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

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.

Comments

Pandora's box

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Pandora's box

[jellomizer]

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.

Depends

[rtb61]

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.

Re:Depends

[Anonymous Coward]

or we will just breed a more resilient malaria ...

Stop the GMO scare

[Opportunist]

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?

Re:Stop the GMO scare

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Stop the GMO scare

[Freischutz]

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.

Re:Stop the GMO scare

[Wycliffe]

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.

Re:no kill them all

[ls671]

Brilliant!

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

Yes - no risk to the ecosystem because

[blind biker]

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

What could go wrong?

[robbak]

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!

"Editing the blueprint of life" is what we do.

[robbak]

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.

It actually helps fix the problem.

[robbak]

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.

Do it

[AndyKron]

400,000 people a year say do it!

How I read the title

[ChrisMaple]

Should Zombies Allow The Testing of Genetically-Modified Mosquitoes?

Re: no kill them all

[Gavagai80]

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