Slashdot Mirror
West African Village Weighs Using Genetically Modified Mosquitoes In Malaria Fight (scientificamerican.com)
New submitter omaha393 writes: A public engagement campaign is underway in the hopes of convincing Burkina Faso residents to allow the release of genetically modified mosquitoes to combat deadly mosquito-borne pathogens. GM mosquitoes rely on a technology called "gene drives." Different gene drives offer different solutions, typically leading to subsequent broods being sterile, predominantly male, resistant to infection or nonviable due to toxic traits. Researchers in this case are only in the preliminary stages of releasing sterile males but hope to begin wider releases of GM mosquitoes in about 6 years.
Burkina Faso is not the only country to pursue GM mosquitoes in efforts to prevent disease. Brazil has become a testing ground for wide release, and last fall voters in Florida Keys approved measures to begin releasing GM mosquitoes to fight the spread of Zika. Both the WHO and the U.S. FDA have approved the technique, but skeptics are critical of the method.
Burkina Faso is not the only country to pursue GM mosquitoes in efforts to prevent disease. Brazil has become a testing ground for wide release, and last fall voters in Florida Keys approved measures to begin releasing GM mosquitoes to fight the spread of Zika. Both the WHO and the U.S. FDA have approved the technique, but skeptics are critical of the method.
I've read the title 5 times. Not sure what it means.
Because exposing nature to engineered organisms is safer than DDT.
On one hand yay potentially end suffering on the other increase population potentially increasing suffering via other factors and potentially screwing up the ecosystem.
Still waiting for these beauties to start being mass produced, looks like they're making progress.
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
For anyone who has *not* been following crispr/gene drives over the last couple years, RL has a really good overview(podcast) of it.
http://www.radiolab.org/story/...
I'm not into genetics at all, but this is a REALLY interesting story.
Who is going to import a GMO crop for any real currency?
The product that has value needs a nice GMO free logo and can meet other standards to get importers interested.
Once a brand finds organic certified, GMO free, local farmers can work out some nice export deals or just ensure access to different export markets.
As a framer or as a local coop, GMO free has some global export value.
Without been GMO free a product only has national value or limited export to some nations who may not pay much as a food product.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
The history of introducing a non-native predator species to control the population of a pest has been full of unpleasant surprises. Now this is different, but what if birds don't like to feed on the GMO mosquitoes, or fish don't like their larvae? The scientists will sit back in their air-conditioned offices and say, well I guess we were wrong about that but at least we advanced science by performing this experiment.
But then later there's running and screaming.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You'd think they would use a standard unit of measurement, like the kilogram, rather than genetically modified mosquitos.
like...get this...super-mosquitoes and Kristen Stewart.
"Burkina Faso is not the only country to pursue GM mosquitoes in efforts to prevent disease. Brazil has become a testing ground for wide release...
Somebody with a perverse sense of humour might note that killer bees originated in (cough) Brazil.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Besides a feminist wet dream come true, it makes no sense, since it's just less competition for the existing non-sterile males.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Extinct ALL mosquitoes, ticks, lice, scabies, crabs, bed bugs, and cockroaches.
Mosquitoes and Mosquito larvae are critical food sources for numerous creatures. No mosquitoes == no larvae == starving little fish, starving bats, starving birds, starving spiders, etc.. etc.. etc...
Killing off mosquitoes is the worst possible option. Find vaccines and cures for the diseases/viruses/bacteria/etc.. mosquitoes carry, or find a way to simply kill those diseases/viruses/bacteria/etc.. in the mosquito.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
What's really needed is an additional modification that would make the following generation fail to hatch. Yes, I realize the males are "sterile" but I also realize that a mutation could occur in their lab and then they would be releasing one that isn't sterile but would have many more males. I do not know the ecological fallout of such a possibility and I'm willing to be they don't know either. Nature is unforgiving and we already have a lot to make up for.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Once upon a time there used to be an inexpensive effective way to control mosquitoes, Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane. As long as it was sprayed in limited areas where there are concentrations of mosquitoes, it was pretty safe. I'm not advocating using it from crop dusting aircraft to cover huge areas. Rachel Carlson is personally responsible for the pain, suffering and death of huge numbers of people through the ban.
I know this will probably bring up a few replies about bird egg shell thinning, but I'm writing about allowing LIMITED use of DDT in areas of mosquito populations to prevent the death of 400,000 people (per webmd.com) per year.
According to the headline: "West African Village Weighs Using Genetically Modified Mosquitoes..."
According to Wikipedia: "In 2014 its population was estimated at just over 17.3 million." That's a mighty big village! Actually Burkina Faso is a country. Very few villages could afford such a program and it would be pointless when it was surrounded by other villages who prefer regular mosquitos. Don't know why the headlines here so often mislead the readers and continue to add caps to every word- just like in good old 1856 when headlines sold papers.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Honestly I'm cautiously optimistic about GM stuff in general, though I think gene patents should be abolished to weaken the more reckless influences of the profit motive. If you can engineer important nutrient production into a staple crop, or selectively graft in specific traits from wild relatives to make your crops able to survive an extra three weeks of flooding, or months without water like a resurrection plant, it seems like it might be irresponsible *not* to do so. Just make sure it's subjected to thorough independent testing against unintended consequences.
Gene Drives though are in a whole different terrifying league. That's no longer just a modified organism, that's an organism with advanced bacterial DNA-editing tools grafted into it. We've only just recently stolen powerful cutting-edge gene editing tools from bacteria, the potential implications of which we're only beginning to imagine, and are now talking about installing them into complex organisms where they will tend to spread throughout the entire species - a decision that can never be undone short of extinction. All other changes could be potentially reverted, but only by releasing another Gene Drive into the population - it can remove anything except itself.
Now, if we could count on the GD only doing what it was supposed to, that would be scary enough. The lines between species are much fuzzier than we imagine, and the potential for strange interactions is vast. We might accidentally wipe out all mosquitoes and relatives, a wide family of important pollinating insects, rather than just the disease-carrying species we were aiming for. But even worse, the one constant thing in genetics is mutation - and so any gene drive that doesn't lead to the extinction of its host species will eventually mutate, and now we have a misprogrammed gene-editor spreading through the population doing who-knows-what. Or alternately, there's now some extremely powerful gene-editing tools in the organism, the product of billions of generations more evolution than anything else in its genome, and nature does seem to love to find a way to put useful genes to work.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I've seen this sentiment here before regarding DDT, and it's mostly nonsense.
Once upon a time there used to be an inexpensive effective way to control mosquitoes, Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane.
There still is, and it's still used for that purpose. In some places, though, it's not as effective as it used to be because mosquitoes were selected for resistance thanks to indiscriminate spraying.
Rachel Carlson is personally responsible for the pain, suffering and death of huge numbers of people through the ban.
The ban on DDT is a ban against wholesale agricultural spraying. It explicitly includes an exemption for disease vector control, and DDT is still used for public health mosquito control.
I'm writing about allowing LIMITED use of DDT in areas of mosquito populations to prevent the death of 400,000 people (per webmd.com) per year.
Yep, that's exactly how it's used today.
Rachel Carlson is personally responsible for the pain, suffering and death of huge numbers of people through the ban.
Nope. You're just looking for a scapegoat.
Which says a lot about you. In reality, numerous countries, including African ones continued to use DDT with RIS. But you would rather blame an environmentalist who actually served to warn us of real problems with the effects of DDT that were developing due to its misuse.
Not to mention the development of resistance in mosquito populations which was rendering it less effective.
Oh no, you would tell us the person we should be outraged at, who didn't cause any of the actions you allege, is the one warning us.
Not even concern over lack of research into malarial medication, corruption in African countries, lack of education, lack of resources, just misguided venting.
What does that tell us about yourself?
The writer of the parent comment is more knowledgeable than the writers of the many news story I've read.
Important quotes:
Excellent: "Just make sure it's subjected to thorough independent testing against unintended consequences."
Excellent: "We've only just recently stolen powerful cutting-edge gene editing tools from bacteria, the potential implications of which we're only beginning to imagine, and are now talking about installing them into complex organisms where they will tend to spread throughout the entire species - a decision that can never be undone short of extinction."
Excellent: "The lines between species are much fuzzier than we imagine, and the potential for strange interactions is vast."
Excellent: "... the one constant thing in genetics is mutation - and so any gene drive that doesn't lead to the extinction of its host species will eventually mutate, and now we have a mis-programmed gene-editor spreading through the population..."
It is good to investigate well and hire the right hacker when you need one for your social media, accounts, database hacks, you can direct all hack related issues to 9193076946
The change does not prevent the sterile males from seeking out females and mating. It just prevents the eggs being properly fertilized. If you can get your sterile males released in enough of a quantity, the almost all the fertile males will be out-competed by the infertile ones, leading to almost no successful breedings and almost no mosquitoes in the next generation. You have to keep up your production and release of sterile males, but this is very good at short-term control.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
Asian Carp?
Magic Fairy Dust kills all bad bugs.
Magic Fairy Dust kills nothing but bad bugs.
Nothing but Magic Fairy Dust kills bad bugs.
Magic Fairy Dust does not persist in the environment.
Eggshells do not have to support ten pounds of raptor.
Who needs eagles, hawks and falcons anyway? All they do is control the varmint population.
Seriously, turn off Fox Propaganda, go read Silent Spring and only then can you have an informed opinion on what Rachel Carson wrote.
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
Uh, that's a pretty "nuanced" view. You fail to point out that there is only a ONE country producing DDT worldwide: India. And that they've been requested to discontinue production by 2020 regardless of whether the necessary alternative has been discovered. You may be right that DDT is in limited use for controlling malaria, but I have little doubt that use is TOO limited, and way more limited than necessary to prevent bioaccumulation-related population collapse. Indeed, it's so limited we're not managing to actually collapse the population of Plasmodium.
Hardly. Failing to reference "lack of research into malarial medication, corruption in African countries" etc. is only failing to repeat the second-level cause of the problem: the first world doesn't have endemic malaria so we don't give a shit. We were perfectly happy to say "oops, we've discovered dumping tons of this shit on agricultural land is a bad idea, so we'll just cease production entirely regardless of whether that might also curtail its life-saving uses."
Have you read "Silent Spring"? I wouldn't say it's nearly as even-handed or neutral as you seem to think. Yes, I personally agree that she's not individually at fault, but I also don't doubt that it would have been possible to present the basic idea without making legislators and regulators panic to the detriment of Africans.
Asking for permission just seems like say, "this may work, but it may not and you're all going to die. Sign here please."
I am willing to take the risk of BREAKING THE ECOSYSTEM to get rid of all human-biting mosquitoes. They are responsible for propagating malaria, dengue, West Nile virus, chikungunya, yellow fever, filariasis, encephalitis, and Zika. They probably have killed more humans than anything else, even cancer and war.
- I live the greatest adventure anyone could possibly desire. - Tosk the Hunted
Both the WHO and the U.S. FDA have approved the technique, but skeptics are critical of the method.
They wouldn't be very good skeptics otherwise.
Thanks. It's good to know my efforts are appreciated.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
It isn't. Let's say, at the beginning of the season, with populations low at 100 males and 100 females, you release 1000 sterile males. Of the 100 females who try to breed, only 10 of them will do so with a fertile male, leading to a lot less mosquitoes. This can be even more effective if your sterile males, grown in perfect lab conditions, are healthy and strong, but the viable males who grew up in the wild, with limited food and water as well as sub-optimal temperature and humidity, are weak.
If you instead release 1000 female mosquitoes, the 100 fertile female mosquitoes will still find mates and breed normally, as mosquitoes aren't monogamous. Sterile females will have little effect.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp