Should Zambia Allow The Testing of Genetically-Modified Mosquitoes? (nhregister.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Should Zambia Allow The Testing of Genetically-Modified Mosquitoes? (nhregister.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Saturday September 30, 2017 @07:59PM from the mobilizing-against-malaria dept.

More than 400,000 lives are lost every year to malaria, reports the New York Post. But Thursday Science published two new studies on promisings ways to fight malaria -- with genetic engineering. The first study focused on whether mosquitoes that have been genetically modified to be more resistant to the malaria-causing parasite would become weaker and less able to mate and breed... The study, led by mosquito vector biologist George Dimopoulos, found that one type of genetically modified mosquito not only bred well, but became more attractive to normal mosquitoes... Within one generation, the mosquito population was becoming 90 percent genetically modified... The results suggest the genetically modified mosquitoes would not just thrive but could possibly drive their genetic immunity to the malaria parasite into mosquito populations to which they are introduced.

The second study published Thursday uses genetic modification of bacteria found inside mosquitoes to fight malaria. Researchers genetically modified a type of bacteria, which caused it to secrete a substance inside the mosquitoes' gut that kills off the malaria-causing parasite before it can develop properly... the genetically modified versions of the bacteria automatically spread to offspring in generation after generation, the researchers found. The next step for both approaches -- the genetically modified mosquitoes and bacteria -- is to test if they work outside the lab in conditions simulating nature. Johns Hopkins has built a "mosquito house" research facility in Zambia designed specifically for such experiments... But the researchers must first convince the Zambian government to allow their genetically modified subjects into its borders.

79 of 133 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Pandora's box by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-30 20:04 · Score: 2

This is exactly what the world is worried about and already seeing in some ways from GE crops.
The problem is not opening the box but closing it.
1. Re:Pandora's box by coastwalker · 2017-09-30 20:30 · Score: 1
  
  The biggest issue with GMO is the business model that turns farmers into slaves of the owner of the GMO organism. GMO mosquitoes that do not propagate malaria are a completely different question. Having said that, given that most plants and animals carry the same genes from the genetic past I would be less worried about GMO than the Chicken Little sky is falling brigade.
  Also you have to realize that GMO is the future of technology and commerce now given that Moores law has reached its end. The coming century is going to be 100% about GMO, so you had better start leading at it if you are not to become next centuries failed state.
  The world is now too thick and uneducated to even understand questions about GMO. Let dictators like Trump make your decisions for you idiots.
  
  --
  Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
2. Re:Pandora's box by jellomizer · 2017-09-30 23:35 · Score: 2
  
  The Pandora box of plentiful food, and reduced diseases. What horrors of genetic engineering. No... No.. I am being too optimistic, life needs to follow the path of the diplopia world that Science fiction portraits. Where such technology must and will be used to a point where it has to be dangerous, because how else do you keep the story interesting.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
3. Re:Pandora's box by jellomizer · 2017-09-30 23:39 · Score: 1
  
  This isn't a factor of the GMO or the science, it is a factor of the Laws and Culture.
  Similar things have happened to farmers when ever a new technology for farming gets released. The large mechanical tractor allowed farmers to farm larger areas with less staff. However they will need to pay for a tractor that is a years salary. If they don't they will not be able to be competitive on the prices they sell their product.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
4. Re:Pandora's box by PoopJuggler · 2017-10-02 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  Name one single thing that humans have ever done that has benefited the planet for anything except humans. Time to wake up and realize that we're not as smart as you think. We have absolutely no idea how to calculate the outcomes of these types of things. We can't even solve Klondike Solitaire, and you think we can predict the outcome of releasing hordes of genetically modified organisms into the global ecosystem which is populated by at least 5 million individual species?
5. Re:Pandora's box by RockDoctor · 2017-10-02 22:16 · Score: 1
  
  Similar things have happened to farmers when ever a new technology for farming gets released. The large mechanical tractor allowed farmers to farm larger areas with less staff.
  I don't know which country you're in, but in this country the widespread adoption of tractors and mechanised farming was nothing to do with the choices of farmers and everything to do with conscription of much of the agricultural workforce into the armed forces and the sinking of food convoys by U-boats. If the government hadn't forced farmers to change practices (non-compliance could have been charged as treason - a capital crime), to increase areas under the plough, and increase production, the country would have starved. In town, vegetable gardens and individual "allotments" of food growing ground was also instituted - my sister still runs one.
  Of course, after the war, the farmers kept the tractors (food rationing didn't end until 1953 - 8 years after the apparent end of the war) which they'd been given at the start of the war, and that did change a market that had already been changed.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
6. Re:Pandora's box by RockDoctor · 2017-10-02 22:22 · Score: 1
  
  Gosh darn, I guess those Mexican farmers who genetically modified the corn plant with a gene-doubling event or three shouldn't have been mucking around trying to make more food to eat. In the several thousand years since, what horrors could they have wrought?
  Next time you have sex, you're potentially indulging in production of a genetically modified organism. It's what all your ancestors have done. Of course, you could plan it out rationally in a test tube, or you could just try random selection and kill off any defective offspring - the natural way.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Screw Betteridge by thegarbz · 2017-09-30 20:25 · Score: 1

There's nothing in TFS or TFA to suggest they shouldn't or that they won't. Just that they've never decided on something like this before.
Depends by rtb61 · 2017-09-30 20:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

As always it depends very tightly on the genetic modification. In this case mosquitoes resistant to the malaria bugs so it can not longer live them and hence be spread via those mosquitoes, sounds pretty safe. Obviously the mosquitoes are happier as they are thriving and out breeding unprotected people, people might not be as happy because still noisy irritating mosquitoes, healthier ones but at least no malaria. Well, you can't have everything.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
1. Re:Depends by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-30 20:50 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  or we will just breed a more resilient malaria ...
2. Re:Depends by ls671 · 2017-09-30 21:03 · Score: 1
  
  +1, That is a likely possibility.
  
  --
  Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Stop the GMO scare by Opportunist · 2017-09-30 20:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

Folks, we have been playing god for a few millennia by now. Earlier with selective breeding, now more directly. The difference is negligible. And when it comes to the "unnatural" argument... well, look at a Chihuahua and then talk again.
And introducing "foreign" genes doesn't make it any different. These genes are just like everything else built by the four standard amino acids. With a different sequence than most of what you found in the original organism, granted, but in the end, what exactly is that supposed to mean?
What we need to watch out for is how genes interact with each other. But that's something we can identify pretty quickly. Aside of that, what exactly is the big scare?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
1. Re:Stop the GMO scare by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-30 21:10 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Ask New Zealand how introducing mammals worked for them. Or rabbits in Australia. Then dogs.
  These genes are just like everything else built by the four standard amino acids. What we need to watch out for is how genes interact with each other. But that's something we can identify pretty quickly.
  Doubly quickly when enveloped with super-breeding mono-genetic mosquitos not affected by common diseases but tabula rasa for new ones.
  Soon we'll develop an even better and more aggressive breeder to replace the annoying last generation we introduced.
  Yay for humans.
2. Re:Stop the GMO scare by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-30 21:13 · Score: 1
  
  I think a lot of anti-GMO people (myself included) are not against the science of GMOs, but are against the behaviors of the few very large players in this industry (Monsanto, Pioneer, etc.).
3. Re:Stop the GMO scare by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-30 21:54 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I think a lot of anti-GMO people (myself included) are not against the science of GMOs, but are against the behaviors of the few very large players in this industry (Monsanto, Pioneer, etc.).
  The very large players in this industry are about to get larger. Monsanto is about to merge with Bayer which is a large producer of agricultural chemicals. Pioneer is a division of DuPont. Dow and Dupont are in the process of merging. After the merger the plan is to split into three companies one of which will be the seed and agricultural divisions of the previous companies. If these deals go through there will be greater concentration of ownership in this area.
4. Re:Stop the GMO scare by Freischutz · 2017-09-30 21:56 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Folks, we have been playing god for a few millennia by now. Earlier with selective breeding, now more directly. The difference is negligible. And when it comes to the "unnatural" argument... well, look at a Chihuahua and then talk again.
  Every time somebody comes out with that argument I'm reminded of to paraphrase them:
  
  Stop the Nuclear Weapons scare! We have been using firearms for centuries now. Earlier with black powder, now with more powerful explosives. The difference between them and nukes is negligible. And when it comes to the "Nukes are more dangerous and radiation will kill you" argument, look at a firecracker.
  
  There is a massive difference between being able to breed dogs into tiny pampered petting toys through decades of selective breeding and being able to edit the blueprint of life and create brand new lifeforms in a lab. Introducing feral species into any ecosystem has pretty much always turned out to be a huge mistake and I don't expect that introducing feral species created from scratch by humans in a laboratory will be any different. Scientists always confidently claim they can do something like introduce cane toad into the ecosystem of Australia to solve grey-backed cane beetle problem. Anybody who expresses doubt is always met with the familiar: 'don't worry we have this completely under control'. The next thing you know the critters have bred into the billions, spread over a continent, devastated ecosystems and anybody who goes: 'I thought you were in control of this shit?' is met with the assertion,: 'NOBODY could have predicted this.' ... uhhh.... you think so do you? So in conclusion excuse me for arguing in favour of scepticism and caution when somebody wants to release a genetically modified variation of a species that is famous for its prolific breeding and that is the staple diet of large swaths of the African fauna. If there is an unfortunate side effect of the GM you have billions of such mosquito all over Africa, Europe and Asia in no time flat. Collapse the mosquito population and you cause a cascade effect in the local fauna. It's a delicate balance that is easy to screw up.
5. Re:Stop the GMO scare by Opportunist · 2017-10-01 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  You ARE aware that for your analogy to work, weapons need to have any kind of use except killing stuff? Oh, right, we can use them for fun.
  That's basically ALL you can sensibly do with them. There is no "productive" purpose these things have. Recreation and killing stuff is basically all that's there when you ask "what is that good for?"
  Come back when you manage to find an example with more sensible applications.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
6. Re:Stop the GMO scare by Opportunist · 2017-10-01 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  Dunno, but they make tasty food.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
7. Re:Stop the GMO scare by Opportunist · 2017-10-01 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  That's pretty much it. As usual, the problem is not technology per se, it's how it's used.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
8. Re:Stop the GMO scare by blind+biker · 2017-10-01 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  Collapse the mosquito population and you cause a cascade effect in the local fauna.
  No, you don't. Mosquito species are some of the easiest to replace without adverse consequences.
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
9. Re:Stop the GMO scare by swillden · 2017-10-01 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  Stop the Nuclear Weapons scare! We have been using firearms for centuries now. Earlier with black powder, now with more powerful explosives. The difference between them and nukes is negligible. And when it comes to the "Nukes are more dangerous and radiation will kill you" argument, look at a firecracker.
  You've got it backwards.
  Selective breeding, especially with the assistance of radiation and mutagenic chemicals to increase the mutation rate, is more analogous to a nuclear weapon, with it's massive and hard-to-predict effects. Genetic engineering is like a sniper rifle, making just the required change and nothing more.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
10. Re:Stop the GMO scare by Wycliffe · 2017-10-01 05:06 · Score: 2
  
  Introducing feral species into any ecosystem has pretty much always turned out to be a huge mistake and I don't expect that introducing feral species created from scratch by humans in a laboratory will be any different. Scientists always confidently claim they can do something like introduce cane toad into the ecosystem of Australia to solve grey-backed cane beetle problem.
  We've had some amazing success stories (salmons in the great lakes). We've had successful eradication programs (sterile screwworm releases). We have non-native species that are highly desirable (chinese ringneck pheasant). There are plenty of cases where we have had successes but you need to use common sense. Releasing a poisonous cane toad to control a bug problem was never a good idea. At the very least, they should have modified the cane toad to not be poisonous before releasing it. We've had plenty of failures but to say that it always turns out bad is simply not true.
11. Re:Stop the GMO scare by elgatozorbas · 2017-10-01 23:50 · Score: 1
  
  The difference is negligible.
  
  Source?
  Mehinks that selective breeding goes a lot slower, allowing more time to discover "unwanted" side effects.
12. Re:Stop the GMO scare by Opportunist · 2017-10-02 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  Time to discover side effects is pretty much the same for either method. The organisms grow (likely, unless that was modified as well) at the same rate, reproduce at the same rate, so what would you discover faster in breeding vs. GM? What you potentially leave out is intermediate stages, other than that I fail to see the difference.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
13. Re:Stop the GMO scare by RockDoctor · 2017-10-02 22:30 · Score: 1
  
  but are against the behaviors of the few very large players in this industry (Monsanto, Pioneer, etc.).
  Who are not involved in this, because there's no profit to be made from poor, mostly black people - the people that die of malaria.
  Rich white people buy prophylactic drugs and only rarely (unless they're really fucking stupid) get malaria, and that will continue with minor contributions to the advertising budget. Malaria is a nasty enough disease to suffer from (I had a family friend with recurrent malaria for years after coming back from the tropics - it's not a pretty sight) that I've never needed encouragement to take my prophylactics (I saw my "short call" stock of several weeks worth in the fridge 20 minutes ago).
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
14. Re:Stop the GMO scare by RockDoctor · 2017-10-02 22:36 · Score: 1
  
  There is a massive difference between being able to breed dogs into tiny pampered petting toys through decades of selective breeding and being able to edit the blueprint of life and create brand new lifeforms in a lab.
  Which no-one apart from Craig Venter does - and he's careful to keep his synthetic life forms utterly dependent on several nutrients they can't make for themselves (think "vitamins", but they need considerably higher doses).
  
  If there is an unfortunate side effect of the GM you have billions of such mosquito all over Africa, Europe and Asia in no time flat.
  Which is why - if you'd RTFS - you'd know that they're wanting to do test releases into a controlled environment, to check that there aren't unintended side effects.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
15. Re:Stop the GMO scare by RockDoctor · 2017-10-02 22:42 · Score: 1
  
  Genetic engineering is like a sniper rifle, making just the required change and nothing more.
  From your attachment to the gun analogy, I'm going to guess that you're an American. Good side effects in Las Vegas last night. Perhaps a better analogy would be from my background in cobbling - shoe making - bring together materials from several sources, snip out a bit here, tuck a bit there, stitch it together and you've got a jack boot to waterproof the feet of a Confederate Stormtrooper. Or a posing pouch - probably to sell as a matched set, you know what Stormtroopers are like.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
16. Re:Stop the GMO scare by Wycliffe · 2017-10-03 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  Oddly, all the good introduced species you list and all the additional ones I found are online are for hunting and fishing.
  The screwworm isn't for hunting and fishing and is the most relevant for this article. Zambia isn't planning on introducing a new species but rather a modified version of an existing species that can still breed with the existing species.
17. Re:Stop the GMO scare by swillden · 2017-10-03 14:30 · Score: 1
  
  You should really learn how to say what you mean directly, and to support your position, rather than making snide comments by inference -- and with absolutely nothing to substantiate your position. This sort of post is just the big boy pants version of "Nyah nyah you're a dumbhead!".
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:no kill them all by Opportunist · 2017-09-30 20:53 · Score: 1

You first might want to check what species rely on them for food.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:no kill them all by Saithe · 2017-09-30 20:54 · Score: 1

That's not a feasible solution. You'd be killing off a lot more that mosquitos, you'd kill entire eco-systems that feed on them.
Re:Why not? by ls671 · 2017-09-30 20:54 · Score: 1

Anyway, they are mosquitoes! What are the chances that they haven't escaped in the wild yet, like in any sci-fy movie?

--
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Re:no kill them all by ls671 · 2017-09-30 21:01 · Score: 4, Informative

Brilliant!
Here is some background:
https://www.nature.com/news/20...
http://www.mosquitoreviews.com...
https://www.quora.com/What-is-...

--
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Yes - no risk to the ecosystem because by blind+biker · 2017-09-30 21:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

any mosquito species is the easiest species to replace - there are so many of them, and we could even eradicate all the blood-sucking mosquitoes and just leave those that don't.
In fact, a mosquito species can even be replaced by entirely different families (i.e. not from Culicidae):

Yet in many cases, scientists acknowledge that the ecological scar left by a missing mosquito would heal quickly as the niche was filled by other organisms. Life would continue as before — or even better. When it comes to the major disease vectors, "it's difficult to see what the downside would be to removal, except for collateral damage", says insect ecologist Steven Juliano, of Illinois State University in Normal. A world without mosquitoes would be "more secure for us", says medical entomologist Carlos Brisola Marcondes from the Federal University of Santa Catarina in Brazil. "The elimination of Anopheles would be very significant for mankind."
From: Ecology: A world without mosquitoes

--
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Re: Earth can't sustain ten billion people. by loufoque · 2017-09-30 21:56 · Score: 1

People in big European cities don't care about cars or AC.
The real carrier of Malaria is Homo Sapiens by darthsilun · 2017-09-30 22:25 · Score: 1

Mosquitos are just the vector.
Maybe we should release a GMO Home Sapiens that's more resistant and less able to mate and breed instead.
1. Re:The real carrier of Malaria is Homo Sapiens by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2017-10-01 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe we should release a GMO Home Sapiens that's more resistant and less able to mate and breed instead.
  We could call them Bioroids.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
I wouldn't think you'd need to eradicate by darthsilun · 2017-09-30 22:36 · Score: 1

WRT mosquitos in the food chain, wouldn't it be possible to simply break the Malaria cycle?
Once there's no Malaria to spread Anopheles populations could be allowed to recover. There's no reason (other than hating mosquitos) to eradicate the whole species. Or even try.
Malaria has been eliminated in Europe and North America – by draining swamps and spraying. Are there really no more Anopheles left in those parts of the world? There are certainly plenty of other mosquitos left.
1. Re:I wouldn't think you'd need to eradicate by hord · 2017-10-01 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking about this the other day. The Gates' foundation has a ton of money for things like mosquito nets and medicines but why aren't they just building clean infrastructure? We eliminated most of our pest disease problems (even plague) by just living cleaner.
  If I had to guess, I think you'd find two problems: 1) industrialized people want a technological solution, and 2) the people affected may not be culturally aware or even care about disease vectors. Sometimes you get culture clash and no one likes being told that their centuries-old traditions are wrong or should be discarded. When the Ebola scare broke out, you had villagers kissing the bodies of dead victims as a religious right. I don't know how you deal with that.
2. Re:I wouldn't think you'd need to eradicate by david_thornley · 2017-10-02 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  If a disease is limited to humans, yes, we've demonstrated the ability to inoculate pretty much the entire human race so that smallpox and polio are no more. However, if a disease has the ability to mutate to avoid inoculations (like influenza) or has animal vectors, those techniques won't work.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Not having multiple children die reduces fertility by robbak · 2017-09-30 22:39 · Score: 1

One thing that has been shown in multiple countries is if you reduce the childhood death rate, fertility goes down. People no longer have large families, because the are pretty sure the first few will survive. It is when parents have to assume that some of their children will die of disease that they have large familes, just in case.

--
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
What could go wrong? by robbak · 2017-09-30 22:44 · Score: 2

The malaria mutates so it can infect the GE mosquitoes, slowing down reproduction of the GE mozzies. The End. So worst that could happen is that it doesn't work. Most likely cause of this is not being able to do a wide enough release, so there is a mixture of GE and non-GE mozzies, alowing the Malaria parasites to develop resistance before they are eliminated.

So, in short, no small-scale limited releases just to make sure!

--
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
1. Re:What could go wrong? by rylyeh · 2017-10-01 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  There are new diseases evolving everywhere, all the time!
  Luckily - most new diseases won't infect humans at the start or perhaps ever.
  Cleaning mosquitoes of malaria has no effect on the non-malaria viruses.
  I agree with robbak above, I don't think this will work very unless they can do a really large scale test.
  I see this type of defense might turn into something that is just regularly applied (maybe after minor tweaks?) each year.
  
  --
  Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
"Editing the blueprint of life" is what we do. by robbak · 2017-09-30 22:52 · Score: 2

And we have been doing this for ages. The only difference is that before, we had no idea what we were doing. We looked for random changes caused by cosmic rays etc. in living things; we even put seeds under an X-Ray (or beta, or gamma-rays) to make random changes in the genetics; or we cross-bread two different plants, producing a random mix of genes that often was not viable of itself,but we could harvest the germ and make it grow outside the seed.
All this we do, and they even get to call the results of this random, uncontrolled gene editing 'organic'.
The difference is that now, we are making single changes that we have an ability to know and predict the results of. This is a much, much safer form of genetic modification than what we have been doing for centures.

--
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
1. Re:"Editing the blueprint of life" is what we do. by Freischutz · 2017-09-30 23:48 · Score: 1
  
  And we have been doing this for ages. The only difference is that before, we had no idea what we were doing. We looked for random changes caused by cosmic rays etc. in living things; we even put seeds under an X-Ray (or beta, or gamma-rays) to make random changes in the genetics; or we cross-bread two different plants, producing a random mix of genes that often was not viable of itself,but we could harvest the germ and make it grow outside the seed.
  All this we do, and they even get to call the results of this random, uncontrolled gene editing 'organic'.
  The difference is that now, we are making single changes that we have an ability to know and predict the results of. This is a much, much safer form of genetic modification than what we have been doing for centures.
  For one thing I'm pretty sure that people breeding domestic animals had a pretty clear idea of what they were doing and what goals they wanted to achieve even if they did not understand the underlying mechanism. Portraying them as stupid bumbling barbarians making random modifications with no logic or method is incorrect. As for:
  
  This is a much, much safer form of genetic modification than what we have been doing for centures.
  They said something similar about every single time they messed with an ecosystem and completely fucked up. They also said this when they wanted to use nuclear weapons as demolition explosives to dig harbours, mines, canals and huge water reservoirs. Today the thought of detonating a 1 megaton nuclear explosive to create an artificial lake makes us cringe. Combine scientists with a god complex, greedy corporate executives with flexible morals and corrupt/gullible politicians and disaster follows. Call it by Freischutz's 1st law: "If something can be completely fucked up beyond all recognition with catastrophic consequences, eventually some arrogant fucktard will fuck it up beyond all recognition with catastrophic consequences" (witness the US presidency). Plus, this is just going to get worse, at first it's single modifications, then multiple complex ones, then completely re-coding the entire genome of some organism to create a new species and that is where the real potential is for the shit to hit the fan, when scientists start making too many too extensive modifications to an insanely complex system that they don't really understand and where there are simply too many ways for things to go FUBAR. Eliminating mosquito is bad enough. They may be really irritating little fuckers and spreader of disease but mosquitoes are also a major part of any ecosystem in which they exist and if you inadvertently make your GM'ed mosquito effort too aggressive and collapse the mosquito population you will cause some major carnage, not just mass death of fish, other insects that feed on mosquitoes but also the animals that feed on those other insects and that creates an existential dilemma for any humans who derive their living from hunting/catching/farming fish and birds.
2. Re:"Editing the blueprint of life" is what we do. by robbak · 2017-10-01 20:29 · Score: 1
  
  People breeding domestic animals had a pretty clear idea of what they were doing and what goals they wanted to achieve even if they did not understand the underlying mechanism. Portraying them as stupid bumbling barbarians making random modifications with no logic or method is incorrect.
  They had aims, and the set about them with what knowledge they had. But like it or not, they were making random modifications, and being pretty clueless about the underlying mechanism means they didn't know what they were doing. In so doing they made mistakes, but we are still here despite it.
  Now we are making specific, carefully controlled modifications, with a solid understanding of the mechanisms, having a very good idea of what we are doing. Portraying modern geneticists as 'bumbling barbarians' (which is what your arguments do, whether you intend it or not) is doing a far greater injustice.
  Lastly, an argument that, 'We shouldn't do this simple, safe thing because someone else could complex, dangerous thing,' isn't really valid argument. Even if people proposed, and abandoned, dangerous ideas in the past. Each concept should be judged on its own merits. And when we do this, is seems we agree - controlled, targeted GE on mozzies is a good idea.
  
  --
  Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
It actually helps fix the problem. by robbak · 2017-09-30 22:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

One thing that has been shown repeatedly is that if you reduce the childhood death rate, fertility goes down. People no longer have such large families, because the are pretty sure the first few children will survive. It is when parents have to assume that some of their children will die of disease that they have large families, just in case.

--
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
Do it by AndyKron · 2017-09-30 23:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

400,000 people a year say do it!
Re:Why not? by Z00L00K · 2017-09-30 23:44 · Score: 1

You confuse it with the fictional world of Narnia.
Zambia exists.
It would be more interesting to see if the Malaria parasite would adapt and become resistant to the gene modified mosquitoes. I would prefer to get rid of the mosquitoes totally unless they are made by de Havilland.

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Re: no kill them all by jellomizer · 2017-09-30 23:44 · Score: 1

Mosquitoes are a food for a good part of our ecosystem. They even are pollinators, for our crops. As well one of the core parts of the food chain. Killing them off could be a disaster.
We just need to find a way for them not to attack humans or our livestock and spread pathogens then we are fine.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re: Earth can't sustain ten billion people. by Whibla · 2017-09-30 23:57 · Score: 1

People in big European cities don't care about ... AC.
Are you sure about that? What about these people?
Ah, that's right, they don't care about anything anymore, as they're dead.
And, please, before you point out that this was so long ago, way back in 2003, and thus not relevant or important, do at least try to remember that people might want to turn the air conditioning on before the temperature gets hot enough to kill...
Re: Earth can't sustain ten billion people. by loufoque · 2017-10-01 00:09 · Score: 1

In the UK, the temperature does not go beyond 30 for more than a couple of days a year.
How people can die of heat is beyond me.
Re:Earth can't sustain ten billion people. by TFAFalcon · 2017-10-01 01:13 · Score: 1

Wouldn't a two child policy be better?
Yes, population will keep rising for a while, but it will someday reach a 'stable-ish' level. If we go to a one child policy, we'll have an 'old-heavy' population soon AND the policy will have to be changed someday anyway.
Re: no kill them all by Opportunist · 2017-10-01 01:16 · Score: 1

Well, there isn't really a requirement that an organism must serve a purpose. I mean, what's the purpose of human, to ruin the game for the rest of the players?
By that logic, we shouldn't celebrate the elimination of smallpox...

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Uhm.. Yea. Jurrassic Park? by waspleg · 2017-10-01 01:28 · Score: 1

Life Finds A Way.
So what happens when malaria evolves in to something worse because of this?
1. Re:Uhm.. Yea. Jurrassic Park? by thrich81 · 2017-10-01 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Polio and smallpox weren't able to evolve into something worse when we attacked their propagation model with vaccines. They didn't find a way (well, except I suppose you could consider the anti-vac'cers a start on that).
2. Re:Uhm.. Yea. Jurrassic Park? by RockDoctor · 2017-10-02 22:45 · Score: 1
  
  Polio isn't eradicated - yet.
  It may manage to slip out from the noose, in large part thanks to religious fundamentalists and their cock-eyed fear of science.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Re:Why not? by Neuronwelder · 2017-10-01 01:43 · Score: 1

Good one!!
Re:Why not? by Neuronwelder · 2017-10-01 01:44 · Score: 1

It would be more like scary, than interesting to me!
Re:no kill them all by Neuronwelder · 2017-10-01 01:47 · Score: 1

Well Dragonflies eat their weight in mosquitoes every night. We have mosquito abatement projects in our neighborhood. End of Dragonflies. :(
Re: no kill them all by Neuronwelder · 2017-10-01 02:49 · Score: 1

You are right! They pollinate small flowers. And do other things, which if forgot..
Try a remote site first... by jpellino · 2017-10-01 02:53 · Score: 1

like maybe Isla Nublar?

--
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
1. Re:Try a remote site first... by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2017-10-01 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  Or Achill Island.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
Re:Why not? by thereitis · 2017-10-01 03:08 · Score: 1

Testing in production is always a good idea
Only if they get paid enough by Gallomimia · 2017-10-01 04:22 · Score: 1

First of all, all you folks who said they need to test it in a controlled environment, that's been done out in the open, on North America. Second, obviously they should only do it if the individuals making the decisions get bribed well enough. This is some really dangerous shit. A mere $10k bale of US Benjamin's is not enough to turn a blind eye or say nothing to the press. You need a million. Maybe ten.

--
Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
1. Re:Only if they get paid enough by iggymanz · 2017-10-01 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  nah, not over there, you can bribe with mere thousands, or less. I know this, because....reasons.
How I read the title by ChrisMaple · 2017-10-01 05:16 · Score: 2

Should Zombies Allow The Testing of Genetically-Modified Mosquitoes?

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:Why not? by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2017-10-01 06:11 · Score: 1

Perhaps Trump was form Nambia, I demand to see it birth certificate, and not the forgery that he likes to show.
Birth certificate? I'd settle for a tax return.

--
#DeleteChrome
Sounds like by sky_khan72 · 2017-10-01 06:29 · Score: 1

It sounds like a zombie apocalypse movie's opening scene.
Re: Earth can't sustain ten billion people. by Whibla · 2017-10-01 06:41 · Score: 1

People in big European cities...

In the UK...
While you are quite correct about temperatures in the UK, I think that this is what's referred to as moving the goal posts.
Re:Why not? by currently_awake · 2017-10-01 06:46 · Score: 1

Most mosquitoes don't bite humans, they pollinate crops and plants instead. Killing them off would harm us.
Re: Earth can't sustain ten billion people. by currently_awake · 2017-10-01 06:52 · Score: 1

That's an average temperature, not the maximum. You could have a local spike up to 50 C, and roofers and pavers would experience higher temps too. Surviving high temp is more about having water and shade than anything else, so in rich countries only the elderly and the homeless would fear it.
Re: Earth can't sustain ten billion people. by loufoque · 2017-10-01 07:14 · Score: 1

The article I was replying to specifically mentions people dying in the UK, among others.
Test on an island...but by HiThere · 2017-10-01 08:02 · Score: 1

My first thought was that such tests should be done on an island....but then an early post said that Florida was already testing GM mosquitoes. If that's correct, then, unless this is a different modification, I guess they might as well go ahead.
One proposal I heard was to modify mosquitoes so that they were immune to malaria, but I doubt that's far enough along to be practical.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re: no kill them all by Gavagai80 · 2017-10-01 09:31 · Score: 2

Humans exist to feed rodents our trash. Their populations would collapse without us.

--
This space intentionally left blank
Re:Earth can't sustain ten billion people. by Bartles · 2017-10-01 13:17 · Score: 1

The Earth can sustain more that 7 Billion people right now, because the population is still increasing.
Short Answer: No by schleimkeim · 2017-10-01 21:55 · Score: 1

Long Answer: Nooooooooooooooooo, because: Letting big companies test genetically altered stuff in a third world country is just wrong.
Re: So you live in Nambia? by david_thornley · 2017-10-02 10:11 · Score: 1

I suspect that people who are against all GMOs don't know what they're talking about. This is also true about people who are for all GMOs.
Farmers buy GMO seed and plant it. It's been tested, and will produce useful crops. It's always possible that something will go wrong, but that could be handled by destroying the crops in a limited area, without much other harm. Harmful mutations will be limited.
If someone releases GMO mosquitoes or bacteria, we're much less sure of what might happen. The mosquitoes or bacteria might mutate in ways they otherwise wouldn't have. There may be harmful environmental consequences, since we're not releasing them into a monoculture of limited size. If everything works as intended, this isn't a problem. If something goes wrong (and many more things can go wrong than with GMO crops) how do we get rid of the mosquitoes or bacteria?

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Why not? by ebvwfbw · 2017-10-02 12:53 · Score: 1

You already have one, remember? Rachael Maddow disclosed it and guess what - no problem. She was one again being the stupid idiot that she is.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bro...
He's been under IRS audit for 20 years. Give it a rest, you're not going to find anything. Just like with Russia - NOTHING! Well Nothing on Trumps behalf. We've found plenty of collusion with Obama and Hillary and Russia. Even the fact Obummer hid the hacking from everyone even though he knew it was going on and even made fun of Trump for saying it could be hacked. We also found out that Hillary was given about 500K from the Russians and she gave them a bunch of Uranium. Just google Hillary Russia Uranium. It'll pull up the NY Times story on that.