Brazilians Welcome Genetically-Modified Mosquito To Help Fight Dengue Fever

An anonymous reader writes "The Brazilian government have decided to try battling the spread of dengue fever with GM mosquitoes. 'Now, with dengue endemic in three of the host cities for this summer's World Cup , Brazilian health officials are trying a radical new approach — biotechnology. They've begun a two-year trial release of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes that have been genetically modified. "We need to provide the government alternatives because the system we are using now in Brazil doesn't work," says Aldo Malavasi, president of Moscamed, the Brazilian company that's running the trial from a lab just outside of Jacobina. The new breed of Aedes aegypti has been given a lethal gene. The deadly flaw is kept in check in the lab, but the mosquitoes soon die in the wild.'"

Comments

What could possibly go wrong

[TheRealQuestor]

Death gene. mosquitoes, mosquitoes bite human with death gene. Something tells me dengue is the least of our problems

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[Kkloe]

yeah, like a itching rash by the bite

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[theshowmecanuck]

It's OK, they are building little Voight-Kampff test machines to weed them out if necessary.

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[Cenan]

It's not a death gene, it is a genetically engineered mosquito that dies, subtle but huge difference. I'd be more concerned with the consequences of killing off a species of mosquito, especially when the one they're targeting isn't the only one carrying the dengue. From TFA:

Phil Lounibous, an insect ecologist at the University of Florida, says getting rid of Aedes aegypti won’t necessarily solve the dengue problem.

“The so-called Asian Tiger mosquito is (also) very abundant all throughout Brazil,” Lounibous says, “and it ... is also a vector of dengue.”

But Oxitec says Aedes aegypti is by far the biggest source of dengue fever, and that reducing its population would be a huge advance for human health.

Classis Big-Corp logic: we can solve this problem (kind of) - so we have to insist that this problem is the one we need to solve in order to solve that other problem (and get paid).

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[Cryacin]

Hmmm, I can just imagine how the "death gene" conversation goes.

So, where did you get the gene from?

Ebola.

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wait until the politicians get hold of this. They'll provide the medicine to keep the "death gene" in check until you oppose them. Then magically all your medicine will dry up.

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[ChromeAeonium]

What could go wrong? I don't know, maybe a disease that kills 22 thousand people? Sorry developing country kids, you gotta die, but hey, at least you don't have to worry about something that might somehow be even worse, like the dangers of unknown consequences, in other words, I don't have an actual argument, but I do have the first world heebie-jeebies, so here's a non-falsifiable appeal to ignorance. Try not to die of hemorrhagic fever while I vacuously muse about precaution from my overpriced organic café. Man, I'm glad you 'What could possibly go wrong' people weren't around when some crazy dude tried fighting disease by injecting people with dead viruses.

I'm not an entomologist, nor an ecologist, but I do recognize the standard MO among genetic engineering opposition, and this looks like the same horse shit type of opposition we see when dealing with genetically engineered crops, so unless someone can give me an actual reason (no, Jurassic Park doesn't count) as to why this is not worth trying, I fail to see the problem with this.

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

this looks like the same horse shit type of opposition we see when dealing with genetically engineered crops

Hi Monsanto employee #5612!

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you. I'm glad you're just a basement dweller with no power to influence public policy in Brazil.

I had dengue, and I know how much of a problem this disease is. I hope you get infected with it. Perhpaps then you'll think twice about dismissing a good strategy for controlling the disease with zombie-movie based arguments.

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever someone brings up a point an environmentalist is unable to refute, immediately the environmentalists will immediately accuse the poster of being a corporate shill. Congratulations ChromeAeonium, you have won the debate.

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[Your.Master]

This isn't Spiderman. You don't gain "death" by being bitten by mosquitoes with a "death gene".

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[K. S. Kyosuke]

horse shit type of opposition

We call them organic farmers around here, since they'd probably mind being called the way you call them. :-)

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[Twinbee]

22 thousand *per year*.

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

radio lab did a story in the GM Mosquitos a few weeks ago.
http://www.radiolab.org/story/kill-em-all/

1) they only release males (don't bite people)
2) larvae from these mosquitoes require an extra chemical to mature. The adult males live a "full" life fertilizing as many females as possible. The females that mate do in fact lay fertilized eggs and invest their energy in that, but do not know that the final result is failure.
3) mosquitos have a lifespan of a few weeks, so the GM ones all die out very quickly after soaking up the available females of the current generation
4) has been used with great effect in urban areas to eradicate the mosquito population in a less than a dozen generations.

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[jittles]

What could go wrong? I don't know, maybe a disease that kills 22 thousand people? Sorry developing country kids, you gotta die, but hey, at least you don't have to worry about something that might somehow be even worse, like the dangers of unknown consequences, in other words, I don't have an actual argument, but I do have the first world heebie-jeebies, so here's a non-falsifiable appeal to ignorance. Try not to die of hemorrhagic fever while I vacuously muse about precaution from my overpriced organic café. Man, I'm glad you 'What could possibly go wrong' people weren't around when some crazy dude tried fighting disease by injecting people with dead viruses.

I'm not an entomologist, nor an ecologist, but I do recognize the standard MO among genetic engineering opposition, and this looks like the same horse shit type of opposition we see when dealing with genetically engineered crops, so unless someone can give me an actual reason (no, Jurassic Park doesn't count) as to why this is not worth trying, I fail to see the problem with this.

Used to live down there in dengue country. I am definitely concerned about what the potential outcome is. I can't tell you how many times I've been sprayed in the face by pesticide trucks, too, while walking down the street. It's a pretty nasty disease. However, the last time Brazilians let a lab experiment out in the wild, it caused all sorts of unintended consequences (yesI Know this was an accident). I am not saying this is as likely to happen, but do we know for sure how these mosquitoes will be once they breed in the wild? Or are they only releasing females, and if so, will they all die before becoming sexually mature?

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

I get what you are saying and understand the stakes are high here. I'm not trying to say they shouldn't proceed in this particular case, nor am I trying to say that you don't understand the problems this line of thinking in everything. However, there are a lot of people that don't get it.

There is real merit to the precautionary principle when there are plausible mechanisms for harm and/or large unknowns. How about drug effects of developing fetuses (e.g., thalidomide)? Heavy metal poisoning from poor industrial waste practices (e.g., Trail BC's lead smelter)? Accumulation of toxins that can't be biologically disposed of (e.g., PCBs)? Positive void coefficient nuclear reactors? Nanotech particles?

Unfortunately, if there is a problem, proof of it will come too late.

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[mythosaz]

Of course not. You gain the power of death.

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

That would still be fine, as Ebola only killed ~2k people in total, while dengue kills 25k per year.

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[Immerman]

The AC directly above your comment provides an excellent answer.

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[LordLimecat]

Your post is a mix of insight and shortsightedness. Yes, undefined FUD is not helpful, but neither is dismissing possible unintended consequences. What happens when it turns out that the Asiatic Tiger mosquito is a more successful vector of dengue, but was kept in check by the Aedes aegypti?

FUD should not be vague, but neither should the contingency planning / risk analysis. "Who cares about the consequences, kids are dying" is not a valid plan of action/

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

But what happens to everything else that eats the mosquitoes? What's the chance of the gene jumping species and wiping a bunch of other things out? How about a some of the eggs being laid in enough of the extra chemical (they're probably throwing some of the stuff out) to start a new breed of mosquitoes? I'm looking forward to the first "bitten by mosquito, turns into zombie" movie. I'd prefer if they setup more laser traps.

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[king neckbeard]

'Unable to have viable offspring' is a gene that's not likely to spread uncontrolled.

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[Jmc23]

Well, it's clear you are not an entomologist or ecologist or you would know that mosquitos are important pollinators and play crucial roles in the food chain.

But hey why let facts get in the way of doing the exact same thing you are accusing others of, mainly talking out of your ass from your high horse.

and seriously slashdot, +5 insightful? Are only the idiots left?

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

The killer bee problem we have now seems to be a pretty good argument. Brazil brought us that in 1957.

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[Jmc23]

based on?

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[geekoid]

Actual, this has been going in in other areas with a huge success rate. killing 90+% of mosquitoes in targeted area.

I"m not sure what you problem is with getting rid of a Dengue fever vector.

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[geekoid]

Thank you.

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[GoodBuddy]

I heard this episode. They made an interesting point during the show. One reason that the Amazon has survived is the fact that malaria and dengue fever infect people who move into these jungle areas. So the advent of GMOs to control mosquito growth may lead the the clearing of the Amazon. That won't be good.

In fact, my prediction is that the Amazon rain forest will have almost disappeared in a hundred years, largely due to this development.

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[geekoid]

You post, in short:
"OH LORDY I'M TOO SCARED TO ACTUAL READ THE ARTICLE!"
I mean, come on. Yes, it's important enough that you need important info, but when it's handed to you don't you think you should read it instead of looking foolish?

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[Cenan]

Except that this does not get rid of the mosquitoes, only one mosquito species - the rest are perfectly fine. This "solution" does not solve the problem, it just shifts which species carry the disease at the cost of unknown damage to an ecosystem - who knows, the locals might be part of that chain somewhere along the line, and you end up killing the same number of people for a different reason. You can't remove an entire section of the food chain and expect nothing to change - best case scenario is that another species of mosquito takes over. As the quoted ecologist says, there is already a species prevalent in the area, that is also a carrier.

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[jittles]

You post, in short: "OH LORDY I'M TOO SCARED TO ACTUAL READ THE ARTICLE!" I mean, come on. Yes, it's important enough that you need important info, but when it's handed to you don't you think you should read it instead of looking foolish?

This is Slashdot. Who actually reads the article? Besides, my point wasn't that I was scared that something would go terribly wrong with this. I am just saying I've lived in those South American countries and sometimes shortcuts are taken. If what they are doing is safe and reasonably studied, then I think they should do it. The person's post was basically saying that we, in the first world, have no right to judge them for what they do to save lives. I am trying to make the point that every country in the globe is connected. If something does go wrong, it can spread to the first world. And in fact dengue itself has already spread to the United States. So inaction on the parts of these countries could increase the chance of it spreading further into the US. My whole point is that this guy is no better than the people he is deriding. That caution should be displayed when releasing non-native insects (in this case, genetically modified mosquitoes). As long as Brazil and its researchers have done due diligence, then go for it. And no, its really not all that important to me, in the long run. It would likely take generations for any sort of side effect to work its way the thousands of miles to North America - unless the side effect is the eradication of the mosquitoes, then we'd likely do it here.

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[HiThere]

Not to worry. The Amazon rainforest is already dying due to climate change. The additional warmth is drying it out too fast, the jungle is becoming too dry, and so fires are difficult to control. (Used to be they wouldn't spread because everything was so wet.)

So this development won't have any effect on the rainforest. It's too slow.

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[HiThere]

Actually, there are a few genes roughly like that that do spread. IIRC there's one bug that has contracted a gene that sabotages male offspring. It spreads because it allows unfertilized eggs to hatch into female offspring. So you need to watch the details. (Something similar probably happened to aphids back before we were noticing. Most [all?] aphids are now members of a clone.)

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[HiThere]

The real problem is that one can never forsee all possible problems. All decisions are made with a lack of certainty in the results. But when those who pay for the lack of foresight have no control over the descision made, it seems like either reckless abuse of power or worse. And sometimes it is.

If people with the power to make decisions could be trusted to make the best decision, a lot of the second-guessing would go away. Unfortunately, there is a very long track record of people in power making decisions based on benefit to them and costs to them, and ignoring the benefits/costs to everyone else. So there's a certain lack of trust.

To me this decision looks like a good one. I could be wrong. I'm not making it, and I expect to receive neither the benefits nor the costs.

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[sjames]

The concern is that with A. aegypti gone, the asian tiger mosquito will fill the niche and be as bad or worse since it also carries dengue.

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[sillybilly]

We should always save a backup copy of the existing mosquitoes, just in case we mess up in unexpected ways and want to bring back the past. Even if something is horribly dangerous to humans, but not exterminatingly dangerous to humans, I think there is some right to exist. Like bears for instance. Bears are predators of humans, like mosquitoes are predators of humans. Even if I don't like mosquitoes, or even if I say I hate them, it doesn't mean I can't feel for them, or would agree to having them tortured - I think animal cruelty laws should apply to them too, unless the economics dictates otherwise. I still like bears, but it doesn't mean I want to meet with one in person, without me carrying a weapon, (or at least bear repellent spray, ha ha ha). Instead we should find a way to fend off mosquitoes from humans - spend all our efforts into scent deterrent agents, repellent sprays, so the mosquitoes have to feast on other mammals and reptiles and avians that preexisted before us on the planet. Without genetically engineering them. It's like we have the right to genetically engineer domesticated things, including cows and potatoes, but in the wilderness, the species out there have a right to their genetic identity, and I would only bring in GM as a last resort to keep a species from extinction, but not to drive one into extinction with it. The only things I'd drive to extinction are things like polio, but even that with a backup, as I'm sure there are plenty of backups of polio, anthrax, etc, around the world. You never know, some humanoid alien race might attack us, and our only chance might be unleashing one of these diseases, in case humans have a 35% chance survival, but the aliens only 2%.

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[Adam Jorgensen]

Mosquitos are parasites.

Like most parasites, they're not a particularly valuable part of the food chain.

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[Cenan]

Right, because billions of individual bags of almost pure protein exist as an isolated island in the food chain - bats, fish, frogs and toads, to name a few, all feed on mosquitoes.

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had dengue. It's not what you'd call a good time. I like to refer to it as "Ebola Lite". Except that you can get it up to four times, and each time it gets worse, and by the 3rd time death might seem preferable -- it's also called "bone-break fever" for the pleasant sensations it engenders. I'm not interested in anything but how to eradicate it forever. And you say we have to kill mosquitos to do that? Here's the world's tiniest violin...

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

K. S. Kyosuke: You've been called out (for tossing names) & you ran "forrest" from a fair challenge http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Not how natural selection works

[mysidia]

The Brazilian government has authorized the two-year trial. The hope is that the male GM mosquitos will mate with wild females and produce offspring that will die before they can reproduce .

If they die off within one generation.... then females that didn't mate with the male GM females will survive and reproduce.

The GM whizzes should be engineering mosquitos that still manage to reproduce together and with non-GM females and have offspring that don't bite humans but still reproduce.

Also, they should compete favorably against non-GM mosquitos for mating purposes. The mosquitos should carry bacteria that will destroy non-GM mosquito larvae

Re:Not how natural selection works

[axlash]

Even better would be if they could engineer mosquitoes whose *grandchildren* (or great grandchildren) would be sterile, further maximising the damage.

Re:Not how natural selection works

[Cenan]

Even better would be if they spent all that time curing the dengue fever and then left the mosquito alone.

Re:Not how natural selection works

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you should patent those ideas!

captcha: bumble

Re:Not how natural selection works

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because humanity can only do one thing at a time. Besides, if this works and is ported to other mosquitoes it could help many poor nations. Or things could take a turn for the awesome and it will create zombies.

Re:Not how natural selection works

[Chikungunya]

At least 100 more resources are being used for dengue than for mosquitoes, unfortunately for dengue having "near perfect" protection (the normal situation for all other vaccines) is not only not effective, it actually produces a worse disease. For better or worse controlling dengue is going to take a few more billions and at least one more decade. Also, you control the mosquito and you control several diseases at the same time.

The problem in this case is not so much the danger of the genetic manipulation (the approach seem to be based in minimizing risk) but seen how effective it is really going to be in a large scale situation. People worry much more about this being a waste of money than a danger to the ecology.

Also, the process specifically make the females produced by this males to become sterile so for one part you will get slowly more and more gene-carrier males competing for the healthy females (that will be less and less frequent) in every generation, it will have the extra merit of making the affected females less prone to bite so the risk to humans dimish.

Anyway, the good thing is that this approach affects only a single species of mosquito so even if this goes out of control you have very few risk to the ecology, compared with other much more risky trials (like those done with the Wolbachia parasite in Australia) this seems to be relatively safe.

Re:Not how natural selection works

[Anonymous Coward]

or if you must tinker with genes, you could engineer a mosquito that cannot carry dengue fever...

Re:Not how natural selection works

[El Puerco Loco]

Humans are the reservoir for dengue in the western hemisphere, so naturally efforts should be focused on elminating this reservoir in the more southern parts of the area before the disease is able to spread to the more important countries north of Mexico.

Re:Not how natural selection works

[Anonymous Coward]

The GM whizzes should be engineering mosquitos that still manage to reproduce together and with non-GM females and have offspring that don't bite humans but still reproduce.

Good idea! Or how about this one - make some that do bite, but the bite leaves a dose of polio vaccine! Or how about the modified mosquitos all get together and deliver milk to starving babies! What is wrong with these "whizzes"? I'm just another buffoon on Slashdot and yet I can come up with a better solution in just two minutes tun these people who have been "studying" the problems and supposedly "understand" it so much more than I do!

Re:Not how natural selection works

[Anonymous Coward]

By your logic we should have never constructed sewers to control the spread of dysentery and cholera, and instead focused on treating the diseases instead. Or perhaps we should never use condoms and instead spend more money on treating STDs.

Basic management of epidemic disease also includes reducing the vectors that spread the infection and it is MUCH cheaper than treating the disease.

Re:Not how natural selection works

[thegarbz]

Disagree and I can't wait for the blood suckers to be irradiated everywhere!

Yes yes I know, don't mess with a balanced ecosystem.

Re:Not how natural selection works

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be a quite a few more orders of magnitude more difficult than inserting a gene that causes sterility. In fact genetically engineering an immune system to be inherently immune to one particular strain of virus would be quite a feat of science.

But we know the true reason you are posted is because you are more worried about the loss of mosquito life than of human life.

Re:Not how natural selection works

[Ihlosi]

Also, they should compete favorably against non-GM mosquitos for mating purposes.

That's going to be hard, take one blood source away and still be competitive.

Instead, they could make GM mosquitoes that are unsuitable as carriers for the Dengue virus. You'd still get stung by them, but at least you're less likely to catch crippling diseases.

Re:Not how natural selection works

[mythosaz]

...great, but they'd still have to make the non-Dengue mosquitoes win out over the regular 'ol Dengue mosquitoes somehow.

Re:Not how natural selection works

[king neckbeard]

The question of the viability here is how much of a blood source are humans. If we are an insignificant source, then it's not a big deal.

Re:Not how natural selection works

[jittles]

Humans are the reservoir for dengue in the western hemisphere, so naturally efforts should be focused on elminating this reservoir in the more southern parts of the area before the disease is able to spread to the more important countries north of Mexico.

Too lat.e You can already get Dengue in Texas!

Re:Not how natural selection works

[TheCarp]

Or how about a mosquito where only female progeny die. Males are born normally and survive.... leading to a runaway skew in their populations.

Re:Not how natural selection works

[Jmc23]

satyrization.

nothing affects only one species.

Do you not know what happened to these kissing cousins in the states?

Re:Not how natural selection works

[Jmc23]

Why gm something that already exists? You know how many species of mosquito there are?

Re:Not how natural selection works

[Anonymous Coward]

This way the whole system is controlled. Besides, why would they want a mosquito that can reproduce? To give chance for some kind of resistance and natural selection?

Re:Not how natural selection works

[HiThere]

FWIW, in a few places mosquitoes have been eliminated. It has not been noticed that any problems were caused. Not even for bats and swallows.

Re:Not how natural selection works

[tehdaemon]

http://xkcd.com/1338/

Us + our livestock is just about all there is... Note, this exlcudes birds.

T

Re:Not how natural selection works

[mysidia]

The question of the viability here is how much of a blood source are humans

Some mosquitos have evolved the ability to lay eggs without taking a blood meal. There are some non-biting mosquitos that have evolved.

Zombies

[Anonymous Coward]

This is how it starts!

Life will find a way

[Anonymous Coward]

Just sayin.

Re:Life will find a way

[VortexCortex]

Just sayin.

Yep. Came here to say the same thing. These mosquitoes are engineered to die. Thus, if they're released into the wild most of them will die but the ones who don't die will survive and pass on these resistant genes to their offspring and bringing a new scourge upon the Earth: Immortal mosquitoes.

At least have a contingency plan: A compulsion to lop each other's heads off with tiny little swords while buzzing, "There can beeee only None!"

Re:Life will find a way

[fredprado]

I wish I had mod points. You, sir, won the thread.

Re:Life will find a way

[mythosaz]

There's no "resistant gene" here.

They're just releasing a bunch of semi-sterile males. They can make babies, but those babies never hatch, and it wastes the reproductive cycles of the female mosquitoes.

We've been doing this regularly since the 1950's. This is nothing new except something for dolts to moan on about Monsanto.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

Re:Life will find a way

[ichthus]

Yeah, you hear that everybody? If you're not privy to insect population control techniques (I mean, who doesn't discuss this topic regularly at dinner parties?), or you disapprove of Monsanto, you're a dolt. A DOLT! Mythosaz has you all on notice, and it's a good thing we have people like him or her to keep us all in check.

So, stop being *cough* dolts, and educate yourselves.

Re:Life will find a way

[Jmc23]

Nothing new except the gm instead of irradiation.

Now, you are aware that snippets of dna from the stuff we eat float around inside us right? What could possibly happen to the dragonflys and fish that eat all those tasty larvae?

Re:Life will find a way

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what could happen? Do tell us.

Preferably, with mechanism of this "could happening" explained better than "dna float around inside us right".

Jurasic Park?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone? Does the bell rings?

Gib cure pls

[Anonymous Coward]

I report u
Hue hue hue hue

3rd world drug funded shit hole makes GM mosquitos

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad i live in a cold climate far away from this idea

Let me guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

They engineered it so the mosquito can't produce the amino-acid lysine, and thus has to receive it through it's lab-provided food.

I hope they succeed

[SirAdelaide]

This is a great idea, and illustrates the benefits of science to help improve the world. Ecosystems around human habitations aren't natural to start with, and we have every right to mess them up for our benefit.

Also from the article:

For his part, Moscamed’s Aldo Malavasi gets impatient with critics from rich countries.

“Dengue is a problem in poor countries, in Latin America, Africa and Asia,” Malavasi says. “I don’t care about Europeans. I don’t care about you gringos. I care to help the people in Africa, Latin America and Asia.”

That is the sort of practical attitude we need to solve the problems of poor countries. Less hand wringing, more action, with adaptive management of any issues that arise.

For what it's worth, I have a bachelor's degree in science with a double major in ecology, and a bachelor's degree in civil engineering. I work as a civil engineer providing water supplies rather than as an ecologist because there's no/hardly any money in science, so I might have a different point of view than more pure scientists. As far as I'm concerned, the reason to care about the environment is because we live in it. We should protect or change the environment as we see fit to benefit the most number of people. That's why we dam rivers, clear land, make farms, build cities, and protect endangered animals; it's all to improve quality of life for humans. Until mosquitoes become endangered, we should kill as many as we can.

Re:I hope they succeed

[HiThere]

A reasonable attitude, but poor politics. Better would be to point out that the warming climate is spreading tropical diseases away from the equator, so that you can already get Dengue fever and malaria in the US. (Don't point out that this may really be due to increased population mobility.)

Not the first time

[Pallas Athena]

Well, as the previous exercise with creating and releasing a new subspecies in Brazil was such a big success, let's repeat it. What could go wrong?

Re:Not the first time

[mythosaz]

You're right. It's not the first time. We've been releasing sterile males into insect populations for 60 years with great success. This is just another story to make errmagarghd, monsanto! types get all grumpy.

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

Slashdot and science

[Anonymous Coward]

When did the Slashdot audience start to diverge so much from understanding science? The "death-gene" and GM misunderstandings fuelling the discussion here is like reading an intelligent design forum. And you see the same anti-science/science-ignorance tendency in other science-related areas (GM debates in general, climate change, etc.). Is this part of the general anti-science sentiment we see growing in US, or is there a change in Slashdot audience (I've been lurking here forever, and it really wasn't this science-ignorant before).

Re:Slashdot and science

[Anonymous Coward]

What you are seeing are libertarians that are anti-science when it comes to global warming, evolution, and origin of the cosmos. Then you are seeing liberals in both the USA and Europe who believe in science when it comes to global warming, evolution, and origin of the cosmos, but reject it on matters of GMOs, vaccines, modern pharmaceuticals, fracking, nuclear energy, RF radiation, and will trot out the argument from nature fallacy every chance they get.

Re:Slashdot and science

[TheDarkMaster]

Computers have become simple enough for anyone to use, allowing people completely ignorant about logic and technology to read and comment here on Slashdot. Look, I do not intend at any time here being "elitist"... But at the same time that the "digital revolution" allowed access to the masses, also allowed access to the modern caveman.

Re:Slashdot and science

[Rich0]

Judging by the time on the posts, I'd say that this is more the European anti-science bias. People everywhere love their pseudoscience. In the US it tends to take the creationist stance most of the time, and in Europe anti-GM is all the rage. You will of course find examples of all forms of pseudoscience everywhere, but everybody has their preference.

Standby for accusations that I must work for Monsanto, or whatever big corporate conspiracy is supposed to be trying to deceive our kids with the evils of evolution.

Re:Slashdot and science

[DerekLyons]

I've been lurking here forever, and it really wasn't this science-ignorant before

No, contrary to your memory, it's pretty much always been this way. Outside of computer related topics and specific geek topics (Monty Python, or game trivia for example), Slashdot in general isn't very much smarter or more knowledgeable than any other random Joe. Moat days, we're lucky and the moderation system produces a thin facade of not being so, but not always.

Re:Slashdot and science

[rmdingler]

With the exception of a few isolated Waconian compounds, religious influence on science will continue to wane as information and education continue their spread. The goal here should not be to bring every last pocket of resistance in developed countries to the table, but to bring science, personal freedoms, and education to the parts of the World where God-Belief is still ubiquitous.

.

The blanket objection to genetically-modified anything is pervasive in even otherwise intelligent citizens, and these blokes are not limited to Europe. I blame the health food industry. They jump on every bandwagon that comes along. Don't get me wrong, I do prefer my produce be as free of pesticides as possible and my meat unladen with antibiotics, but folks unwilling to do their own thinking instinctively believe everything in the store must be good for you. The stores exploit this.

Pseudoscience is only the enemy if it is growing and not shrinking, and it is expected to linger a while in a tribe of recently ill-informed and superstitious primates.

Re:Slashdot and science

[tomhath]

Is this part of the general anti-science sentiment we see growing in US, or is there a change in Slashdot audience

Excellent question. IMHO it's a conscience decision by Dice to stir up debate with the goal of getting more traffic. Many of the hot topics have nothing to do with News for Nerds (how many threads did we see related to Zimmerman/Martin? how many did we see related to Occupy Wall Street?), Once the door is opened to screaming about politics it slops over into every thread.

Re:Slashdot and science

[Kinthelt]

It started happening once 6-digit IDs started going out.

Re:Slashdot and science

[mythosaz]

It's not a change so much in the /. audience. It's a change in the minds of the /. editors to post everything they think will get page hits -- and then the idiots follow.

The front page is probably a year away from "One Secret Trick, 99% of Linux Users Don't Know!"

Re:Slashdot and science

[Rich0]

No doubt marketing plays a role. The last thing ANYBODY wants you to do is consider the facts. People making junk food don't want you to think about whether junk food is bad for you. People who sell $5 apples don't want you to think about the fact that no studies really show that they're any better for you than the 50 cent apples.

You're supposed to be a good consumer and do what the ads tell you to. That easily translates into doing what your pastor, friend, celebrity on TV tells you to.

Re:Slashdot and science

[Immerman]

I think at least a large portion of the opposition to GMOs has little to do with being anti-science, in fact let me offer some largely pro-science opposition.
1) Agricultural GMOs tend to be created by large corporations openly trying to get a lock on the agricultural industry. That's a politically dangerous proposition.
2) Agricultural GMOs tend to create an monoculture with a very small gene pool - leaving them incredibly vulnerable to plague, and us to the resulting famine.
3) Biology is *complicated*. We're still largely at the trial-and-error stage of understanding all the ways in which genes interact with each other, ditto the complicated interactions of an uncontrolled ecology. That we'll eventually unintentionally create something that causes problems is a near-certainty - every major new technology has a few "oops" moments.
4) Unlike any previous technology, GMOs are self-replicating organsims we're intentionally trying to get well established in an uncontrolled outdoor environment. Any problematic organism will likely completely escape our control long before we even realize there's a problem, unless they have multiple independent "death genes" to ensure they can't spread in the wild, even if they hybridize with another species. (Sounds like these mosquitoes have one anyway, much better than nothing).

Re:Slashdot and science

[Anonymous Coward]

1) source?
2) how is that different than non-GMO?
3) FUD
4) And this hasn't happened already with non-GMO stuff? (Killer bees anyone?)

Re:Slashdot and science

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome, Monsanto shill! I see what you did there; a subtle attempt at a strawman to be sure...

Re:Slashdot and science

[Immerman]

1) seriously? Go check any source actually monitoring the legal and legislative maneuverings of Monsanto, etc.

2) How many genetically distinct wheat plants do you suppose there were at the smallest chokepoint in the history of wheat domestication? How many slight variations in genes are within the population because of the size of that number? Now how do you suppose that compares to the number of genetically distinct plants present in the laboratory choke-point when Monsanto created its latest strain? That lack of variety means there is far less immune system variation in the population, meaning it is far more likely that the disease that cripples one plant will cripple the entire population. Also, how many different cultivars of corn do you suppose there are? Different genetic groups optimized for different environments?. Now, when Monsanto comes along with it's insect repellant super-yielding corn that is far more profitable in all those different environments, how much genetic diversity has just been lost in the global corn industry? Of course this isn't a problem new to GMOs, but they exacerbate it badly.

3) FUD? Absolutely. But well informed FUD. Ask any preeminent ecologist or biologist how well we *really* understand the details of their field of expertise. They'll all freely admit that our understanding is still in it's early stages, and the unanswered questions far outweigh the answers we've found so far, to say nothing of the questions we don't yet know to ask. Ask *anyone* how likely it is that any industry can maintain a perfect track record indefinitely. It would be a world first. And a biotech disaster could make Chernobyl look like a confetti gun.

4) Oh certainly it has, which is exactly why it' so scary. We see the impossibility of stopping invasive species all the time - if we accidentally create something particularly dangerous we won't be able to recapture it. I'll freely admit this is the frankenstein's monster fear, but it is has a solid base. There was that plant (corn?) recently that manufactured it's own insecticide. Apparently harmless to humans in the limited testing done, but once it entered production it was discovered that a certain small percentage of the population had an allergy to it. Suppose the effect had been more subtle - as happened with lead. Children raised eating it develop lower intelligence, increased aggressiveness, and less impulse control as adults. So, 20-30 years later we realize that this global surge in violent crime is due to the corn and immediately discontinue using it, replacing it with a new, safer strain. Except that the "bad corn" is in the wild as well, and it keeps pollinating the "good corn", resulting in possibly contaminated grain, and certainly the inability to replant using last years seed. Bad enough for the wealthy world, but what of those in the most impoverished areas, who cannot afford to buy fresh seed every year?

Re:Slashdot and science

[Jmc23]

If you look carefully, there's very little understanding of science on either side of the debate. It seems to be only the fanatics and believers are left proselytizing for their side. Nothing with a lower snr, and detrimental to critical thinking, than the cacaphony of religious nutters and science fanbois going at it.

Re:Slashdot and science

[Jmc23]

Nobody wants to go back to the days of portman and grits.

n.b. this is my 4th account.

Re:Slashdot and science

[geekoid]

our an alarmaist ignorant ass.
All you have said is are lies or fud, not science, not facts.
YOU or part of the anti-science can't think critically brigade that's dragging the world down.

". There was that plant (corn?) recently that manufactured it's own insecticide. Apparently harmless to humans in the limited testing done, but once it entered production it was discovered that a certain small percentage of the population had an allergy to it. Suppose the effect had been more subtle - as happened with lead. "
so it was tested, well there you go. Also, a larger percentage is allergic to corn itself. If peanuts didn't exist, and Monsanto invented them, you would be scream they are bad becasue some people are allergic.

Re:Slashdot and science

[geekoid]

well, about 5k sooner, but close enough.

Re:Slashdot and science

[Intrepid imaginaut]

religious influence on science will continue to wane

O RLY?

Re:Slashdot and science

[Belial6]

Speaking of anti-science sentiment growing in the US. It was sad to see this in the 'Science and Education' section of Toys 'R' Us the other day: http://www.toysrus.com/product...

If it's 10:36 here what time is it

[Anonymous Coward]

in the philipines, but not a DST/STD time but a time that it will be come August 31st of this year?

Precautionary principle

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think we should try anything new because something bad may happen. /sarc

Bite each other

[flyingfsck]

We need to engineer mosquitos that are allergic to humans and which will rather bite each other. That would be a great way to get revenge for thousands of years of human itching and scratching.

Re:Bite each other

[Anonymous Coward]

This is how the zombie apocalypse will start.

The only good mosquitoes

[rossdee]

were made of wood, and had two Merlin engines

Re:The only good mosquitoes

[Anonymous Coward]

they have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops!

Update of the Sterile Insect Technique

[Guppy]

A brief primer -- this is a modern twist on the Sterile Insect Technique that has been used since the 1950's to control the Screw-worm fly, and other insect pests.

While the screw-worm's life-cycle was almost tailor-made to work with this technique (females only mate once in a lifetime; large numbers of insects can easily bred in the laboratory; sterilizing doses of radiation do not significantly cripple the males' ability to compete for mates; the males can self-distribute over a wide range), this technique proved to be harder to apply to mosquitoes (else we would have been doing it in the 1950's) -- while a few mosquito species could be controlled with this technique, irradiated Anopheles males suffered from too large a fitness drop to be effective.

Genetic engineering allows us to side-step male fitness problems that occur with radiation sterilization of mosquitoes, and improves the reliability of sterilizing large batches of reliably and efficiently.

Re:Update of the Sterile Insect Technique

[Muad'Dave]

This was trialled in the Cayman Islands back in 2009 or so, except their skeeters needed tetracycline.

Re:Update of the Sterile Insect Technique

[swillden]

Genetic engineering allows us to side-step male fitness problems that occur with radiation sterilization of mosquitoes

Not to mention the obvious and inevitable creation of a sub-species of mutant super-mosquitoes with human-surpassing intelligence and a wide variety of super powers via the well-known Stan Lee Effect. Luckily, even if we do create such a sub-species they'll have a motivation to keep us around as food animals, but it'd be better to avoid the risk.

Re:Update of the Sterile Insect Technique

[HiThere]

Surely BatMan would save us from that problem.

They made a movie about that story 17 years ago

[Doub]

Hopefully it doesn't end that bad: Mimic.

finally annoying pop-up ADs on /. phewww

[Anonymous Coward]

click away with captcha banners in play, more tornadoes again today http://www.youtube.com/results... hola

Re:3rd world drug funded shit hole makes GM mosqui

[Anonymous Coward]

You represent the epitome of modern environmentalism. "I've got mine, Fuck you!". You leftist greens thought that attitude was limited only to Libertarians?

If this were in your neighborhood, you'd be have the government blanketing your neighborhood with DDT because you are a special snowflake that should get the all the safety and convenience of modern civilization. Those brown people who live below the equator however, let them die in their mud huts because them having the same privileges you do is not sustainable for the planet!

Life

[Anonymous Coward]

...will find a way.

Re:Life

[Twinbee]

Apart from the ones that go extinct.

This is a terrible idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget, Brazil gave the world the Africanized Honey Bee - dubbed "killer bees" by the media. I for one worry that this GMO mosquito will have unplanned for consequences, just like the AHB, which was created to increase honey production but instead they transferred the "holy crap I have to defend the hive" genes. By the way, as a beekeeper, I can attest - not only does the AHB not make more honey (usually it's less) than the more tame European Honey Bee, but damn are they aggressive!

Headline in 10 years:

[Anonymous Coward]

Mutated Brazilians with tentacles no longer welcome in EU zone.

GM politicians

[Anonymous Coward]

So they won't take money from GM and companies ??

How about a mosquito that has dengue fever proteins in the saliva? Get bit, get immune.

It's been used already...

[your_neighbor]

in NE Brazil.
The bloodsucking role is with the female mosquitos. But to reproduce, they need a male... at this point, they supply a gene defective adult male mosquito, in great numbers. If you stop with the supply, the population will restore. But while you are supplying, the population drops a lot.

I prefer this method than the smoke one, which is smelly, uneffective and fuck our swimming pool.

Re: give me an actual reason

[TaoPhoenix]

Reversing the "what could possibly go wrong" sentiment, this particular article is noticeably short of the backing science paper for the detail hounds to pore over. The meager analysis presented is too simple - "so if this species dies, another one will just step up the food chain", like maybe that Asian Tiger Mosquito. So then just rinse and repeat a second time. "Kill all the mosquitoes and we win."

Unlike things like the Africanized Killer Bee, which as I understand it was greed gone wrong, there's a life and death upside to winning this attempt, so I'm being careful with my words. So straight up, what *could* possibly go wrong? My best guess is something like knocking a hole in the ecology chain and getting unlucky that we did three rounds, celebrated a couple years of victory, and then discovering that mosquito eating bats are in trouble and then damaging the balance of ecology with whatever eats those or something.

But the snark question is also a fast shorthand for containability risk. Unlike a problem say with a temporary dominance of destructive wolves, making a mistake with insects could be really hard to fix.

I, for one

[Anonymous Coward]

welcome our genetically modified...

nevermind

Re: give me an actual reason

[SuricouRaven]

A better parallel would be how the widespread use of insecticides in the US opened up ecological niches to the infamous fire ant, paving the way for the very rapid spread of the species.

Re: give me an actual reason

[Wycliffe]

then discovering that mosquito eating bats are in trouble and then damaging the balance of ecology with whatever eats those or something.

Yes, there is definitely the butterfly effect that we kindof have to worry about but we've unintentionally (or intentionally) wrecked alot more
havoc on the environment with invasive species, etc... This at least has the potential to save a lot of lives. Personally I wouldn't
really mind if the mosquito went the way of the dodo. I'll take my chances. We obviously know how to breed them in captivity so
if something really bad did happen and we caught it in time then it's possible we could reintroduce them if necessary but other than
just saying "something really bad might happen" I have never heard even a halfway plausible story of how this can actually happen.
There are a few invasive species that have had unintended consequences but they are all pretty managable.

Zombie apocalypse

[Anonymous Coward]

Do the Mosquitos reanimate after a certain amount of time? And so begins the zombie apocalypse. Each animal or human bitten by the zombie Mosquitos then becomes a zombie. Queue the Walking Dead theme music...

Crazy

[DarthVain]

Call me crazy, but logically, wouldn't it make more sense to GM the humans resistance to dengue, than to mess with GM insects and the base of ecology?

However one is clearly blasphemous and wrong, and the other is a fantastic idea. Clearly this makes sense. Anyway in terms of world impact, and direct intervention, it would make sense.

Anyway I always approach the topic with caution, as best intentions and unintended consequences etc...

Re:Crazy

[geekoid]

Since the gene can't be past one, becasue the off spring is dead, it wold make sense t GM people.
I'm not opposed to GMing people* but you can't do it to everyone who is alive.

*I GMed my family through an adventure this weekend! bada-bup

What could possible go wrong....

[Amtrak]

Oh crap!

Killer bees a gift to Americas from Brasil

[Anonymous Coward]

Due to the incompetence of Brazilian scientists in the 1950s killer bees from Africa were releases in the wild. They gradually spread North and can be found in abundance in North America.

When there are complex ecosystems which no one truly comprehends introducing a GM plant or animals can have serious unintended consequences. On paper the Geeks that came up with the Mosquito think everything is fine and dandy but do we really understand? GM crops are safe was the message sent out by the industry and now there are cases which aren't what the Monsanto and other companies expected.

Finally there was a time were DDT and other chemicals were lauded as the savior of humanity. And yes very smart scientists of that period confidently assured all these chemicals were safe.

Frankenskeeter

[Toad-san]

Remember, you read that word here first!

Re:Frankenskeeter

[geekoid]

Mosqenstein

Sure are a lot of "nerds" in here

[Anonymous Coward]

who don't know a god damned thing about genetics.

Re:3rd world drug funded shit hole makes GM mosqui

[Anonymous Coward]

You represent the epitome of modern environmentalism. "I've got mine, Fuck you!". You leftist greens thought that attitude was limited only to Libertarians?

or its a world away, already a go, out of my control and i can just take comfort in the fact that i live far away and likely wont see any mosquitoes hearty enough to make it up here

If this were in your neighborhood, you'd be have the government blanketing your neighborhood with DDT because you are a special snowflake that should get the all the safety and convenience of modern civilization.

actually i feel people should harden the fuck up and stop expecting governments to shelter them from life, and i think releasing genetically modified animals into the wild especially under the questionable supervision of one of the most corrupt nations on earth is a bad idea.

A better and less expensive idea...

[kwbauer]

We could just remember that DDT was only banned because of some whopping big lies that were told and start using it again.

We actually solved this problem decades ago and abandoned the solution. One way to get over the hurdle caused by the big lie is to have all those who still believe the big lie actually live for a decade in the dengue fever and malaria infested areas along with any children they may have and in the same housing as the native populations. They may then figure what is actually important and be less willing to sacrifice a few lives to hinder the chemical industry.

Re: give me an actual reason

[HiThere]

It (or things quite similar) has been tested before on small islands with no problems. This isn't proof, but real proof is unlikely to be possible for that kind of question. On small islands it has successfully wiped mosquitoes totally out. This isn't expected to happen in a large country like Brazil, which has land connections to even larger areas. But nothing besides the mosquitoes was damaged on the islands (as far as was noticed).

You can never be really sure, but this strikes me more like the way the US eliminated screwflies than like anything else. I'd be surprised if there were any problems.

As for the "killer bees", IIUC they are becoming less viscious over time, as they inbreed with the local populations. Which causes me to wonder, "Do they suffer from the colony collapse disease?", if not, they may be a net benefit after being a short term disaster.

We're on it.

[Anonymous Coward]

World cup and the next Olimpic games.

Be ready for it. For Dengue, you either vaccin for *ALL VARIANTS* at the same time (and there is no such a thing yet or Brazil would find no shortage of volunteers to test it), or you get the hemorragic version, which pretty much kills you unless you're sent stat to an hospital and kept on extra fluids and blood coagulants 24/7.

This is one of those diseases you do not want to get twice in your lifetime. Not only it is one *hellish* of a disease to suffer through, the chances of getting the hemorragic version go up really quickly every time you get infected.

Why use GM?

[manu0601]

Why use GM? The goal is to produce sterile males, can't we just irradiate them?

Re: give me an actual reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Potential problems with ecosystem at one hand and certainty of 22000 human deaths per year on other hand. Well that's no choice at all is it?

I see no problem with this...

[rezme]

as long as the mosquitoes don't find another source for lysine o.O