FDA Wants To Release Millions of Genetically Modified Mosquitoes In Florida

MikeChino writes In an attempt to curb outbreaks of two devastating tropical diseases in the Florida Keys, the FDA is proposing the release of millions of genetically modified mosquitoes into the area. Scientists have bred male mosquitoes with virus gene fragments, so when they mate with the females that bite and spread illness, their offspring will die. This can reduce the mosquito population dramatically, halting the spread of diseases like dengue fever.

Comments

So....

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the down side of a mosquito-less world?

Re:So....

[reve_etrange]

anti-GMOers' grasp on reality is approximately equal to Scientologists.

The difference is that at a certain level of their 'church' hierarchy, the Scientologists know exactly what is going on - and who they're taking from.

Re:So....

[m.shenhav]

Nearly all surviving balances in nature are stable equilibria. They're not fragile at all. If you perturb them, it just re-stabilizes at a new equilibrium point. e.g. If you tilt the bowl in the wiki picture, the ball doesn't fall off the top of the bowl like in the first picture or roll away like in the third picture.. It just settles in at a different spot on the bottom of the bowl in the second picture, now-tilted slightly.

Bullshit.

That's a myth dreamt up by people more concerned with mathematics and engineering to pay attention to how organic systems actually function.

Let us put aside for the moment that this reasoning applies to highly simplified models of ecosystems, and not ecosystems themselves. This adds a whole epistemic layer to the problem: we don't really know shit about what would actually happen given a perturbation; we barely know this for many models and for actual ecosystems you can forget about it.

But then - even model ecosystems are seldom if ever in equilibrium, and the classical stability-based equilibrium analysis may have been cutting edge in 1974 when Robert May published his seminal book, but plenty of problems with this approach have been found since then. There are a plethora of other concepts that have been developed in order to tackle its short comings, for example resilience (how quickly the system returns to equilibrium). All these concepts should always be taken with a pinch of salt; its not obvious they are relevant or even desirable goals in ecosystem management.

To speak of one particularly relevant metric to this particular issue, there are huge parameter ranges in many models in which oscillatory behavior is present. In his 2012 book, Kevin McCann argues we should focus more on whether the eigenvalues are complex (i.e. prone to decaying or sustained oscillations) than on whether their real parts are negative (the classical stability criterion). If dynamics are oscillatory and I perturb a population down, it will overshoot its original value (possibly perturbing other populations) and will also return back down (making the population spend more time in low numbers and increasing extinction risk).

Another critical concept is that of fragility proper; as opposed to the dynamical concepts, fragility is a measure of functional response to the perturbation as opposed to the dynamics of the perturbation. Just because there is a stable equilibrium for some variable doesn't mean perturbing will have no cost in terms of other critical variables. For this see Nassim Taleb's 2012 book Antifragile.

Importantly I would point out the complete disconnect between your statements and empirical observations of ecosystems. We have many studies suggesting that empirically measured ecosystems may be extremely fragile to particular types of perturbations; for example see Solé & Montoya 2001 which identify keystone species by food web degree (number of tropic neighbors) and demonstrate fragility of total biodiversity to extinction of such keystone species. Another example is Montoya et al 2009 where a different identification of the weak spot based on inverse Jacobian / indirect interaction analysis is found. There is also work by Jane Memmott and her colleagues in identifying fragility not only particular species extinctions but also particular habitat loss. One doesn't need sophisticated analysis, however, to see ecosystems collapsing at a rapid rate not only at present but in many historical situations; indeed ecological fragility is quite possible one of the drivers of mass extinctions (present and past).

Finally, I would add that I would be the first to point out the short comings of all of these methods. The burden of proof, however, is on those engaging on sys

Re:Comming back to bite you in the ass sometime so

[Moridineas]

More legitimate concerns like damaging the ecosystem due to an over projected population decline resulting in less food for insects, etc

I've read other articles that discuss a similar modification that causes mosquito offspring to be almost entirely male. This has two huge advantages. First, male mosquitos don't bite. Second, after several generations, there is a greatly reduced female population which causes the overall population of mosquitos to crash.

Mosquitos aren't a keystone species in any ecosystem where they live. They aren't the only (or even primary) insect that pollinates a certain plant (e.g., honeybees and almonds). They aren't the only food source for other species. They're just kind of...there...and a huge nuisance for people! If they disappear, other insects will easily whatever small void they leave--at least that's the theory!

I say eradicate the damn things! And get rid of ticks next!

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[captainpanic]

That's because most physics and chemistry experiments don't breed and multiply.

This has the potential to affect people directly. They are not talking about an experiment somewhere in a lab. They are talking about something that happens literally in their own backyard. People are responsible for their own well-being, and they should understand the risks that affect their lives. They are right to do a risk assessment. They see a potentially large effect, and do not yet understand the chance of it going wrong, so they logically assume the worst and therefore scream and shout. It's up to those arrogant scientists to better explain the experiment that is about to take place in people's backyards.

Also, biology experiments have gone wrong before. Changing the balance in an ecosystem can have huge consequences.

Re:Food Chain? Environment?

[Harlequin80]

Lets see Myxomatosis - 99.8% of the rabbit population destroyed in 2 years

Over time the numbers of rabbits resistant to the virus increased and in 1995 the rabbit haemorraghic disease virus RHDV was released to again cull the numbers. Even in 1995 when RHDV was release the rabbit population was no where near the 1950s population which was destroying pastoral Australia.

Cane toads on the other hand - now that was a fuckup.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[squiggleslash]

Then nothing is different.

Female mosquitoes aren't going to breed more because of this. Part of what makes mosquitoes so unpleasant is that their breeding mechanism is awkward and requires, for example, blood - our blood - to work. Finding a partner to breed with is the last of their worries.

As a result, what this boils down to is:

Status quo: virtually all females will breed with a regular mosquito, lifestyle unchanged.

Changed to: sizable numbers of females will breed with a GMO mosquito instead of a regular mosquito.

If plan works, enough females will go with the GMO, and breed shorter lifespan mosquitoes of their own, resulting in a (probably temporary, alas) reduction in the mosquito population. If the plan fails, either because the altered genes fail to do their job, or because females avoid the GMO mosquitoes somehow, NOTHING IS DIFFERENT.

What's the issue here? What can actually go wrong that's worse than the status quo? What scenario are you seeing that could happen as a result of this particular project? It's not like this is something out of a Michael Crichton novel. "We think we can reduce the mosquito population by releasing this RADIOACTIVE MOSQUITOS into the population! Their UNTESTED RANDOM GENETIC DIFFERENCES will render the entire population dead within the week! Also let's breed the mosquitos with FROGS just beforehand! Nothing could possibly go wrong!"

We know the generic differences. We know what we're releasing are otherwise regular mosquitos. This is not that terrible novel.

As someone who has good medical reasons to fear mosquito bites more than most, I sincerely hope this works. And I applaud them for trying.