because we have a warning label on every item that could possibly cause injury no matter how obvious. We have tech that will insure the genetically weak will continue to breed. We have governments that cradle and encourage the simple minded to be more so.

Without genetic engineering we are doomed at our current rate of evolution.

Re:evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Well then help us out by culling yourself from the gene pool first.

Re:evolution

[v1]

but you have to consider, is genetic engineering the next step in the evolution... of evolution?

It's like tools. Tools are an upgrade to evolution - you can improve your fitness without waiting for a generation and random chance. AND you can pass those beneficial 'traits" on to others to benefit from immediately.

Genetic engineering has the same potential as tools, for rapid adaptation and improvement. It's faster and far less random than natural evolution.

Re:evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

We work hard to protect the weak, clueless, sick, stupid, unfit, broken and defective from dying out. We goto great lengths for the 'all life is sacred' thing and we give them full advantage to pass on these defective traits again and again.

We are not at a dead end. But we have GREATLY slowed human evolution. But time is largely irrevelant to evolution. It will keep trying blindly on a timescale we can't even imagine.

Perhaps our protection of the useless will someday benefit evolution in some bizarre way that turns out to be 'better' for us as a species and not just as a social conformity that makes us feel good.
But i don't think it will.

The genepool might be better off with a good dose of chlorine.

Re:evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't 'genetic engineering' be a natural progression of evolution. It's just another trait, here the ability to use engineering, to improve the chance of survival. Or do you really wish we were more subject to evolution and the suffering that would entail?

Re:evolution

[Freshly Exhumed]

The immensely salty, sugary, and fatty diet of Americans is going a long way towards your goal. What evolution would do over centuries, Kraft, General Foods, Purina, Pillsbury, Mars, Coca Cola, et al are doing in mere decades. Maybe they'll come up with a mosquito repellent version of Velveeta or Cocoa Puffs.

Re:evolution

[Desler]

The genepool might be better off with a good dose of chlorine.

But that won't include you, though, right?

Re:evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Purina is cat food, but it would probably be healthier than the human foods you mentioned.

Re:evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish humanity was still subjected to evolutionary pressure, like these mosquitoes, that would drive gross human evolution. Right now, our species would no longer improve...

Do you want to say that we, as species, aren't dumb enough for our environment?

Re:evolution

[jbeaupre]

There was a sci-fi short story in Analog years ago that involved human evolution an junk food. The plot involved people getting mysteriously ill, even dying. Epidemiologists linked it to eating healthy. They discovered that humans had evolved to use caramel coloring as an essential vitamin. Eliminating it from your diet was as dangerous as eliminating vitamin C.

I think about that story every time I see caramel coloring listed as an ingredient in food.

Re:evolution

[sconeu]

I'll bite. Because we can adapt our environment to us instead of the other way around. Because we can protect and allow the"weaker"* members of our species to propagate. These two factors mitigate against "survival of the fittest".

* There is no judgement implied by in the term weaker.

Re:evolution

[Gordo_1]

What makes you think that our rightful genetic destiny must be toward smarter and smarter human beings? We may have reached a point where evolutionarily, we're already as smart as we're likely ever to get due to pressures that you nor I can completely comprehend. What we're starting to understand is that evolution proceeds in fits and starts and many dead ends toward a somewhat unpredictable concept of 'fittest'.

Re:Evolution

[burning-toast]

Nature will ALWAYS evolve it's way around obstacles!

Except when it doesn't and the death of the entire species is the result.

Remember kids, above all, Nature doesn't make decisions or judgments. It just simply is.

If your species is under pressure and specific members randomly mutate in beneficial ways in time, your species might survive.

(Un)Fortunately for us (generally disadvantaged) humans; the traits we do have help substantially in this: language, knowledge, technology, and the ability to harvest energy for purposes other than simply feeding our bodies (which I'll generally term as "Leverage"). I say unfortunate because we don't have perfect control of this and tend to use these abilities to reduce pressure of one sort and increase pressures of other sorts at the same time inadvertently.

We could still lose a fight against natural pressures if we don't lose a fight against pressures we induce on ourselves first (which some would argue to be natural pressures just the same). The death of our entire species is not off the table (though it would be fairly difficult with how prolific we are).

Nature won't save your bacon any more than it has it "out for you" in the first place.

- Toast

Re:evolution

[Molochi]

Maybe making stupid people more stupid is a good thing. Seemed to work for the Morlocks and Eloi.

Re:evolution

[peppepz]

As some economists often do, you're assuming that evolution leads to the survival of the best. It doesn't, it leads to the survival of the fittest. For instance, physically strong people who are very stupid but also very prolific might prove to be more successfull from an evolutionary standpoint than very intelligent individuals with a weak constitution who leave scarce or no offspring.

Re:evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a time when, how did you call it?, genetically week were sterilized by the state. mentally ill incarcerated in concentration camps: it was called nazi-Germany.

Re:evolution

[Maxo-Texas]

It's worse than that. Our reproductive fitness is dropping rapidly.

We increasingly need a lot of assistance in order to procreate.

Every time someone uses fertility procedures to make a baby, that baby is very likely to have fertility problems.

Male sperm counts have dropped by 95% since 1900. However some of this is probably due to false estrogens from oil based pesticides so it might clear up whenever we stop using them.

Re:evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, humans are continuing to evolve. Only the selective pressures are different.

The traits that are now selected for are those that are suited for our human-altered world in which dangerous things have warning labels, not those traits that used to be wonderful 20,000 years ago on the savannah, but that's the whole point.

Similarly, those who you call "genetically weak" aren't. They might have been were genetically weak on the savannah when your support group consisted of 20 uneducated protohumans, but in a world filled with medicine and technology, they are perfectly fine, and better adapted than some schmuck who puts all his energy into making powerful immune systems to destroy smallpox viruses and guinea worms that no longer exist.

Re:evolution

[QQBoss]

Male sperm counts have dropped by 95% since 1900. However some of this is probably due to false estrogens from oil based pesticides so it might clear up whenever we stop using them.

[citation needed] because the world population would crash if that 95% was important... or perhaps it never happened (at least not to that extent, for sure)
http://www.babyhopes.com/blog/debunking-male-fertility-myths-decline-in-sperm-count/

Re:evolution

[Maxo-Texas]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/dec/05/sperm-count-fall-is-it-real

Sharpe said that whether or not the French study settled the debate over falling sperm counts, it was *unquestionable* that across northern Europe, *one in five, and perhaps more*, young men has a sperm count low enough to impair their fertility. That matters more today than 30 years ago, when women were having children at a younger age.

http://www.malehealthcenter.com/c_fertility.html
Over the past 30 years, fertility among married couples in the U.S. has dropped dramatically. During the '60s, between 7 and 8 percent of couples reported problems conceiving; today that number has risen to between 25 and 30 percent.

No single cause can explain this decline, but it appears that average sperm counts have been falling over the past couple of decades. Again, medical science can't say exactly why sperm counts might be dropping, but we do know a number of things that can affect them:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/sperm-study-declining-quality_n_1837200.html
This article provides some support for your position.
Some areas are experiencing declines in sperm count and quality but others are not.

As the article says...

  So why care about the muddy picture, if babies are still being born? So far, there has been no global shortage of babies â" but in 30 percent of the cases of infertility, there is a male factor, said Wendie Robbins, a professor at the UCLA School of Nursing. Male infertility is suspected in about 70 percent of cases in Israel.

"Many times, there is just no cause that people can find for infertility," she said, adding that she was surprised how interested the men in a new study of hers were about increasing their fertility. "People underestimate how much men are interested in optimizing the possibilities for their offspring." (Robbins and colleagues recently found in a study partially funded by the California Walnut Commission that eating walnuts may boost sperm quality.)

Deonandan says there are two reasons why the sperm situation should be taken seriously. "If the decline is real, then an essential aspect of the human animal is being changed very rapidly in only a few generations," he told LiveScience.

Re:evolution

[jones_supa]

Protecting the weak is more important than optimizing the gene pool.

Re:evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Than nations who have not got those labels will go forward.

Re:evolution

[wvmarle]

Interestingly, not so long ago I read about evolution in humans, and how that is actually speeding up currently.

And that makes total sense to me, considering the huge changes we made to our environment over the past couple hundred years. Urbanisation, industrialisation - it requires different skills than farming.

Re:evolution

[thunderclap]

I think you need to go first AC

Re:evolution

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Oh gosh I guess all science and progress must come to a halt since our species is no longer improving. What did you think people were, a breed of dog or something? The accumulation of knowledge over the millennia is evolution, and a more potent form than genetic. It has allowed us to put men on the moon and peer deep into the basic structure of the universe. One simple mass produced hand held tool allows us to defeat any animal on earth, no matter how fast or strong.

This "breed of human" genetic stupidity is really starting to grind.

Re:evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans are subject to evolution, it doesn't need any special pressure to happen. For example, if stupid people breed more than intelligent the average intelligence goes down. (this might be happening in US and europe) If blond people are preferred mates to dark haired one well get more blondes.

Re:evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

No they don't, they just change the definition of "the fittest". The fittest is always the traits that can produce most offspring that produce most offspring and so on.

Re:evolution

[Dunbal]

You are making the rather large assumption that fertility problems are all hereditary.

Re:evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

People underestimate how much men are interested in optimizing the possibilities for their offspring."

Are they sure these men are looking for that possibility or do they just want to give their girl a big facial.

(Robbins and colleagues recently found in a study partially funded by the California Walnut Commission that eating walnuts may boost sperm quality.)

I am sure that was a very unbiased report. /sarcasm

Re:evolution

[BumbaCLot]

Actually the US had a eugenics movement at the same time. Please stop ignoring US history. Research the mental hospitals here. Epileptics were kept in male or female farms as well for indirect birth control.

Re:evolution

[drinkypoo]

No, we are always evolving. But now we are evolving towards disease resistance and sluttiness.

Re:evolution

[anarxia]

How can you know which traits are those? What prevents pure "survival of the fittest" is that there is a lot of artificial selection going on. Factors like the income of your parents, culture you are raised in, basically anything that you cannot control makes the whole argument insignificant. Even traits which are really useful, depending on your location they may be considered flaws.

Re:evolution

[rwise2112]

Interestingly, not so long ago I read about evolution in humans, and how that is actually speeding up currently.

And that makes total sense to me, considering the huge changes we made to our environment over the past couple hundred years. Urbanisation, industrialisation - it requires different skills than farming.

I've heard the opposite argued. We evolved to adapt to our environment, but now we mostly modify our environment to suit us. Therefore, we have slowed down evolution.

Re:evolution

[wvmarle]

Humans have been doing just that for thousands of years. Basically since we moved from hunter/gatherers to farmers. Now that change also did not go easy, fossil records show that humans actually got shorter (the explanation is that the diet became less varied and often less food overall even though supply was more reliable) before adapting and growing again. Farming of course included quite a learning curve.

After that it went faster, and more radical. By now we have adapted our environment so much, that it has become a totally different environment than where humans came into existence. The required skills to survive are different too - not as much physical labour (farming) as brains (schooling) are important for one's success in life, and with that success in finding a partner and procreating. I don't think I'm going too far to say that as species we have to start catching up with the environment we created, and the individuals that are best suited for such an urbanised environment are the ones that in the end come out on top.

Another part of human evolution some will argue is the knowledge we gather. This is what makes humans unique, our advanced communication and script, allowing us to understand abstract issues, and pass this understanding on to future generations. That is how we could come as far as we have, if you have to reinvent the wheel time and again instead of teaching one another about it, you're not getting any further.

Re:evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

*Sigh*

Evolution isn't "survival of the smartest", it's about PROCREATION. It's about fitting in to the organism's environment, and the human species is no different than any other in this respect. For a human, It means being able to fit in with other humans. It means being able to get laid. It means if you do get laid, keeping your kids from dying before they procreate.

Tell me, how attractive is a Down's Syndrome patient? How likely is it that he or she going to be a parent?

If a person is born with a trait that makes it easier for him fit into the environment he lives in, he will fit. The fact is that I've seen human evolution in my sixty years -- the average height is going up because it's easier for a tall guy to get laid than a short little guy, and the tall guy's likely to be boinking the short guy's wife... if shorty can even find one.

Evolutions isn't some magical, mystical thing. It's who can live long enough to pass along genes.

Re:evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

As some economists often do, you're assuming that evolution leads to the survival of the best. It doesn't, it leads to the survival of the fittest. For instance, physically strong people...

In the context of evolution, "fittest" does NOT mean "strongest", it means the best fit for the environment.

Re:evolution

[retchdog]

On the plus side, the government also encourages the simple-minded to die in capricious and plentiful wars. We have that at least.

Re:evolution

[Maxo-Texas]

Not me.

I think artificial estrogens from oil based pesticides are also to blame.

As is poor nutrition from "empty" foods like farm raised salmon vs wild salmon.

So multiple causes. But if you have a couple people who both have a hereditary problem and they use artificial means to reproduce, it's logical that their offspring is more likely to have problems too. And not improbable that the problems will be worse.

Re:evolution

[Dunbal]

Again, you are assuming it's hereditary. Think about this. If the mother/father have fertility problems what are their chances of passing on the gene to their kids? What is the chance of them HAVING kids? Derp. Birth defects are not hereditary.

Re:evolution

[peppepz]

Yes, it was just an example I arbitrarily made up to be put against the class of the "smarter ones" as imagined upstream in the thread.

Re:evolution

[Maxo-Texas]

Firstly, I'm not "always" assuming it's hereditary.

I listed several other non-hereditary causes for low fertility. I'd also include the work hours people have to work these days and the constant stress they are under.

I'm not assuming that "sometimes" it's hereditary because out of about 100 people i know closely, I know a some couples who have low fertility problems that are hereditary.

By spending lots of money, they had kids. Their kids will look normal but are likely to be "drones" with hereditary low fertility.

At some point we'll either find a gene therapy that works and we'll fix it. Or we'll run out of money and the birth rate will drop faster and the cultures not using artificial means will outbreed us and supplant us. And high breeding isn't good either- because we are probably at least 2x the global population that is sustainable.

Re:evolution

[ArsonSmith]

You're assumption is very wrong. Evolution is used to make you fit for an environment, yet our environment is more and more allowing for evolution of weaker traits rather than stronger.

Re:evolution

[ArsonSmith]

Because I have decided that intelligence and knowledge is something to be preserved, feed and increased. Feel free to disagree with me, that's what debate is for.

Re:evolution

[ArsonSmith]

Actually, humans are continuing to evolve. Only the selective pressures are different.

And those selective pressures are artificial and push towards weakness. (not in muscle but in gene strength) How does perpetuation a genetic disease build a stronger gene pool? We have comforted society into a race to the evolutionary bottom.

Re:evolution

[ArsonSmith]

And you seem to think this is a better process than something engineered?

Re:evolution

[bingoUV]

Evolution is "used" ? Can you give an example where someone "uses" evolution (in the Darwinian context) ?

I have been under the impression that, if anything, evolution uses living things. No one has been able to use evolution.

Re:evolution

[bingoUV]

From what statement of the GP AC did you infer that? It seems to me to be a statement more concerning "is" than "being better than something else". True as well.

Re:evolution

[bingoUV]

I am not convinced. For evolution, the "unfit" individuals have to actually die (or at least fail to reproduce). A drastically lower number of offspring might have done if the "normal" number of offsprings hadn't shrunk to around zero or one.

From all aspects of "civilization", we are enabling all to survive and reproduce. Only the most violent of criminals are put to death before allowing them to reproduce further after being caught, but otherwise in some countries, human rights advocates have successfully argued that even convicted criminals in prison have "rights" to conjugal relations and to reproduce.

How do you propose this "evolution" to proceed? Rapid change in conditions only accelerates evolution if there are deaths / failures to reproduce.

I can agree we are somewhat selecting for idiocy (idiocy correlates with poverty which correlates with higher number of offspring). Also for ugliness (ugliness correlates with poorer spouse which brings one under poverty which correlates with higher number of offspring). But not much more than that, and not accelerated at all. The above correlations are not strong, need multiple connected steps, and have stark exceptions.

Re:evolution

[wvmarle]

For evolution it is enough that certain individuals have a better CHANCE to survive and a better CHANCE to reproduce. No need for the less-fit individuals to actually die, or not reproduce at all.

Re:evolution

[bingoUV]

Obviously it is chance, no need to capitalize. What good is chance if it doesn't lead to any occurrence? Some individuals have to die or fail to reproduce, I didn't say all. Which means chance, without capital letters.

We are not even giving a low "chance" of reproduction to any notable set of people. Criminals? Nope, courts in my country support their reproduction. Erectile dysfunction? Nope, doctors support them.

Re:evolution

[Gordo_1]

Well, it's a slippery slope from there to Eugenics.

It's the will of God!

[sv_libertarian]

This only proves that the ways and will of God is ineffable. To even suggest it's evolution in action is blasphemy.

Re:It's the will of God!

[Anonymous Coward]

This only proves that the ways and will of God is ineffable. To even suggest it's evolution in action is blasphemy.

Not sure about ineffable, but my wife is uneffable.

Re:It's the will of God!

[TubeSteak]

This only proves that the ways and will of God is ineffable. To even suggest it's evolution in action is blasphemy.

Hold on now, I have uncontestable proof that God has eff'ed me over many times.
Or is that claim considered blasphemy as well?

Re:It's the will of God!

[rrhal]

Hold on now, I have uncontestable proof that God has eff'ed me over many times.

Mary, don't exaggerate; it was just the one time.

Re:It's the will of God!

[Anonymous Coward]

This only proves that the ways and will of God is ineffable. To even suggest it's evolution in action is blasphemy.

Ah but you are a libertarian. Yet another religion not based on science.

Re:It's the will of God!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your wife is very effable, you... not so much.

Re:It's the will of God!

[squiggleslash]

And there was me thinking Mosquitoes were definitive proof that there is no God...

Red Nose!

[Anonymous Coward]

PETA should take up the cause against DDT because mosquito's noses are being burned therefore are less able to hunt for food.

Re:Red Nose!

[Molochi]

The People for the Eating of Tastey Animals oppose DEET because it makes mosquitos taste funny when fried in lard.

Re:Red Nose!

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to bread them first.

More blood on Rachel Carson's hards

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember in school learning that her fight to ban DDT had killed over fifty million people. How many millions more have died since? Is the ban now responsible for killing more people than Mao, Stalin, and Hitler combined?

Re: More blood on Rachel Carson's hards

[Anonymous Coward]

So wrong on so many levels.
Not even funny.

Lurk moar.

Re:More blood on Rachel Carson's hards

[Anonymous Coward]

So while you were at school, did you learn how Jesus fought Dinosaurs with an AK-47 while riding on the back of a Unicorn?

Re:More blood on Rachel Carson's hards

[Shompol]

Quite interesting how political agendas make their way to school.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson#Criticisms_of_environmentalism_and_DDT_restrictions

John Quiggin and Tim Lambert have written that "the most striking feature of the claim against Carson is the ease with which it can be refuted." DDT was never banned for anti-malarial use,[85] (its ban for agricultural use in the United States in 1972 did not apply outside the US or to anti-malaria spraying;[86] the international treaty that banned most uses of DDT and other organochlorine pesticides — the 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants — included an exemption for DDT for the use of malaria control until affordable substitutes could be found.[79]) Mass outdoor spraying of DDT was abandoned in poor countries subject to malaria, such as Sri Lanka, in the 1970s and 1980s, not because of government prohibitions, but because the DDT had lost its ability to kill the mosquitoes.[79] (Because of insects very short breeding cycle and large number of offspring, the most resistant insects that survive and pass on their genetic traits to their offspring replace the pesticide-slain insects relatively rapidly. Agricultural spraying of pesticides produces resistance to the pesticide in seven to ten years.[87])

Re:More blood on Rachel Carson's hards

[Desler]

By "school" he really meant "what Rush Limbaugh told me".

Re:More blood on Rachel Carson's hards

[rochrist]

Careful, we don't want any actual facts to get in the way of spittle flecked rant.

Re:More blood on Rachel Carson's hards

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how much the mosquito lobby has spent relative to other special interest groups.

Re:More blood on Rachel Carson's hards

[Anonymous Coward]

was abandoned in poor countries subject to malaria, such as Sri Lanka, in the 1970s and 1980s, not because of government prohibitions, but because the DDT had lost its ability to kill the mosquitoes

http://www.malaria.org/attarannaturemed.html :

"American funds, which underwrote the eradication campaign, soon lapsed, and overuse of DDT in agriculture bred DDT-resistant mosquitoes."

"But despite 'resistance' in itself, DDT still works to alleviate mortality and morbidity. Resistance tests work by measuring whether mosquitoes survive a normally toxic dose of DDT. The tests wholly overlook two non-toxic actions of DDT: contact-mediated irritancy9, which drives mosquitoes off sprayed walls and out of doors before they bite, and volatile repellency10, 11, which deters their entry in the first place. Both actions disrupt human–mosquito contact and disease transmission."

BTW, I am from Sri Lanka.

Re:More blood on Rachel Carson's hards

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously we should have been draining all the swamps!

Any documented instance...

[sylvandb]

Any documented instance of mosquitoes ignoring DDT?

Re:Any documented instance...

[rubycodez]

sure, tons of evidence. dead mosquitoes ignore everything.

Re: Any documented instance...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Many. Since the early 70s DDT doesn't work properly anylonger. Mosquitos became resistant.

Re:Any documented instance...

[Shompol]

Funny that you ask, I just posted it in the thread above.

Mass outdoor spraying of DDT was abandoned in poor countries subject to malaria, such as Sri Lanka, in the 1970s and 1980s, not because of government prohibitions, but because the DDT had lost its ability to kill the mosquitoes.[79]

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson#Criticisms_of_environmentalism_and_DDT_restrictions)

Re: Any documented instance...

[Ol Biscuitbarrel]

Isn't "ignore" a bit casual a term to use here,too? It's not like random mosquitoes are going "Hey! This nasty stuff - I'm going to ignore it! See that cabbage leaf? Nom Nom Nom muthafucka!"

Re: Any documented instance...

[Molochi]

Actualy, because we stopped using it indiscriminately on crops, road ditches, and everydamn thing you could hit with a nozzle, it has become more effective today. But if we go back to using it indiscriminately the problem will resurface more quickly than if we just use it to spray mosquito nets. If DEET is losing its effectiveness, it just proves the point that shit evolves.

Its just like using Ampicillin for every biotic infection. You have to pick your battle.

What we really need to do is figure out what makes my stepdad immune to mosquitos. Freaky dude never gets bit and he lived in Florida for 10 years.

Re: Any documented instance...

[Rukia]

Evidently there is some interest in finding why certain people are resistant. This page says it is based on a chemical in sweat, "It turns out that the chemical, whose exact nature must remain confidential until the laboratory receives its patent, is not only naturally occurring but can also be used as a harmless food additive..."
http://www.skeeterbite.info/article_7.html

Bow down

[Oyjord]

I will be the first one to bow down to our mosquito overlords.

Re:Bow down

[c0lo]

Why? You can't afford a mosquito net?

Re:Bow down

[bobstreo]

I think it will take longer for them to become resistant to the lasers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_laser

Re:Bow down

[burning-toast]

Now this is the sort of thing I actually come to read slashdot for (geeky, previously unknown technologies to me, which do generally useful things in unanticipated ways). Thanks for the link!

- Toast

Re:Bow down

[Anonymous Coward]

All right, Dr. Evil, it's time to stop posting.

Re:Bow down

[c0lo]

Nice... thanks for the link.

Though... I heard that the russians astronauts just used a pencil (even if a legend, it is a reminder that low tech solutions may also work).

Re:Bow down

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I thought you meant just whacking mosquitos that land on you with a pencil. A use, while not as cool as using it in space, is effective none the less.

Re:Bow down

[c0lo]

Oh, I thought you meant just whacking mosquitos that land on you with a pencil. A use, while not as cool as using it in space, is effective none the less.

;) Yeap... even more effective for astronauts in space... I'm yet to see an astronaut in space armed with a pencil and still be bitten by a malaria carrying mosquito

Re:Bow down

[ddd0004]

I was all fired up about this until I read how it works. Gone are my dreams of Stallone or Schwarzenegger blasting mosquitoes while saying things like "Suck on this!" or "Sucks to be you"

Re:Bow down

[nblender]

I keep waiting for these things to appear at Home Depot ...

Re:Bow down

[Beeftopia]

Details on how to build the mosquito laser: From the IEEE Spectrum magazine

Nature

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you don't believe in it. Does not make evolution go away.
Here we have yet another example of a lifeform that lives on a fast enough timescale for us to directly observe evolution in action.

And it too will be ignored by the insane. Or called that intelligent design crap.

Thats the funny thing about beliefs... they have little to do with facts and reality. I wish we could evolve away from that. Maybe someday....

Mosquito Extinction Campaign

[Anonymous Coward]

Mosquitoes serve no real purpose in the ecosystem and the world would be better off without these quasi-parasitical creatures. I think there needs to be a worldwide effort to drive mosquitoes to extinction in the wild (kind of like what happened to smallpox in the last century). As an added bonus, we would greatly reduce the incidence of malaria because IIRC mosquitoes are the only vector used for infection.

Re:Mosquito Extinction Campaign

[Desler]

They serve a great purpose. Population control. Killing them off will mean either further out of control population growth in poor countries or something worse coming along to replace them. It is very short-sighted to think you can wipe out a whole species without causing unforseen, and usually negative, side effects.

Re:Mosquito Extinction Campaign

[aXis100]

Their larvae are a food source to many aquatic animals.

Re:Mosquito Extinction Campaign

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what birth control is for. We don't need mosquitoes to kill people with malaria when there are ways to keep people from being born in the first place. We got rid of smallpox decades ago. The elapsed time has allowed for countless microorganism generations and nothing worse has replaced smallpox yet. That's not saying it won't happen eventually (in which case it would likely have been inevitable anyway), but there hasn't been a shortage of opportunity so far.

Re:Mosquito Extinction Campaign

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but couldn't those animals just eat something else when all the mosquito larvae are gone?

Re:Mosquito Extinction Campaign

[Desler]

That's what birth control is for.

You mean the stuff widely demonized throughout Africa?

The elapsed time has allowed for countless microorganism generations and nothing worse has replaced smallpox yet.

Ignoring things like HIV? Funny, because some research shows that the eradication of smallpox may have helped bring about the current HIV pandemic.

Re:Mosquito Extinction Campaign

[Desler]

Maybe but maybe not. And if those creatures die off too it will continue to ripple. This is why your idea is majorly naive and short-sighted.

Re:Mosquito Extinction Campaign

[The Master Control P]

In the West, where we have so much food available 24/7 that the #1 problem is being fat, we have fertility rates that are at or just below replacement.
In parts of Africa where famine/starvation are endemic, population growth continues to consume all advances in GDP and prevent escape from poverty.

How, in light of these two well-known facts, can anyone still believe Malthus' "any improvement in living standards will just result in more poors consuming it all" bullshit?

Re:Mosquito Extinction Campaign

[bluegutang]

Advice for tourists to the Amazon:
"Rio Negro is an area that is great for the jungle vegetation and for the lack of mosquitoes (due to the acidity of the river). Unfortunately, the lack of mosquitoes means there are a lot fewer animals that live there."
Source

Re:Mosquito Extinction Campaign

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Just so we're clear here, you're saying that people dying horrible deaths is a good thing? This is beyond misanthropic and all the way into psychotic.

Re:Mosquito Extinction Campaign

[Intrepid imaginaut]

The mosquito would not be missed. http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/12525/mosquito-creature-won%E2%80%99t-be-missed

Re:Mosquito Extinction Campaign

[Dunbal]

I say we control the population of rich countries instead. All they do is consume the world's resources disproportionately, so killing one of them is much more efficient than killing someone from a poor country.

Re:Mosquito Extinction Campaign

[blind biker]

Their larvae are a food source to many aquatic animals.

Nature (the journal) had an article about mosquitoes being a species that are not indispensible - i.e. if all mosquitoes were exterminated, things would continue more or less unchanged.

Problem is, we will never get rid of them. Ever.

Patent "Natural Selection"

[Press2ToContinue]

Then charge the mosquitoes a license fee to evolve.

That should stop them.

Re:Patent "Natural Selection"

[ddd0004]

Good plan, show those mosquitoes how real blood suckers operate.

Mosquitoes: Ignore DEET, Just Say Phuket

[Freshly Exhumed]

You know how it is... something becomes trendy or goes viral and then the hipsters are all like "that is so yesterday". Mosquitoes from Thailand started the "Ignore DEET, Just Say Phuket" meme after the press got all up in arms about how popular DEET has become with human partiers:

http://www.ttrweekly.com/site/2012/09/phi-phi-home-to-deadly-cocktails/

http://phuketwan.com/tourism/phi-phis-killer-cocktail-buckets-time-health-officials-explain-death-riddle-16598/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2012/08/31/montreal-sisters-die-thailand-insecticide.html

http://www.phuketgazette.net/phuket_news/2012/DEET-in-lethal-party-cocktail-killed-Canadian-sisters-Autopsy-16811.html

How is this insightful?

[Sycraft-fu]

The original article was insightful, it enlightened us to a new evolution taking place. This is just a snarky restatement without any added, and in fact far less, information.

The article straight off says mosquitoes are evolving, and talks about the research as to in the mechanism that is changing.

Re:How is this insightful?

[Doubting Sapien]

I would go so far as to even say GP is wrong. The article describes how experiments show the mosquito's olfactory system appears to loose sensitivity to DEET after the first exposure. There is no supporting evidence that conclusively points to this being due to evolutionary change. A more appropriate characterization is simply that the insect's nervous system is being down-regulated in responsiveness to this particular chemical. In other words, the mosquito adapts by learning to ignore some noxious gunk in order to get a blood meal. If such is the case, the insect is simply showing that it can be conditioned with the right stimuli. This is neural-plasticity, not evolution.

Re:How is this insightful?

[dwywit]

And by ignoring the smell of DEET, the mosquito is more likely to get herself a blood meal, and is thus more likely to reproduce. Whar evolution?

Re:How is this insightful?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely, the more obvious explanation is that the big beard in the sky has intelligently designed new mosquitoes that ignore DEET and is actively killing off the ones that used to be repelled by it?

Re:How is this insightful?

[tloh]

I stand by my position that evidence for evolution-driven tolerance to DEET is very weak based on available evidence at this point. The experiment was carried out without any mention of a control group for comparison that would have not been subjected to any evolution driven selective pressure. There was *one* mention in the article of genetic changes influencing immunity to DEET under controlled laboratory conditions: ".......although it was not clear if there were any mosquitoes like this in the wild." Let me put it another way. Would you consider a woman to be more fit for survival if she had a higher tolerance for the less flashy lifestyle of skilled, technically experienced nerds who can nonetheless retain employment in a bad economy with a competitive job market? Or is she choosing to be smart by using her brain to act maturely and override less important aversions for the sake of appreciating greater virtues? You are not born with it, it's learning that leads to adaptability. Ladies please don't be offended by comparison to a disease-carrying, blood-sucking insect.

Re:How is this insightful?

[Dunbal]

Except if you read the article: "Earlier research by the same team found that genetic changes to the same species of mosquito can make them immune to Deet, although it was not clear if there were any mosquitoes like this in the wild."

Re:How is this insightful?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

It would be evolution if they could show that the offspring completely ignored the DEET on its first exposure. Otherwise, I agree it looks like neural-plasticity.

Re:How is this insightful?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Let me put it another way. Would you consider a woman to be more fit for survival if she had a higher tolerance for the less flashy lifestyle of skilled, technically experienced nerds who can nonetheless retain employment in a bad economy with a competitive job market? Or is she choosing to be smart by using her brain to act maturely and override less important aversions for the sake of appreciating greater virtues? You are not born with it, it's learning that leads to adaptability. Ladies please don't be offended by comparison to a disease-carrying, blood-sucking insect.

I thought this was the basis of natural selection. The parents adapt and the offspring pick up their parent's preferences either through emulation or genetic modification. In other words, the women chose the nerd because she can look past his physical flaws in order to gain financial benefit and her offspring is likely to emulate her behavior because we all take social cues from our parents.

Re:How is this insightful?

[Agent0013]

I stand by my position that evidence for evolution-driven tolerance to DEET is very weak based on available evidence at this point.

I do think it doesn't prove that they evolved unless you did the same test previously where all of the mosquitoes kept their intolerance of DEET. Perhaps DEET has always been somewhat ineffective and the mosquitoes have always behaved this way. People who work in the sewage treatment plant or a garbage dump get used to the smell there.

But if they have changed, then it would be evolution even though it is just a preference for smells and not some new resistance to toxicity. Plenty of animals have evolved to look for pretty colors in their mates or other preferences that matter little in the overall survival of the species. Being less sensitive to a smell that keeps you away from your meal is a good evolution for that species.

Re:How is this insightful?

[morgauxo]

If they always had that ability then you are correct. However if that was the case then DEET would have never worked so well. They seemed to have evolved the ability to down-regulate their response to the chemical.

Re:How is this insightful?

[morgauxo]

Wow. Somebody hasn't been laid in way too long have they.

Re:How is this insightful?

[Anonymous Coward]

The article describes how experiments show the mosquito's olfactory system appears to loose sensitivity to DEET

Loose? "Loose" means "set free". If you meant "lose" you said exactly the opposite of what you meant to say; loosing your sense of smell means you're setting it free, as in taking the clothes pin off your nose.

Re:How is this insightful?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd argue that by ignoring the smell of DEET, the mosquito is more likely to get swatted and is thus LESS likely to reproduce. Better off looking for a deer or badger.

Let's not forget the basic fact that a given mutation is not necessarily a good thing for your species.

Re:How is this insightful?

[Phaedrus420]

Not quite, no. The genetic modification is random, and the mods which are improvements (adaptions) tend to lead to reproductive success. The 'selection' is statistical.

Re:How is this insightful?

[frank_adrian314159]

Yeah. He was probably married...

Re:How is this insightful?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a lot more to evolution than simple genetic mutations. I believe you meant to say "the evidence for this being a mutation driven tolerance is weak." If that is not what you meant, then you are a bloody imbecile who denies reality.

Re: How is this insightful?

[minogully]

And... Is more likely to get killed by the human who feels it bite :)

Re: How is this insightful?

[dwywit]

Now that's definitely true. Every time I manage to terminate a bloodsucker - mosquito, leech, etc - I remind them that they've become losers and evolutionary dead-ends.
 
Makes me feel a little better, anyway. I hate leeches.

Re:How is this insightful?

[Anonymous Coward]

A neural-plasticity inherited from it's parent among a population where not all mosquito's share this trait?

Yeah, That's evolution! The tolerance of DEET is not the evolved trait, The neural-plasticity is.

Re: How is this insightful?

[minogully]

The thing that makes me sad is that it's only an evolutionary dead end if you kill the bugger before it's done any reproducing in its lifespan.

Shocked!

[wisnoskij]

I am truly "shock[ed]", no one could of ever predicted this completely unique adaptation.

Re:Shocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

Next up: mosquitoes become resist to high voltages.

Re:Shocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget mosquitos, I want a bee repellant. Walk by a beehive by mistake, bees fly away instead of coming in for the stings.

As for the mosquitos, surly there must be a repellant stronger than DEET.

Evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Nature will ALWAYS evolve it's way around obstacles!

I, for one, welcome or new deet ingoring overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'm sure the person sitting next to me is tastier...

Use the mosquito's natural drives against it

[Beeftopia]

There's a device I've used with some success that works ONLY against bloodsuckers. It's called a "Mosquito Magnet".

Mosquitoes are attracted to things with blood. They apparently track their food by warmth, exhaled carbon dioxide, and a few other chemicals. This devices emits warmth, carbon dioxide and a few other chemicals in an attractant. The device is quite sensitive though. I've placed a battery driven model outside, under a small wooden table, to protect it from the elements. It definitely captures mosquitoes but sometimes it makes a difference, sometimes it doesn't. Mine is 5 years old. Last year it was... eh. Not as dramatic as year 1. I need to get it serviced this year I suppose.

Anyhoo, focusing on something like the mosquito's natural drives to attract them to a trap might be the Next Big Thing. Note that bug zappers don't attract mosquitos.

Re:Use the mosquito's natural drives against it

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an electronic repellant that seems to work well (I can tell when the battery is dead by my mosquito bite, it really needs a meter). The way it's supposed to work is that it emits the (ultrasonic) sound of a mosquito's predator.

Pest management basics

[future assassin]

Don't use the same chemicals too often as small insects adapt to it quite fast. Just ask weed growers how well their toxic miticides don't work on spider mites anymore. I bet the weed you're smoking has Avid, Floramite, Monitor, Forbid or othe rnasties on it as some are resorting to using them at WAY more potent mixes and past the residual time of the chemical.

Re:Pest management basics

[dryeo]

It's not just weed. Way too many people think that if a certain dosage is called for, then it is better to double or quadruple it. When it comes to pesticides it is quite important to follow the directions including stopping well before harvest.

Solution to the mosquito problem

[rossdee]

When i walked home from work the other day, I didn't notice a single mosquito.
My conclusion is that they don't like certain environmental factors.

The temperature was about 242 Kelvin

So if we can keep the place cool, we won't have to worry.

The Role of Mosquitoes in Nature

[ixarux]

...... is still not understood by most. And I think we are stuck in an odd place here.

Insects evolution is faster than animals like dodos. We can't walk around beating them with a club till they go extinct. Mosquito nets used to be the most effective form of protection, until now. The mosquitoes are getting smaller. And adapting to chemicals is an inevitability. Too many of them reproducing at very high rates. Making them infertile seems to be best way around this all.

But more importantly, we still have absolutely no clue what role the mosquitoes play in ecological niches. Will their extinction lead to irreversible changes that affect the very fabric of nature? Humans vs. mosquitoes - who is more important to nature. Does anyone want to answer that question? Does the increase in human population directly correlate with the increase in mosquito population? We are their food after-all ....

Re:The Role of Mosquitoes in Nature

[oldhack]

Don't be stupid. Mosquitoes, like humans, have no "roles".

Re:The Role of Mosquitoes in Nature

[dryeo]

Lots of things eat mosquito, especially their larvae. The mails live on nectar so they may also be pollinators.

Re:The Role of Mosquitoes in Nature

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the question should be rephrased "if we deliberately cause mosquitoes to go extinct, will this have follow-on effects on the biosphere that we don't want (because we know from experience ecosystems are notoriously hard to "fix" once you've "screwed them up", for definitions of "fix" and "screwed up" that fit a human-utilitarian definition)?"

But most non-pedants would have been able to "get" that.

Live near a mangrove...

[GumphMaster]

As someone with the pleasure of living near mangroves (Brisbane Australia) I can attest to the relatively ineffective deterrence offered by common DEET-based repellents (

Re:Live near a mangrove...

[dwywit]

I feel your pain - try some ti-tree and lavender/rosemary-based repellants. Thursday Plantation offer some decent products.
 
Where are you, BTW? Bayside Redlands, or Nudgee? I live in Maleny.

Re:Live near a mangrove...

[GumphMaster]

Sunny Wynnum (not this morning though) ... and I've only just noticed that Slashdot ate the remainder of my post, must have been an unencoded < or > symbol :( I made further comment that Northern Territory mosquitoes seem to start the day by downing a glass of DEET, and that only 40%+ DEET products even make a dent.

Re:Live near a mangrove...

[dwywit]

Maleny and ditto the weather. Haven't had many mosquitos this summer - fortunately. Lucky for me, about the hippie/organic culture around here - there are locally-made repellents consisting of ti-tree oil, lavender, and some other herbal essences, that work quite well keeping the little bastards at bay - works for other bothersome pests, too.

Thank god shark repellent still works!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank god shark repellent still works! http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/82773565/

Breeding infertility

[Anonymous Coward]

We should be introducing infertile mosquitos into the wild.

If we could evolve mosquitos to be infertile, then we could release them into the wild, where they would breed with other wild mosquitos. After a few dozen generations, most mosquitos would be infertile. Problem solved!

Why is it only me that can figure this stuff out?

Re:Breeding infertility

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

Yeah, that is the human way, destroy a species because of some minor inconvenience.

Re:Breeding infertility

[AJodock]

I wouldn't call mosquitos a minor inconvenience...

http://www.netsforlifeafrica.org/malaria/malaria-statistics

Malaria is a deadly mosquito-borne disease that affects millions each year

Over half a million (655, 000) people die from malaria each year...

Re:Breeding infertility

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd have thought a skeptic wouldn't take a post like this at face value. And I'd expect and optimist to not have such a grim view of humanity.

Re:Breeding infertility

[ddd0004]

I think the original comment is a joke, but if you figure out how to selectively breed infertile mosquitoes for several generations let me know.

Re:Breeding infertility

[RevDisk]

When it comes to mosquitos, yea, pretty much.

Goes to show ...

[garry_g]

Nature is more intelligent than US Republicans, it doesn't ignore Darwin's findings ;)

Shocked ...

[Anonymous Coward]

An article at the BBC makes a shocking claim [...]

Why you Britts have to be shocked at everything ?
This is life, sh.. happens, get over it.

Btw, is this a shocking comment ?

*We're* genetically weak

[Dr. Evil]

The parts of the world with accurate warning labels don't have growing populations.

We're aggressively selecting for traits which resist birth control.

Repellent doesn't.

[NerdMarine]

I wasn't aware mosquitoes EVER responded to repellent, DEET or otherwise.

Permethrin

[Anonymous Coward]

DEET sucks. I've worked in areas with loads and loads of ticks. I sprayed with a lot of DEET and it didn't make a difference in how many ticks I'd get. I started using Repel. (That's since been relabeled to something else that I can't remember at the moment) THAT worked. DEET-based doesn't seem to stop anything, it's got to have permethrin. Once the little bitey things get used to that, I don't know what I'm gonna do.

Some first hand experience

[Grayhand]

I spent a couple of years in Maine recently and I can tell you DEET mostly just pissed them off. I grew up in Michigan and I've had a lot of experience over the years with Mosquitoes. The ones in Maine are more aggressive. If you walked in the woods with DEET on it was like wearing a coat of mosquitoes. They didn't like lighting but some did. I think it was akin to having Mace sprayed in your eyes while you ate. If you're hungry enough you tough it out. I can tell you black flies thought DEET was Channel #5. For mosquitpes try catnip oil. It's a nontoxic irritant although you may have to pry the neighborhood cats off you.

Umm, no

[Anonymous Coward]

If today's mosquitoes were immune to DEET from birth, that would seem to be evolution. An individual adapting is not evolution.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

In the meantime

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

While mosquitoes are evolving to be smarter, humans keep spreading carcinogens on them to avoid a little itch.

Re:In the meantime

[Xoltri]

You must live in an area without many mosquitoes. Spend a few minutes on a cool evening outside in Canada and you will sing a different tune, no doubt. Last year was an epic bad year for mosquitoes. I have a video of them literally coating the fence in my back yard. If it wasn't for DEET you can't be outside.

Breeding cycles

[tepples]

Mosquito breeding cycles are far shorter than those of Homo sapiens. They've had since 1957 to evolve to ignore DEET.

Re:Breeding cycles

[Reziac]

By all reports, mosquitoes in Alaska have always ignored DEET. I'm wondering if there might be as much population drift as there is evolution here.

That would explain it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have had this suspicion for a few years now. Whenever I go into a mosquito heavy environment, not all of the little buggers will stay away, even from a path of skin I just sprayed. Every year it seems like I get more and more bites no mater how much I douse myself. I bet the researcher was having the same thing happen to him. He just had the knowledge, tools, and drive to actually study it.

DEET is bad for humans as well

[Anonymous Coward]

Dust yourself down with flowers of sulphur. That is what special forces use and I am telling you especially around camp in in the amazon army ants will not go near you. Still works... you stink a little but you can always wash yourself down later.