Slashdot Mirror


Australian Experiment Wipes Out Over 80% of Disease-Carrying Mosquitoes (cnn.com)

schwit1 quotes CNN: In an experiment with global implications, Australian scientists have successfully wiped out more than 80% of disease-carrying mosquitoes in trial locations across north Queensland.

The experiment, conducted by scientists from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization and James Cook University (JCU), targeted Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, which spread deadly diseases such as dengue fever and Zika. In JCU laboratories, researchers bred almost 20 million mosquitoes, infecting males with bacteria that made them sterile. Then, last summer, they released over three million of them in three towns on the Cassowary Coast.

The sterile male mosquitoes didn't bite or spread disease, but when they mated with wild females, the resulting eggs didn't hatch, and the population crashed.

177 comments

  1. Works for people too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The sterile male mosquitoes didn't bite or spread disease, but when they mated with wild females, the resulting eggs didn't hatch, and the population crashed.

    A secret organization I cannot name is trying the same thing right now, in western countries we're releasing a bunch of liberal males into the populace - They just yell a lot and while not sterile, are so unpleasant they make breeding pretty much impossible so the result is the same - population crashing.

    It's working far better than we had hoped!

    1. Re:Works for people too by John+Da'+Baddest · · Score: 3, Funny

      I thought it was the other way around. Fox News replaces Fux News pornography, then suddenly all the new-Republican non-trophy wives can look up to Sarah Sanders for inspiration how to be servile.

    2. Re:Works for people too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No need.
      Apparently there is some kind of STD going around that makes women sterile like in children of men.

    3. Re: Works for people too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've mistaken Idiocracy for a documentary. Go, sit in the corner in shame.

    4. Re: Works for people too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ? Fear of women? That must be why most bosses are men.

    5. Re:Works for people too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somebody's butthuet, that comment must have hit close to home.

    6. Re:Works for people too by gtall · · Score: 1

      Like daughter, like father. What price does an Evangelical get for his/her soul?

    7. Re:Works for people too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No need.
      Apparently there is some kind of STD going around that makes women sterile like in children of men.

      -

      Here's some info on the STD of which you write. It's pretty serious shit -- think twice before having unprotected sex with a partner you don't
      know very well indeed.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_genitalium

    8. Re: Works for people too by dyeazel · · Score: 1

      Youâ(TM)re thinking of the âoeincelsâ, who are mostly right-wingers. The correct term, though, is âoevolcelâ since theyâ(TM)re to lazy to make themselves better people do they can get a date.

    9. Re: Works for people too by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Key words in your comment were scrambled by the mobile hardware you used to enter it on the site. If you cannot figure out the arcane submenu settings to change to fix the problem, you'd better upgrade to hardware from a different vendor.

    10. Re: Works for people too by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      People if you must use Word to type your comments then cut and paste. Please use the preview feature and actually fix the text. /. isn't smart enough to figure out what to do with "smart" quotes.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    11. Re:Works for people too by philmarcracken · · Score: 1

      Easy on the cultural bolshevism. We know what happened last time.

    12. Re: Works for people too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realise itâ(TM)s not just Word that applies smart quotes right? âoeSafari on iOSâ does it too

    13. Re: Works for people too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (in this ACâ(TM)s humble opinion, it is /. that needs to catch up)

  2. Nature finds a way by TheMeuge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So this year the population is down 80%, the next year it'll be down another 60%... but the following year 100% of the mosquito population will be immune, and there will be 10000% more of them because the bird population decreased 80% from starvation. To challenge nature on it's own terms is generally futile in the long run.

    1. Re: Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There are many species of mosquito. The non targeted non disease carrying species would fill the emptied niche/feed the birds. Crichton was an author, not a biologist.

    2. Re:Nature finds a way by guygo · · Score: 0

      excellent response. and what about the frogs? who will speak for the frogs?

    3. Re:Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      completly... mosquito's are food and this just destroy's food that others depend on THEN those animals depend on those animals for food...

      Hasn't Australia learnt.. they always lose against nature
      Australia vs rabbits
      Australia vs Frogs ...

    4. Re: Nature finds a way by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      And wasn't Goldblum one of the most annoying characters ever in that movie?

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    5. Re:Nature finds a way by Wookie+Monster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How did you arrive at the 80% decrease in bird population? Do you have some data that shows that the birds living in this area depend exclusively on a diet of mosquitos? If this is the case, then it would seem that the population of the other mosquitos will go down as well. Keep in mind that an 80% reduction of disease caring mosquitos doesn't imply an 80% decrease in all mosquitos.

    6. Re:Nature finds a way by blindseer · · Score: 1

      We'll make it work out in the end. The gorillas will just freeze to death when winter comes.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    7. Re:Nature finds a way by markdavis · · Score: 4, Informative

      Please note that this was only one species of mosquito, not them all. And I don't believe they make up much of birds' diet. That isn't to say that you are wrong about the idea that "nature finds a way", because it usually does. Although not always (which is why we end up with extinct species).

      Personally, I selfishly would rather see mosquitoes (and fleas, ticks, bedbugs, stable/horse/deer/sand flies, lice, and all other such) wiped off the Earth completely, or at least converted into some non-parasitic versions (ones that don't bite and suck blood). Or at a minimum, some magic thing that would keep them at bay without dousing oneself repeatedly in barely effective and smelly chemicals. Hey, one can dream!

    8. Re:Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've started a new crusade--if they dont double and triple down on this, and wipe it out...globally..then we are going to be really fucked.

    9. Re:Nature finds a way by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Funny

      completly... mosquito's are food and this just destroy's food

      The mosquito population seems to be doing just fine. Why look, there's two of them right there hovering over my screen, right now! Oh, wait, those aren't small bugs, those are erroneous, misplaced apostrophes. If only we could invent a bacteria that would kill off the use of the possessive form when people actually mean to use the plural form. It would make their, "Here, I'm informed and intelligent - let me tell you why you're wrong on this topic!" scolds feel a lot more credible.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    10. Re:Nature finds a way by cyn1c77 · · Score: 5, Informative

      So this year the population is down 80%, the next year it'll be down another 60%... but the following year 100% of the mosquito population will be immune, and there will be 10000% more of them because the bird population decreased 80% from starvation. To challenge nature on it's own terms is generally futile in the long run.

      There are lots of other things for birds to eat. Also, bats eat many more mosquitoes than birds and there are many other insects for bats to eat.

      Also, the mosquitoes they are eradicating were not a native species in Australia. So presumably the birds were fine eating native insects before this particular breed was introduced.

    11. Re:Nature finds a way by ChromeAeonuim · · Score: 1

      Australia vs Thylacine

    12. Re: Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck, show me data that says birds rely on mosquitoes *at all* for food. If he was thinking, he wouldâ(TM)ve SJWâ(TM)d for bats instead.

    13. Re:Nature finds a way by Suki+I · · Score: 2

      So we are still not going to get the Silent Spring that we were promised 56 years ago?

      I feel so cheated.

    14. Re:Nature finds a way by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Informative

      In most environments there are several to dozens of different species of mosquitoes (many of which don't bite humans) so removing one will mean that it is supplanted by other types. Also, there's very little concern over mosquitos having a knock-on effect up the food chain. When this was previously studied, researchers were far more concerned with bats (as most birds don't get much of their food from mosquitoes) and found that even among bats, mosquitoes only constituted a tiny part of their diet.

      This type of solution is preferable to most other forms of mosquito control (okay it's not as cool as the laser) in that unlikely spraying insecticides, this approach only targets the specific type of mosquito that we want to eliminate whereas spraying kills all manner of different types of insects, including many that are of no harm to us. Using chemicals like DDT allowed us to eliminate malaria, but we realized that there were some high costs to that.

    15. Re:Nature finds a way by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 4, Informative

      and there will be 10000% more of them because the bird population decreased 80% from starvation

      Given that it's generally recognized that mosquitoes only make up a small single-digit percentage of the diets of certain birds (mainly purple martins) and bats, 80% might be a wee bit high.

    16. Re:Nature finds a way by isj · · Score: 2

      Angry Flower to the rescue: http://www.angryflower.com/bob...

    17. Re: Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to the dodo bird, and all the other extinct species.

      Yeah nature finds a way, it doesn't mean it will be good.

    18. Re:Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      1. Immune to what? Females would have to know that the male is sterile and only select non-sterile males, that is pretty hard task to do with just random mutation during a couple of generations. And even if they do figure out a way, all would just reset back to where it started. And there is no reason why scientists couldn't come up with a counter measure to that. But in other similar experiments they have not seen any immunity.
      2. You are making up numbers. Birds will do fine without that food source. Actual scientists that actually study birds have confirmed that, because this arguments comes up every time.
      3. To challenge nature is futile? You are talking to a species that has already wiped out hundreds of other species.

    19. Re:Nature finds a way by ChromeAeonuim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not every mosquito is native to every area, and not every insect is a major and irreplaceable part of the food system.

      Humans have messed up every ecosystem on the planet, eliminated more species than we even keep track of, but try to eradicate one pest, even one which is an introduced vector of disease even to the native animals in some places, and suddenly you've gone too far? Baloney. If ecosystems were so fragile they could't handle the loss of one more exceptionally problematic pest, they would have collapsed a long time ago.

      And that 'nature will find a way' crap? Tell that to the Tasmanian tiger, the dodo, the moa, the quagga, steller's sea cow, or plenty of other less famous organisms. Tell that to the Hawaiian honeycreepers, which are currently being wiped out by avian malaria, spread by human introduced mosquitoes. Maybe tell that to the baiji or the totoaba, they could use the encouragement.

    20. Re:Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know. Are you a whiny environmentalist who can't come to terms with the luck of the draw giving you cancer? And you have to cast around for someone or something else to blame?

    21. Re:Nature finds a way by volodymyrbiryuk · · Score: 2

      Alex Jones will.

      --
      sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
    22. Re: Nature finds a way by reanjr · · Score: 1

      Crichton was a medical doctor. Pretty sure biology is somewhere in their training.

    23. Re: Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grammar nazi is still a nazi.

    24. Re:Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      excellent response. and what about the frogs? who will speak for the frogs?

      If this experiment would also kill off the cane toads, then we're all for it.

    25. Re:Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      completly... mosquito's are food and this just destroy's food that others depend on THEN those animals depend on those animals for food...

      Hasn't Australia learnt.. they always lose against nature
      Australia vs rabbits
      Australia vs Frogs ...

      And the Great Emu War, also a loss.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War

    26. Re: Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The non targeted non disease carrying species would fill the emptied niche/feed the birds.

      And what data is this baseless speculation built upon?

    27. Re: Nature finds a way by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Why do you choose their when talking about a specific person?

      Just interested.

      I prefer "they" as a gender neutral pronoun also.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    28. Re:Nature finds a way by gtall · · Score: 1

      You don't really understand evolution, do you?

    29. Re: Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grammar nazi is still a nazi.

      Some day you're going to get the beating you deserve, when you mouth off to the wrong person.

    30. Re: Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doctors would be a plural, and it is their training, not his or hers, whoever this Crichton person is.

      Full disclosure: For all I know, all of his or her books were written by ghost-writers, I have never bothered to even look him or her up.

    31. Re:Nature finds a way by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      How can they become immune? There's no poison or any lethal - or even damaging - agent involved for them to become immune to.

      It's just like sticking little invisible insect rubbers on their little insect willies.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    32. Re: Nature finds a way by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Crichton was a medical doctor. Pretty sure biology is somewhere in their training.

      What, all of it? Biology's a pretty broad subject.

      I'd be almost as surprised if ecology & population dynamics were on the course as I would if I saw cryptobotany.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    33. Re: Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SJWs may hate me but I don't care. I learned to speak English years ago and this irritates me no end.

      'English is not a gendered language. The use of so called "male pronouns" in English is inherently gender neutral and conveys no information about gender. Only the use of "female pronouns" conveys information about gender, indicating that the subject was known to be female. Until SJWs decided to make a big deal out of it there was no need for the plural forms to be considered gender neutral and singular, they were just plural Saying, " Pretty sure biology is somewhere in HIS training." conveys no information about gender and should not be considered offensive. People should just go back to speaking gender neutral English instead of intentionally over emphasizing gender by making substitutions. Same with all the LGBTQxyz stuff. Speak normal English and stop being offended that your favorite "gender" wasn't singled out for special treatment.

    34. Re:Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's like saying getting rid of the agriculture that made today's human population possible won't have any negative effects because the human populations that existed prior to agriculture didn't have any trouble.

    35. Re:Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've found a use (as an American English writer) for the ` symbol (upper left corner of most US standard keyboards) . It's incorrect to use an apostrophe s to designate the plural, yet I personally don't like NOT using one with abbreviations since AIS probably means something other than more than one AI, and while AIs might be technically correct, I just don't like it. So I use `s (instead of 's). It's makes far too much sense (imho) to ever catch on, just like using ALL CAPS to designate emphasis rather than shouting. But I'm doing it anyway. Of course, you might wonder what I do with a possessive plural and yes I've been known to use `s's but that's really awkward so I've not decided on the best fix for that.

    36. Re:Nature finds a way by godel_56 · · Score: 1

      completly... mosquito's are food and this just destroy's food that others depend on THEN those animals depend on those animals for food...

      Hasn't Australia learnt.. they always lose against nature Australia vs rabbits Australia vs Frogs ...

      Except there are many species of mosquito in Australia and these fuckers are imported feral pests from Africa. Get it?

    37. Re: Nature finds a way by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      he wouldÃ(TM)ve SJWÃ(TM)d

      Speaking of things that need fixing....

    38. Re: Nature finds a way by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Dodo birds were flightless and built their nests on the ground. All that was necessary for them to be made extinct was for ships bearing rars to land a few times on their isolated islands.

    39. Re:Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would make their, "Here, I'm informed and intelligent - let me tell you why you're wrong on this topic!" scolds feel a lot more credible.

      Erm, WTF is that mosquito doing in that sentence ?!

      Oh wait, that isn't a small bug, it's an erroneous, misplaced comma.

    40. Re: Nature finds a way by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Very few people have a good understanding of evolution. It has been adopted by many as a shorthand for them to apply a 'survival of the fittest' bromide. Evolution is very complex, involving factors like populations of a species becoming isolated from one another for long periods of time to adapt differently. So physical geography is as important in understanding it as biology. Evolution is complex, which is why it's actually rather easy for religious zealots to poke hooles it it. Evolution is unsettled science; an opportunity for us to learn much more.

    41. Re:Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's really not.

    42. Re: Nature finds a way by bestweasel · · Score: 3, Informative

      Crichton was an author, not a biologist.

      Wikipedia:

      [H]e obtained his bachelor's degree in biological anthropology summa cum laude in 1964... He received a Henry Russell Shaw Traveling Fellowship from 1964 to 1965 and was a visiting lecturer in Anthropology at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom in 1965.

      He graduated from Harvard, obtaining an MD in 1969, and undertook a post-doctoral fellowship study at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, from 1969 to 1970.

    43. Re:Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well actually the human population prior to agriculture had a fuck load of trouble, existence was a constant fight with many populations dieing out. But regardless you are a fucking retard, Australian species are being decimated by introduced species, if Australian native fauna and flora is to survive the many introduced species need to be eradicated as they don't have sufficient natural predators in Australia due to the isolation.

    44. Re:Nature finds a way by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      Actually, ScentCone, I think you'll find it's bacterium .

    45. Re:Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and neither do you it seems. Evolution needs to time and many generations to succeed, sterilization doesn't provide that as the population crashes too fast.

    46. Re: Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm so glad that I'm not the only one who thinks rars are a scourge upon us all. There's nothing wrong with good old fashioned zip!

    47. Re:Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not the parent poster, but comparing their writing with yours, I think you have it backwards.

    48. Re:Nature finds a way by sjames · · Score: 1

      Or prescriptivists, whichever comes first.

    49. Re: Nature finds a way by reanjr · · Score: 1

      I refer to medical doctors in general.

    50. Re: Nature finds a way by reanjr · · Score: 1

      I'm generally chill, but the recent addition of "Latinx" as a gender neutral Latino really irks me.

    51. Re:Nature finds a way by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's more like losing a single modern variety of tomato or corn. We still have many varieties to choose from.

    52. Re: Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will settle for Mosquitos. They killed more humans than anything else since the dawn of man.

    53. Re:Nature finds a way by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      1. Immune to what? Females would have to know that the male is sterile and only select non-sterile males, that is pretty hard task to do with just random mutation during a couple of generations.

      If there is any distinguishable difference between sterile and non-sterile male species, then the females (even if there are few of them) that are able to pick up on that will be dominant within a few generations, as all the others die off.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    54. Re: Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Obama already spoke for the frogs when he made them gay with chemicals.

    55. Re: Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "flightless and built their nests on the ground..."

      So only birds can survive in the wild? And only non ground nesting, strong flying birds?

      People over hunted the dodo. That had real consequences that were 100% caused by people. Even your invasive species scenario(which is complete fiction btw) would still be the fault of people.

    56. Re: Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be confident he knows more than you, which is sufficient for the purposes of this conversation.

    57. Re: Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      should not be considered offensive

      Possibly not if you are educated. But to the illiterati, this is like a red rag to a bull on cocaine.

      Or possibly cow. YMMV.

    58. Re: Nature finds a way by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      Speaking of things that need fixing....

      Nuke from high orbit, just to be sure.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    59. Re:Nature finds a way by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Actually, the nice thing about this approach is that it still works fine even if 100% of the wild population is immune. So long as they can keep infecting the captive population, the males will continue being sterile, which is all they need for this to work.

      Things only fall apart if the females begin selecting wild males to the exclusion of captive ones, or if scientists are unable to prevent immunity from spreading in the captive population (which would be a massive blunder on their part).

    60. Re: Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Them warn't rar's, them was good honest tars. Harr, me lad!

    61. Re:Nature finds a way by rkordmaa · · Score: 2

      Nonsense, there are no birds that would die out without one species of mosquito. And if they release similar amount of sterile males next year, the population will not be down further 60%, it will be all but wiped out. After that they can number down how many sterile males they need to release every year. However, it will take only few years for the population to bounce back if they ever stop the program and it only works in close vicinity to where they release the males. So for biotech companies this could become a very lucrative protection racket. There are ways to deal with the problem a bit more permanently, a fatal genetic defect can be engineered that is carried by males and only expressed in females.

    62. Re:Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Immune?! What part of sterile do you not understand?

    63. Re:Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The majority of mosquito species do not feed on us. If you keep sterilizing the "bad" mosquitos, while also releasing "good" mosquitos into the environment, it'll be much harder for the unwanted ones to make a comeback.

    64. Re: Nature finds a way by reanjr · · Score: 1

      But as a medical doctor, he's well versed in things like scientific journals, research, and statistics while also having the prerequisite technical biology knowledge required to assess scientific literature. And it's clear he consulted scientific literature.

      To say he is an author and not a biologist is disingenuous because compared to most authors, he's closer to biologist than he is author when it comes to biology.

    65. Re: Nature finds a way by quenda · · Score: 1

      Doctors would be a plural, and it is their training, not his

      This would have been obvious before the SJWs managed to mangle the language even worse than it was before.

    66. Re:Nature finds a way by quenda · · Score: 1

      Hasn't Australia learnt.. they always lose against nature
      Australia vs rabbits
      Australia vs Frogs ...

      The rabbit population is down 98% from the peak. Only 200 million left. (from 10 billion)

      We're still working on the cane toads.

    67. Re: Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crichton had a degree in biology and practiced medicine, apparently. Check wikipedia.

    68. Re: Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because 'they' isn't, and doesn't have, a possessive form...which would be used to describe the training which one would 'possess.' Do you actually think he should have said "Pretty sure biology is somewhere in *they* training?"

    69. Re: Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if English is gender neutral as you say, where do these "male" and "female" pronouns come from? Sloppy language shows sloppy thinking. (And of course a "generic" masculine gender is inherently sexist.)

    70. Re:Nature finds a way by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Oh wait, that isn't a small bug, it's an erroneous, misplaced comma.

      No, it's not. Constructions such as, "Here, let me help you with that" are punctuated as if they contain the pronoun or name that's inferred ("Here, Jim, let me help you with that"). The comma clues the reader into the pause that would be normal in the sentence were it spoken aloud. Try them out loud, right now:

      "Here let me help you with that."

      "Here, let me help you with that."

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    71. Re:Nature finds a way by another_twilight · · Score: 1

      Please don't forget the great Emu War.

      To be fair, most of the animal population is poisonous. The ones that aren't set fires and please don't mention the sea life.

      But rabbits? You'd think we could handle rabbits.

    72. Re:Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while AIs might be technically correct, I just don't like it

      So, your answer is to use a notation that's entirely personal and incorrect?
      Could it be that the overuse of the apostrophe-after-a-vowel-when-adding-s-to-pluralise 'rule'? Is overexposure to other people's poor grammar from too great an imbalance between low-quality posts vs actual edited English causing this feeling of malaise?

      It's makes far too much sense (imho) to ever catch on

      You're good. Very smooth.
      *applauds*

    73. Re:Nature finds a way by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      So this year the population is down 80%, the next year it'll be down another 60%... but the following year 100% of the mosquito population will be immune, and there will be 10000% more of them because the bird population decreased 80% from starvation. To challenge nature on it's own terms is generally futile in the long run.

      That explains why we are now over run with dinosaurs...

    74. Re:Nature finds a way by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      but the following year 100% of the mosquito population will be immune

      To what? Being unable to breed?

    75. Re:Nature finds a way by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Females would have to know that the male is sterile and only select non-sterile males

      This isn't America. Healthcare is free in Australia. Just tell the males to get a sterility test and be done with it. It isn't cost prohibitive.

    76. Re:Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Songbird populations are steadily declining, along with birds in general. See: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170927093332.htm and http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/11/04/why-hundreds-millions-birds-have-disappeared-30-years and https://e360.yale.edu/digest/forty-percent-of-the-worlds-bird-populations-are-in-decline-new-study-finds

    77. Re:Nature finds a way by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      This solution to limit the mosquito population is not a poison. You don't "get immune" or "build up tolerance" when mating with a sterile partner. Mate with a sterile partner and you will not produce a child.

      Now, if the females would somehow be able to discern between sterile and potent mates then the experiment would begin to fail.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    78. Re:Nature finds a way by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Let's be fair here. Yes, you are correct to call out the "80% decline in bird population" since mosquitos are not the only source of food for birds. On the other hand, mosquitos ARE food and this is about reducing the number of mosquitos, which means reducing the amount of food.

      I have actually seen this in action: Insects flying about being annoying one year. Next year, very few insects flying about being annoying because of aggressive chemical use. Next year after that, you can't see because the insects are so fucking thick.

      What happened? Bats were keeping the original insect population moderately controlled. Chemicals heavily controlled the amount of mosquitos the following year, but, the bats had less to eat so either left or starved. The following year after THAT, there were no chemicals and no bats so you could not help but literally breathe in insects.

      Are we talking numbers like 80% of bats starving/leaving? Dunno. You are right to call out the specific numbers, but you also should have acknowledged the mechanism that they were describing because the mechanism is true even if the numbers are false.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    79. Re: Nature finds a way by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Thanks.. I was reading it as

      Crichton was a medical doctor. Pretty sure biology is somewhere in Crichton's training.

      not

      Crichton was a medical doctor. Pretty sure biology is somewhere in medical doctor's training.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    80. Re: Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just hate it when people poke hooles in evolution -- it lets all the aior out!

    81. Re:Nature finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you?

      The reason why the pop was only 80% down is because even though they flooded the region with sterile males, some fertile males still remain. But who knows, maybe those males are better at breeding! Okay, so next year collect new males from the population. Now you're using (perhaps) stronger sterile breeders equivalent to the wild population's males. Rinse and repeat. The only risk is that the wild mosquitoes become resistant to the bacteria you're using for sterilization. Good news is there's more than one way to sterilize a bug. Just switch up the method every gen to keep the adaptation pressure low in any given direction. With a well planned approach you could extinct the species within a decade.

    82. Re: Nature finds a way by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      People who fight for equal treatment and equal rights under the law for all citizens post date antecedent agreement issues.

      Given that it's english, it could really be taken either way except in the strictest sense.

      As I said above...

      I was reading it as

      Crichton was a medical doctor. Pretty sure biology is somewhere in Crichton's training.

      not

      Crichton was a medical doctor. Pretty sure biology is somewhere in medical doctor's training.

      Antecedent agreement normally applies within a sentence. Making it a new sentence restores the subject to Crichton.

      So

      Crichton was a medical doctor and I'm pretty sure biology is somewhere in their (medical doctor's) training.

      But...

      Crichton was a medical doctor. I'm pretty sure biology is somewhere in his (Crichton's) training.

      Constantly changing the subject of the overall post every sentence would be confusing.

      ---

      I despise the term SJW and it usually identifies the poster as a right wing authoritarian racist who's also sexist and usually isn't doing that well in life so they are bitter.

      That said, *as a liberal*, I recognize that there are also authoritarian left wing people who are excessive, oppressive, unjust, and unreasonable. I can understand the use of the term "SJW" to identify them as a shorthand when not used in a pejorative sense.

      So I know some people who use the term are not right wing authoritarian racists. It's just a quick shorthand. But it is a stereotype as much as "SJW" is one.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    83. Re: Nature finds a way by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      As a male republican, I found use of "his" as the generic irritating as soon as I saw the first gender neutral pronouns. But I hated them and they felt unrealistic so no one would use them.

      The gender neutral "they" however really appealed to me. I would add a collective for exclusively male and exclusively female but they is *more* *accurate* 99% of the time and "his" is not only often inaccurate but even misleading.

      I've since become liberal because the republicans became batshit crazy authoritarians with no fiscal responsibility but my use of "they" predates my last vote for Ronald Reagan.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    84. Re: Nature finds a way by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I answered this above but just for completeness.

      No I didn't consider they should say "they" I considered the following...

      I was reading it as

      Crichton was a medical doctor. Pretty sure biology is somewhere in Crichton's (i.e. his) training.

      not

      Crichton was a medical doctor. Pretty sure biology is somewhere in medical doctor's (i.e. their) training.

      Antecedent agreement normally applies only within a sentence. Making it a new sentence restores the subject to Crichton.

      So

      Crichton was a medical doctor and I'm pretty sure biology is somewhere in their (medical doctor's) training.

      But...

      Crichton was a medical doctor. I'm pretty sure biology is somewhere in his (Crichton's) training.

      Constantly changing the subject of the overall post every sentence would be confusing.

      So the topic is
      CRICHTON
            HE was a medical doctor
            Therefore biology was in HIS training.

      OTH, as a person who uses "they" and "their" as a gender neutral group pronoun,
      If the topic is MEDICAL DOCTORS
            THEY are medical doctors
            Therefore biology was in THEIR training.

      For unknown gender...
      Topic is "A User"
            The User was a medical doctor
            Therefore biology was in THEIR training. (We don't know if they are male or female so using "his" is misleading and perhaps wrong).

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    85. Re: Nature finds a way by quenda · · Score: 1

      Antecedent agreement normally applies within a sentence.

      The verb "to be" is a special case with two subjects. Use of plural in the next sentence should have removed the ambiguity, but some of us read the "they" as singular. I call this corruption of the language.

       

      I can understand the use of the term "SJW" to identify them as a shorthand when not used in a pejorative sense.

      I'm pretty sure it *is* a pejorative. One for the oppressive far-left, whether used by liberals or conservatives makes no difference. Kind of like "fascist" unless used in a literal historic sense.
        I think I'd count as a socialist in Texas. Am all for people to dress how they want, and behave outside traditional gender norms. But draw the line well before them telling me how I have to think and speak. I wasn't particularly bothered until they started the assault on free speech on American campuses, and the cancer is now starting to spread here.

    86. Re: Nature finds a way by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      It's english. Dictionaries record current usage. They do not proscribe "correct" usage

      You ain't got to follow the rules except in particular settings like academic papers.

      You are free to use his, hers, theirs, yon, xis, xir, etc.

      I have liked "they" for "he/she" and "he or she" for close to 30 years. It always made sense to me.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  3. mosquitoe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I no want

  4. "What could possibly go wrong?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do hope smart people with no vested interest asked this question before this project was funded.

    I hope smart peole keep asking it.

    This doesn't mean the project should be scrapped. It does mean people should not be surprised if and when something goes wrong, because the decision-makers and oversight people already knews the risks.

  5. Disgusting and Abhorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Commiting genocide on an entire species because you consider them to be a nuisance and diseased. You sick sons of b's disgust me.

    1. Re:Disgusting and Abhorrent by blindseer · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you read the article (I know, this is Slashdot) then you'd know that this species of mosquito is invasive. It's native to Africa and wiping them out in Australia would bring the native ecosystem back. This isn't extinction, the species still exists in Africa.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    2. Re:Disgusting and Abhorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Commiting genocide on an entire species because you consider them to be a nuisance and diseased. You sick sons of b's disgust me.

      [AC to preserve moderation]

      And I swouldn’t have it any other way.

      There are 3,500 species of mosquito. Only 200 of these even bite man. This project would, if successful, eleiminate one of them. Good riddance!

    3. Re:Disgusting and Abhorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We’re the planets dominant species bitch. We are entitled who wipe out whatever lesser species we want.

    4. Re: Disgusting and Abhorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Every invasive species started in Africa, homo included. Now we have new invasive subspecies coming from Africa - "migrants" and "refugees"

    5. Re: Disgusting and Abhorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man I wish we had a colosseum with lions to stick your kind in.

      See how dominant you are against an actual predator.

    6. Re: Disgusting and Abhorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    7. Re:Disgusting and Abhorrent by Gabest · · Score: 2

      Everything wants to kill you in Australia. It just wants to fit it.

    8. Re: Disgusting and Abhorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will still be fucking dominant bitch.

      Don't need the rifle if you know what you're doing.
      http://www.petersenshunting.com/african/the-maasai-a-day-in-the-life-of-a-lion-killer/

      In Swahili, Ivan began asking him questions, mainly about his headdress.

      “Where did it come it from? How did you get it? Did you kill the lion to which it belonged?”

      Kuyo told us that he did kill the lion to which the headdress he was wearing once belonged.

      Ivan asked him if tradition is what prompted him to kill the king of beasts.

      He replied that the lion was actually the aggressor in this situation. He showed us the scars on his neck, back, and the back of his head as he detailed the attack. He had taken his cattle out to graze one morning, when the lion attacked him from behind. Before the lion was able to bite his neck, Kuyo was able to roll over, grab his spear, and thrust it in the lion’s chest killing it.

      Kuyo now proudly wears that lion’s mane as a headdress, but it’s more of a status symbol than a “trophy.” Yes, it’s an unfortunate that the lion was killed, but in this case it was simply a Maasai cattle farmer fending for his life, no different than any other man would.

    9. Re: Disgusting and Abhorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they only gave weapons to gladiators. Your kind just got tossed in wearing rags and nothing more.

    10. Re:Disgusting and Abhorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is everything from Africa awful & invasive? Killer bees, etc.

  6. This has been done before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something similar was done in Brazil before, so this is not the source of the "global implications": https://g1.globo.com/google/amp/g1.globo.com/sp/piracicaba-regiao/noticia/mosquito-transgenico-reduz-em-81-populacao-de-aedes-em-bairro-de-piracicaba.ghtml

    1. Re:This has been done before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Curiously the same country where the Zika virus was first spotted.

    2. Re: This has been done before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No true, Zika is original from Africa

  7. Next Year' Headline: by Calydor · · Score: 1, Funny

    Australian Scientists Baffled As Small Bird Populations Crash; Climate Change Blamed.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    1. Re:Next Year' Headline: by PPH · · Score: 1

      Or the non disease carrying species would expand into the available ecosystem. And the birds would eat those.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Next Year' Headline: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod points. This is so blatantly predictable it hurts. Whilst I thought this was clever when I first heard of it a few years ago (this isn't a new idea and has actually been deployed before in tests elsewhere), it scares me due to the food-web implications. These species are all connected and we can't just go wiping one out without expecting severe collateral damage.

    3. Re:Next Year' Headline: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wish I had mod points. This is so blatantly predictable it hurts. Whilst I thought this was clever when I first heard of it a few years ago (this isn't a new idea and has actually been deployed before in tests elsewhere), it scares me due to the food-web implications. These species are all connected and we can't just go wiping one out without expecting severe collateral damage.

      OK, so tell me how much the ecology has been damaged by killing off the Dodo, the Tasmanian Devil, or any of the several dozen extinct animals on this list: http://www.iucnredlist.org/search

    4. Re:Next Year' Headline: by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Tasmanian Devils are alive and well and living, oddly, in Tasmania.

      It's yer Tazzy Abbo what got wiped out, mate.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:Next Year' Headline: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tassie Devils may be alive, but they are certainly not well. Hopefully they will be saved but they need to solve the contagious cancer problem for that to happen.

  8. I, for one, .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our soon-to-arrive super mosquito overlords.

    This sounds just like antibiotics - a trial-by-fire for creating superbugs.

  9. No, the bird population wouldn't crash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sorry this is memory without citation, but I recall reading some news a few years ago that mosquitoes are not the sole or primary food source for anything. All mosquito-eaters are generalized insectivores which have many alternate food sources.

    The discussion was specifically about the ecological consequences of a hypothetical extinction of mosquitoes, and the conclusion that nothing particularly bad would happen if the family Culicidae were exterminated.

    That said, I agree that 80% will only get worse, as females learn to avoid the sterile males, or mate multiple times, or whatever it takes to be among the 20%.

    1. Re: No, the bird population wouldn't crash by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Sorry this is memory without citation, but I recall reading some news

      You're probably recalling some Monsanto or Dow Chemical brochure you read one day.

    2. Re:No, the bird population wouldn't crash by godel_56 · · Score: 1

      That said, I agree that 80% will only get worse, as females learn to avoid the sterile males, or mate multiple times, or whatever it takes to be among the 20%.

      Why should the 80% get worse? I suspect that figure is determined only by the ratio of sterilized to unsterilized males in the environment. BTW, from my reading, most females mate only once but can produce up to three batches of eggs from that mating (needing three blood meals), but males can mate multiple times with different females.

    3. Re:No, the bird population wouldn't crash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they are pollinators for some flowers, however.

    4. Re:No, the bird population wouldn't crash by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      If I recall correctly, they made the altered males more attractive by changing their genes so they produced stronger pheromones.

      However, there are plenty of women who don't like attractive men (hell, I'm married to one...). Likewise, some small percentage of female mosquitos may actually prefer the non-altered males. They will continue to have offspring and pass this property on to them.

      In these new generations, there will be some (by pure chance) that are even less likely to mate with the altered males. And again, these will be even more likely to reproduce. Give it a few generations, and you have an immune population.

      So if you don't go all in and try to kill all of them in as few generations as possible, you're screwed. It's like antibiotics, really. The worst you can do is take too low a dose or stop too early.

  10. I'm offended by the mention of "wild females" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    The term "wild females" is sexist and paints an unfavourable image of Australian women. I demand this study be thrown out, all paper copies destroyed, all backups erased and all the scientists who worked on it should lose their jobs. This is unacceptable behaviour in the #MeToo age.

    1. Re:I'm offended by the mention of "wild females" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your employer has been located and informed.

      #feminazipatrol

  11. Mosquitoes are Food! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THIS!

    Mosquitoes are food. Kill them, we starve the animals that eat them.

    Instead of genetically modifying the mosquitoes to be sterile, they should figure out how to make them ineffective carriers of disease. That would leave their population levels unchanged, but would still protect people against infection.

    Decimating the mosquito population is like trying to tap in a picture-hanging nail with a sledgehammer and instead taking down the entire wall.

    1. Re:Mosquitoes are Food! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those animals should either adapt for die.

    2. Re:Mosquitoes are Food! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THIS!

      Mosquitoes are food. Kill them, we starve the animals that eat them.

      Instead of genetically modifying the mosquitoes to be sterile, they should figure out how to make them ineffective carriers of disease. That would leave their population levels unchanged, but would still protect people against infection.

      Decimating the mosquito population is like trying to tap in a picture-hanging nail with a sledgehammer and instead taking down the entire wall.

      I recently endured a lecture from someone with a PhD whose area of research happened for be mosquito borne diseases.
      In short, nothing depends primarily upon flying mosquitoes for food because flying mosquitoes have almost no food value and the calorie cost of hunting them is generally greater than the reward. However, the larva have many predators so eradication may have some effect on those predators.
      Secondly, there are over 3,000 species of mosquitoes, but only three are responsible for almost all the disease transmission.
      Killing off only those three will be as little a shock to the environment as was killing off the passenger pigeon, which is to say not much.

    3. Re:Mosquitoes are Food! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno, the world has really gone to shit in the time since the passenger pigeon went extinct. So maybe there is more to it than what's on the surface. I am only half joking.

    4. Re:Mosquitoes are Food! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Martha, thought to be the last passenger pigeon, died on September 1, 1914, at the Cincinnati Zoo.
      Is it a coincidence World War I began just a few weeks before?

    5. Re:Mosquitoes are Food! by gravewax · · Score: 1

      Mosquitoes are NOT essential food items for any known species, especially not a recently introduced variety. At the moment introduced pest in Australia are decimating native species, but you think it more important to save an introduced one just in case something in the last 20 years has become dependent on it.

    6. Re:Mosquitoes are Food! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a new species has overtaken an ecological niche, then killing them off does not guarantee that any previous species is still robust enough to fill the niche back up again. Once a system returns to equilibrium, any new change can cause an equal or greater disturbance.

    7. Re:Mosquitoes are Food! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sooo retard, you are proposing letting all the native animals be wiped out just in case some freak change in the system has made this recently introduced pest essential. Christ did you even read what you wrote before you posted it?

    8. Re:Mosquitoes are Food! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't killing a species, it is one small sub-species, the sub species that spread disease makes up on a tiny percentage of mosquito populations. Nothing, except the diseases, will be lost by their eradication. Mosquitos even in their natural environments are not a primary part of any species food chain, let alone critical in areas they are introduced.

    9. Re:Mosquitoes are Food! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I am suggesting that AFTER those natives have been wiped out, it is stupid to expect that wiping out the invasive species will be enough to restore the original order.

    10. Re:Mosquitoes are Food! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not about decimating the overall mosquito population. It's very targeted. Mosquito species that don't carry human pathogens will actually profit from this.

    11. Re:Mosquitoes are Food! by gravewax · · Score: 1

      But they haven't been wiped out yet, Australia is working hard to prevent that from happening, though between Cane toads, carp, mosquitos, foxes, rabbits, cats, pigs, camels, dogs, goats etc we have many species bordering on extinction unless research like this is successful very very soon. This is also only a sub species. it doesn't remove mosquitos from the environment just the particular disease carrying sub species.

  12. Population control by TJHook3r · · Score: 0

    Don't want to be harsh but vast tracts of land, including valuable rainforest, will be deserts and tarmac without mosquitoes. Stopping malaria will trigger some severe unintended consequences.

    1. Re: Population control by TJHook3r · · Score: 1

      That really went down well. Thanks for the counter-arguments!

  13. Re:And here's one in the wild! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    >Jan 20, 2019

    GREAT SCOTT!! Marty, we have to go back!

  14. Anything to get the little bastards by hackertourist · · Score: 1

    but I'm kinda bummed they used a biological method instead of the laser cannon that was discussed here a few years ago

    1. Re:Anything to get the little bastards by jwhyche · · Score: 1

      Wait!!

      We could have had active laser armed drones that zap mosquitoes roaming the streets. An we went with this?

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    2. Re: Anything to get the little bastards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking Bill Gates. The Gates Foundation has the patent for the mosquito laser. They could still piggyback the economics of the device off of mass production of optical drive technology, and the cost of each laser turret would be less than $10.

      The lawyers decided that the potential liability for accidents and misuse outweighed the millions of potential lives saved. Oh, and the billions of dollars in profit they'd make selling to the West. I'd have a dozen of these outside my house.

      It'd also be appropriate for greenhouse pest management, and a slew of other anti-pest applications.

  15. So are humans. They are far more destructive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess who brought those mosquitoes there.

    Guess which planetary pathogen would be a far better target of getting exterminated.

    The sad thing is that "nature... finds way" is true for humans too.

  16. Re:And here's one in the wild! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bathe in their tears...

  17. Look outside. It is! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Three words: Trump. Is. President.

    Seriously, if a screen writer came up with it, they would laugh him out of the office. Even the fantasy office!

  18. Nothing New News by Gnostic+Teflon · · Score: 1

    This has been practiced by vector control authorities for decades in the U.S.

    When it's out of the news for so long, a repeat of the past becomes novel for a new generation.

    1. Re:Nothing New News by clovis · · Score: 1

      This has been practiced by vector control authorities for decades in the U.S.

      When it's out of the news for so long, a repeat of the past becomes novel for a new generation.

      yep. And one of those is the screwworm that has been eradicated from the USA, Mexico, and Central America. (and re-eradicated after being reintroduced)
      http://www.fao.org/docrep/U422...
      https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aph...

    2. Re:Nothing New News by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Now if only we can get rid of ticks........

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  19. First question that comes to mind... by plazman30 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What eats the mosquitoes? Because whatever it is, you just wiped out a major food source for them.

    1. Re:First question that comes to mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Virtually nothing. Something like a single-digit percentage of the diet of bats and a couple of species of birds. Plus, it's just a single, non-native species of mosquito we're talking about here, not all.

    2. Re:First question that comes to mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so worth it. Even if it's panda bears.

    3. Re:First question that comes to mind... by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 0

      What eats the mosquitoes? Because whatever it is, you just wiped out a major food source for them.

      Good thing you're here. This is the first time anyone ever thought about such things...

    4. Re:First question that comes to mind... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      one nice thing about bugs, if you're a thing that eats bugs, is that the world have an incredible number of types of bugs. The are only estimates on the number of species of bugs, maybe 2 million, maybe over 30 million. We've only cataloged 925,000 of them but there are so many more we'll be at it identifying the others for more than a century.

      so don't worry, bug eating critters have plenty more stations in the buffet line to chow on, they'll be fine.

    5. Re:First question that comes to mind... by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      What eats the mosquitoes? Because whatever it is, you just wiped out a major food source for them.

      They are non-native mosquitoes. This would be the equivalent of wiping out McDonalds from China. Life will go on.

  20. Unintended Consequences ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cannot wait to find out what these will be ...

  21. Whatever you incels have to tell yourselves... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whatever you incels have to tell yourselves...

  22. ... the other 20% ... by Rip!ey · · Score: 2

    Whilst it might be a promising contribution to global health (Hey, I'm an Australian), it's the other 20% we need to worry about. One step forwards, two steps back.

    1. Re:... the other 20% ... by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      Whilst it might be a promising contribution to global health (Hey, I'm an Australian), it's the other 20% we need to worry about. One step forwards, two steps back.

      What is the two steps back? Or is this one of those things where you have no idea but want to there to be a negative angle anyway?

  23. No protests? by Provocateur · · Score: 2

    Hey how come we are not hearing any protests from animal rights people from Florida? This happens to be their state bird,you know.Just sayin

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    1. Re:No protests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey how come we are not hearing any protests from animal rights people from Florida? This happens to be their state bird,you know.Just sayin

      Ain't that the truth! Some seem large enough to carry away some small animals.

    2. Re:No protests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well as a Floridian and President of the Society for the Protection of Mosquitoes, also its sole member, I hereby offer my official protest! Ya happy now?! Should you come to our beautiful state we will take you out on a guided mosquito feeding tour of the Everglades where you will be the main course...

  24. Method used since the 1950s by dtmos · · Score: 4, Informative

    The sterile insect technique has been used since the 1950s. In Florida, in my living memory, it eliminated the dreadful screwworm (the males were sterilized by X-radiation), and even stopped a re-infestation in the Florida Keys in 2016.

    There is nothing new about this technique, except perhaps the method by which the males were made sterile. If you're concerned about ecological implications, the technique has a 60-year history covering many insects around the world for you to study.

    Before you dismiss the technique out of hand, however, I suggest that you spend time with patients (quite literally) suffering from Dengue, with mothers having given birth to babies with Microcephaly due to Zika, or those owning dogs, cats, or farm animals agonizing from screwworm infections, and get their viewpoint.

  25. why is it an "experiment"? by Wolfier · · Score: 1

    the technique had been used multiple times before, starting decades ago.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  26. isn't this how we got killer bees? by inerlogic · · Score: 1

    do you want killer mosquitos? because this is how you get killer mosquitos...

  27. Again? by noodler · · Score: 1