Slashdot Mirror
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.
Dibbs on opening the cage! I'll get to work practicing my mad scientist laugh! "Muahahahahaha! YES! GO FORTH AND FEED, MY CHILDREN!"
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
With the mosquitos gone, the WASPs will move in, causing gentrification in the area as the higher prices sting a lot worse.
"scientists at the British biofirm Oxitec have found a way to breed male Aedes aegypti with genetic fragments from E. coli bacteria and herpex simplex virus, along with coral and cabbage." I mean besides gigantic Mosquitos that can reproduce on common food source surfaces with a retro virus capable of infecting and rewriting your DNA with tentacles around a central mouth probuscus having a giant cabbage for a head. Not that females would notice because that's pretty much how males are normally.
There are over 80 different species of mosquitos in Florida. This method only targets one of those species. There will still be plenty of mosquitos.
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!
You know what I hate?
Someone does something using physics, and that's great.
Someone does something using chemistry, and that's great.
Someone does something using biology, and everyone rushes to make the overused comment you just made and act as if they have, just by sitting on their couch and speculating, discovered the terrible flaw with the idea that those arrogant scientists who spent years in their field never thought of.
Something is wrong here.
Will this genetic variation die out in a localized manner, or will it spread globally and wipe out every mosquito?
Yes, it will die out, it's guaranteed. The technique works by releasing a large number of sterile males which overwhelm the breeding population for one cycle, resulting in a massively smaller next generation. Those males die and by definition they have no offspring. Plus it's already been used internationally without such issues - TFA even mentions this:
In experiments conducted by Oxitec in Brazil and the Cayman Islands, millions of modified mosquitoes were released over a period of several months, and they ended up decimating over 95 percent of the targeted insect population. Both countries were so impressed by this result that they’re now hoping for larger-scale operations.
.: Semper Absurda
In experiments conducted by Oxitec in Brazil and the Cayman Islands, millions of modified mosquitoes were released over a period of several months, and they ended up decimating over 95 percent of the targeted insect population. Both countries were so impressed by this result that they’re now hoping for larger-scale operations.
.: Semper Absurda
I predict that everything will go exactly according to plan. There will be no unforeseen consequences. Nope. No way Jose.
Time to calm down.
This has been done for years, using irradiated males to breed with females which then lay sterile eggs.
So far, no monster mosquitoes.
It should be obvious to you that this plan will result in a self eradicating strain.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
What is the down side of a mosquito-less world?
Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky! Rivers and seas boiling!
Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes!
The dead rising from the grave!
Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria!
How so? Food source... pollinator... is there an unknown benefit of having a blood-borne disease vector?
There are many different species of mosquitoes. Only some of them are disease vectors. The Anopheles mosquito, which carries malaria, used to be common in Southern Europe and parts of America. When they were exterminated, they were displaced by less harmful species, with no known detrimental effect (other than allowing human populations to grow).
So far, no monster mosquitoes.
Next made for SyFy movie: Sharkitoes
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
There is a risk that the genetically modified mosquitoes will be eaten by deformed frogs, which will mate with other frogs and produce frogs that sing and ride bicycles.
Firstly, the mosquito in question, Aedes aegypti is not native to the Americas. If we destroy them utterly, bats and whatever will go back to eating other mosquitoes.
Secondly, the release of genetically altered mosquitoes has been done before in the Cayman Islands, which reduced the mosquito population by 80%.
Thirdly, this type of modification (where the insects mate but the offspring don't develop) has been done in America before with the screw worm, which infected mostly livestock (and some humans). The screw worm has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, good riddance.
And finally, the headline "FDA Wants To Release Millions of Genetically Modified Mosquitoes In Florida" is one-sided and inflammatory. It does not mention "FDA wants to control several types of tropical fevers" or "FDA wants to eliminate a non-native pest that transmits disease".
Let's get everyone all worked up about the uncertainties of genetic engineering by completely ignoring the contextual reasons for doing so.
Because, you know, genetic engineering is bad in any form, even if it saves lives and brings the ecology closer to its original state.
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.
The problem is that they are genetically modified, and the hippies refer to them as "GMO Mosquitos," and thus they are unnatural abominations. They think that the mosquitos will bite people and infect them with their GMO DNA, as if they were vampires that turn humans into giant GMO mosquitos. When informed that they are releasing males, and males don't bite, they either deny that males don't bite, or insist that the few females will still make it through will bite and infect people with their GMO DNA that will cause cancer, gluten intolerance (seriously, I heard that one today), kidney disease, heart disease, hyperthyroidism, IBS, ALS, MS, Parkinson's, birth defects, and a few others that I don't remember. And no, I am not making that shit up and I am not exaggerating, anti-GMOers' grasp on reality is approximately equal to Scientologists.
Extinction is wrong! The hippies worked really hard to bring measles back from the brink of extinction, they're not going to stand idly by while the evil scientists with their GMO abominations try to send dengue and chikungunya off the annals of history! It's a slippery slope, next thing you know they'll want to use this technology will be used to get rid of those cute little malaria protozoans!
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.
Neither do infertile mosquitoes; your point?
Really, you think there's no products of modern chemistry in your backyard?
And there have been risk assessments done, by regulators, taking into account the scientific data. Risk assessments are not something for Joe Bloe and his GED who reads NaturalNews and thinks that "GMO mosquitoes" means that they're going to bite his children and spread a zombie plague.
Contrary to popular belief, changing the bottom of a food chain rarely has major consequences; it's the changing of the top of a food chain that tends to have the biggest consequences. The higher up the food chain you go, not only do you have more of a profound impact on the landscape (look at how radically, say, deer overpopulation transforms a whole ecosystem), but also the more species tend to be generalists rather than specialists. Generalists means the ability to switch more readily between food sources, meaning changes further down have little impact on them. But if you eliminate a top predator from an area, the consequences further down can be profound.
I would have you sign my banana, but it's on the roof.
That's because most physics and chemistry experiments don't breed and multiply.
Neither do infertile mosquitoes; your point?
That's assuming everything goes to plan. Also, these mosquitoes aren't infertile, they produce offspring that are supposed to die before reaching breeding age. What happens if a small percentage don't?
Was that at Arrogant Douchebag U? Must not have had remedial biology as an elective.
Like how New Zealand has "re-stabilized" with a quarter of its birds extinct after the introduction of rats.
Neither do infertile mosquitoes; your point?
My point was all about what happens when the mosquitos are not as infertile as planned. Or when another unforeseen event takes place. Obviously, if all the promises by these scientists are true, we have no problem. Unfortunately, promises made through the media (and advertising) are often not as simple as it seems.
Really, you think there's no products of modern chemistry in your backyard?
If chemical companies are going to dump something into my backyard, I will scream and shout just as loud, if not much louder. The OP said that people only complain about biology, not physics and chemistry. Obviously, once "chemistry" becomes something huge, (e.g. "fracking in your own backyard"), this little claim stops being true. If chemistry comes to your backyard, people WILL complain (and rightly so, even when the experts say that all is well).
And there have been risk assessments done, by regulators, taking into account the scientific data. Risk assessments are not something for Joe Bloe and his GED who reads NaturalNews and thinks that "GMO mosquitoes" means that they're going to bite his children and spread a zombie plague.
You seem to claim that people should just trust experts. I claim that experts should attempt to inform the public better, thereby earning their trust...
Contrary to popular belief, changing the bottom of a food chain rarely has major consequences; it's the changing of the top of a food chain that tends to have the biggest consequences. The higher up the food chain you go, not only do you have more of a profound impact on the landscape (look at how radically, say, deer overpopulation transforms a whole ecosystem), but also the more species tend to be generalists rather than specialists. Generalists means the ability to switch more readily between food sources, meaning changes further down have little impact on them. But if you eliminate a top predator from an area, the consequences further down can be profound.
So, rabbits that got released in Australia are the top predator? The Pampas grass in California is the top predator? I can make a long list of invasive species that are not the top predator and still influenced their ecosystem a lot. Grass, as far as I know, is pretty much the bottom of the food chain.
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.
.: Semper Absurda
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
We're talking about mosquitoes. I'll accept the risk.
Hello my honey, hello my baby...hello my ragtime gal...
If you perturb them, it just re-stabilizes at a new equilibrium point.
Right. But that may takes hundreds of thousands or millions of years and a mass extinction. That new equilibrium point may not be something we want, and it may be completely devoid of humans. A desert is in equilibrium. So is Antarctica. So yes, the environment and the Earth will trudge along and find a stable point, but that doesn't give us free reign to introduce invasive species.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.