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.

89 of 177 comments (clear)

  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 gtall · · Score: 1

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

    3. 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

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

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

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

  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 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...
    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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!

    6. 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.
    7. 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.

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

      Australia vs Thylacine

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

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

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

    13. 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.

    14. 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.

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

      Alex Jones will.

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

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

    17. 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.
    18. Re:Nature finds a way by gtall · · Score: 1

      You don't really understand evolution, do you?

    19. 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."
    20. 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."
    21. 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?

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

      he wouldÃ(TM)ve SJWÃ(TM)d

      Speaking of things that need fixing....

    23. 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.

    24. 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.

    25. 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.

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

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

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

      Or prescriptivists, whichever comes first.

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

      I refer to medical doctors in general.

    29. 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.

    30. 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.

    31. 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."
    32. 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
    33. 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).

    34. 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.

    35. 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.

    36. 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.

    37. 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.

    38. 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.
    39. 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.

    40. 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...

    41. 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?

    42. 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.

    43. 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
    44. 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
    45. 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.
    46. 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.
    47. 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.
    48. 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.
    49. 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.

    50. 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. 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 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."
  4. 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.
  5. 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 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.

  6. 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.

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

    >Jan 20, 2019

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

  8. 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.
  9. Re:Disgusting and Abhorrent by Gabest · · Score: 2

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

  10. 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."
  11. 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.

  12. 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 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.

    2. 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.

  13. ... 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?

  14. 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.
  15. Re: Population control by TJHook3r · · Score: 1

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

  16. 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.

  17. 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/...

  18. 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.

  19. 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...

  20. Again? by noodler · · Score: 1