Slashdot Mirror
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."'"
Yeah, it's called evolution.
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?
This only proves that the ways and will of God is ineffable. To even suggest it's evolution in action is blasphemy.
sure, tons of evidence. dead mosquitoes ignore everything.
I will be the first one to bow down to our mosquito overlords.
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.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
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])
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.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Then charge the mosquitoes a license fee to evolve.
That should stop them.
Sent from my ENIAC
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!"
Their larvae are a food source to many aquatic animals.
I am truly "shock[ed]", no one could of ever predicted this completely unique adaptation.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
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.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
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.
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.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
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.
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'.
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
Maybe making stupid people more stupid is a good thing. Seemed to work for the Morlocks and Eloi.
"The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
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.
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.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
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.
"The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
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.
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.
========== "Hello World" in my programming language of choice: ATG - LET THERE BE LIFE - TAG ==========
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 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.
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
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.
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
The mosquito would not be missed. http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/12525/mosquito-creature-won%E2%80%99t-be-missed
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.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Mosquito breeding cycles are far shorter than those of Homo sapiens. They've had since 1957 to evolve to ignore DEET.