United Nations Considers a Test Ban on Evolution-Warping Gene Drives (technologyreview.com)

Bill Gates wants to end malaria, and so he's particularly "energized" about gene drives, a technology that could wipe out the mosquitoes that spread the disease. Gates calls the new approach a "breakthrough," but some environmental groups say gene drives are too dangerous to ever use. From a report: Now the sides are headed for a showdown. In a letter circulated this week, scientists funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and others are raising the alarm over what they say is an attempt to use a United Nations biodiversity meeting this week in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, to introduce a global ban on field tests of the technology. At issue is a draft resolution by diplomats updating the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, which -- if adopted -- would call on governments to "refrain from" any release of organisms containing engineered gene drives, even as part of experiments. The proposal for a global gene-drive moratorium has been pushed by environmental groups that are also opposed to genetically modified soybeans and corn. They have likened the gene-drive technique to the atom bomb.

In response, the Gates Foundation, based in Seattle, has been funding a counter-campaign, hiring public relations agencies to preempt restrictive legislation and to distribute today's letter. Many of its signatories are directly funded by the foundation. "This is a lobbying game on both sides, to put it bluntly," says Todd Kuiken, who studies gene-drive policy at North Carolina State University. (He says he was asked to sign the Gates letter but declined because he is a technical advisor to the UN.) New technology The gene-drive technique involves modifying a mosquito's DNA so that, when the insect breeds, it spreads a specific genetic change -- one that's bad for its survival.

Comments

TOO LATE

[Anonymous Coward]

The Genie is out of the bottle.

Re:TOO LATE

[Joce640k]

some environmental groups say gene drives are too dangerous to ever use.

Sure, and some "environmental groups" are staffed by people who firmly believe that Atlantean DNA has 12 strands.

Re:TOO LATE

[Immerman]

Perhaps. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. There's no putting the nuclear weapon genie back in it's bottle either - but that doesn't mean we should stand back and let every arms dealer with the resources make and sell nukes to any wacko with the money.

As someone who tentatively approves of responsible genetic engineering (tentatively, because I see precious little evidence of responsible behavior among GMO creators), I'm still strongly opposed to employing gene drives.

Basically, a gene drive involves installing state-of-the-art genetic engineering tools that we stole from bacteria, and are only beginning to fully understand ourselves, into various organisms in a way in which we'll *never* be able to remove, short of driving the species to extinction (which we've thus far had very little success at doing on purpose). And evolution does so love to find creative ways to put useful genes to work.

There's also the fact that we pretty much have to go on faith that gene drives will remain in the target species - the barriers between species are not nearly as absolute as we often imagine, with occasional individuals successfully cross-breeding with similar species. It's very uncommon, but it happens, and it only takes one such hybridization to spread the gene drive into new species, where its effects will be unpredictable.

And that's before even considering the modification payload itself, which may or may not succeed in its intended goals. Extinction drives are perhaps one of the safer gene drives possible, provided they don't jump species, as they eliminate themselves from the gene pool going forward, assuming the species doesn't evolve immunity, which there's already some evidence can occur. I trust I'm not alone in being concerned about those qualifiers. It only takes one individual among countless trillions with a mutation that neutralizes the gene drive (or its effect) to spread the neutered gene drive throughout the now rapidly rebounding species.

Re:TOO LATE

[DontBeAMoran]

You mean, people from the lost city of Atlanta?

Re:TOO LATE

[Anonymous Coward]

Oopsie, the release gene drive for mosquitoes worked to well, and somehow is jumping into all flying insects! Oh, make that all invertebrates. Seems like some vertebrates have it now too. Now don't you fret, let's all just grow old together and enjoy the time we have left without the noise of children.

Re:TOO LATE

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically it's exactly what viruses do, except the effort is conscientious rather than essentially random.

Re:TOO LATE

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be hideously unlikely. Horizontal gene transmission, and fertile hybrid species are both rare. Even if that did happen, the gene drive won't work in a non-target species, because the CAS9 protein in the gene drive is sequence specific. You typically set the gene drive to target a gene critical for reproduction in a target species, something like a protein involved in eggs for a mosquito. If the gene drive ends up in a different species, the nontarget will have similar and related genes, but the CAS9 won't modify it because the gene's sequence will be different. There are at least two exceedingly improbable barriers to the gene drive spreading to nontarget species.

Re:TOO LATE

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, isolate yourself and enjoy cancer, cystic fibrosis, parkinsons, etc... while the rest of humanity is freed from long term illness

the number of luddites on /. shouldn't surprise me, but this is effing ridiculous

Re:TOO LATE

[michaelni]

Quite a few things said here are incorrect, inprecisse or misleading.

Comparing atomic weapons to genetics is misleading, you can control the production of nukes as you need enriched fissionable material and its very hard to make that. But with genetics all the tools and source materials are really all around. Life would not work if it didn't had the tools ...

Theres a lot of fear of genetic modification, but humankind has modified genes since longer than there are written records. The beef and pork and also the bread you eat all would not exist had we not. Things became more precise with fewer random and unpredictable modifications as modern methods are used. But somehow peoples logic seems to have a overflow there as people seem to jump from what is more precise and more human controlled to being less so and more random and more unpredictable.

Gene drives, i must admit i have only heard of variants that intend to wipe out very specific disease spreading species. For example theres one that makes all offspring male in some very specific human disease spreading mosquito species.Now in this case where exactly do we have the danger ? Either it works all, as in a local population just are all male and die out or it doesn't and somehow theres female offspring which means the change stopped working which would not be worse than not having tried in the first place. This is not really different from using an antibiotic to kill off a disease causing bacteria in a patient. Or a anti viral drug. And that arguing that it would be terrible if that unintentionally wiped out HIV globally. Or maybe also wiped out a very closely related virus. Sure theres always some risk that something completely unexpected could happen yes, but that risk equally exists if you spray toxic chemicals widely in an not so successful attempt to control these mosquitoes. Genes are not static they change naturally and anything you do evolution will react to. The risk for a carefully engineered and intentional modification which then also is carefully tested, honestly seems less than what we do currently. Which is spraying toxic chemicals in an attempt to control disease spreading species. The species evolves as a result some resistance to the chemical (that is its genetics change), why this totally unpredictable change is seen less dangerous or unpredictable than an intentional carefully engeneered change is something i fail to understand

I personally find it sad that people want to ban something which could save millions of human lifes. (wikipedia says 438,000 people died on malaria in 2015).

Re:TOO LATE

[Aighearach]

I'm pretty sure humans are genetically one species, even on Santorini.

I know the place feels magical, but still!

Re:TOO LATE

[Anonymous Coward]

i hear they have a airport and a bottling plant

Re:TOO LATE

[Immerman]

Rare, but not unheard of - it often comes down to the genetic compatibility of the specific individuals involved - and when you're talking about species who number in the trillions, and have 3000 related species, rare events aren't quite so hideously unlikely as you might expect.

Meanwhile, if a species is similar enough to allow fertile hybrids, it seems to me quite likely that the gene drive would work on them as well (also note that I'm not talking just about extinction drives that would interfere with something reproduction related - it holds true for *any* gene drive). Unless it's targetting something species specific - which seems unlikely considering that the vast bulk of DNA will be identical between closely related species. Especially around something as fundamental as reproductive processes.

Re:TOO LATE

[Immerman]

Nowhere did I object to genetic engineering, just to one specific, exceptionally dangerous technology that's completely unrelated to curing genetic-based diseases.

Re:TOO LATE

[Powercntrl]

Basically, a gene drive involves installing state-of-the-art genetic engineering tools that we stole from bacteria, and are only beginning to fully understand ourselves, into various organisms in a way in which we'll *never* be able to remove, short of driving the species to extinction (which we've thus far had very little success at doing on purpose).

The upside is we get rid of mosquitoes. The downside is a few non-target species might die slightly earlier than when the sun goes red giant and fries every living thing on the Earth.

Sounds like an acceptable risk, IMHO.

Re:TOO LATE

[Immerman]

As I said, I approve of responsible genetic engineering.

Gene drives specifically are something else though, and they are being investigated for many non-extinction applications as well - one of the proposed mosquito "low impact" solutions being developed for example is a gene drive that simply makes them immune to the malaria parasite, which actually gives the modified individuals a survival advantage.

As for gene drives that "stop working" being harmless - not so much. Just because the payload stops being delivered, or even if the "target" mutates so that the drive stops spreading except by normal inheritance mechanisms, doesn't mean the drive ceases to exist. It will continue to spread throughout the species, and potentially across species through the occasional hybrid. And every individual with that "harmless" gene drive now has all the genetic tools necessary to perform arbitrary genetic engineering on itself, and potentially its hosts - just waiting for evolution to find a way to put those idle genes to work.

Re:TOO LATE

[Immerman]

And that's before we start talking about the truly scary gene drives being discussed - such as the work the US military has proposed into developing "defensive" gene drives for our staple food crops. "In case of genetic attack on our food supply". Right.

Re:TOO LATE

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically, a gene drive involves installing state-of-the-art genetic engineering tools that we stole from bacteria, and are only beginning to fully understand ourselves, into various organisms in a way in which we'll *never* be able to remove, short of driving the species to extinction (which we've thus far had very little success at doing on purpose).

Fscking n00bs. Use git!

Re:TOO LATE

[Immerman]

Not quite.

We *might* get rid of mosquitoes. There've already been a few lab tests in which species have evolved an immunity to "extinction drives", and the odds of that happening go up dramatically when the population numbers in the trillions. In which case we're back to square one, except that now the mosquitoes are all carrying powerful DNA-editing tools in their genes, just waiting for further evolution to put them to use.

I'm sure there's no way that could possibly go badly with a species of blood-feeders that already routinely inject their DNA into their host's bloodstream.

And we risk wiping out vast swaths of harmless nectar feeders (the other 3,000 species of mosquito that *don't* bite humans), with potentially catastrophic domino effects among the plants that rely on them as primary pollinators, the animals and other species that rely on those plants, etc.

Re:TOO LATE

[Immerman]

How do you figure? Offhand I can't think of any viruses that splice DNA-editing tools into their hosts reproductive cells in such a way that they're all but guaranteed to spread throughout the entire species.

Re:TOO LATE

[physicsphairy]

What is missing from your comment is a single defined negative outcome. When millions of people die each year from mosquito born diseases, vague insinuations that something bad you can't articulate could happen is not a sufficient rebuttal to saving them. What are you proposing could happen that would make us long for the days when we only had malaria and dengue to worry about?

Re:TOO LATE

[Anonymous Coward]

A genetic attack on the food supply would be bad, but the truly scary stuff would be an attack on humans. There are systematic differences between the genes of people belonging to different groups. So you can have genetic attacks that works on groups you don't like. "A virus that kill blacks" has been suggested before. Horrible, but even ebola doesn't kill 100%. A virus that inserts a gene drive causing sterility (or death) in a group of people would wipe it out completely over a few generations.Or the apartheid dream - make different races incompatible with each other.

An attack designed for one group, might mutate and get us all. This is much more likely for a anti-human weapon than an anti-mosquito weapon, as human races have so much more in common than human & mosquito. Add to this that the kind of people most likely to perform such an attack are extreme racists, likely to be low in funds and competence. If they manage an attack, chances are they botch the tech in all sorts of ways. And of course there are doomsday cults who might actually want to end humanity - including themselves. Making this stuff is apparently easier than nukes - lets hope it is much harder than sarin . . .

Re:TOO LATE

[The Cynical Critic]

Considering how we're talking about a method where we release individuals of a particular species with sabotaged genes into the wild so that they then breed with the the wild population and spread these sabotaged genes across the population trough natural procreation I don't think this has much of a risk of jumping across species.

Worst case scenario is that this spreads beyond the intended target population and you end up exterminating additional populations of the same species.

Re:TOO LATE

[jpatters]

Even if some hypothetical species jump were to occur, at the most it could effect one or a few individuals. For a gene drive to work, you need to release a large number of the target species so that a significant fraction of the breeding population will have the modification.

Re:TOO LATE

[Immerman]

No, you really don't. That makes it more likely to be successful, as it's more likely that at least one of your individuals manage to reproduce before dying in every generation, and that their offspring manage to do so as well, until such time as they have enough descendants that it would be virtually impossible to eliminate them all. But it's not required.

You may be thinking of "traditional GMO" mosquito control strategies, where you're relying on normal genetic dispersion to spread your modifications, but the big difference with gene drives is that 100% of the offspring inherit the drive.

So, a single female mosquito lays 100-300 eggs at a time. If she or her inter-species mate has a gene drive, then 100% of her offspring will as well, lets call it 200 eggs. If 5% of those offspring survive to reproduce, then that one successful hybridization has resulted in 10 hybrids going on to reproduce. After another generation, 100, then 1000, etc. And of course, males have potentially much greater generational fan-out than females, so it would actually happen much faster than that. So long as the drive doesn't impose an individual survival disadvantage, it can spread through the population like wildfire. As is the case, for example, in the gene drive that makes all offspring male - it maximizes generational fan-out, while imposing no individual disadvantages. Spreads like wildfire until virtually everyone has it, and then in the course of a single generation all the females vanish and the species goes extinct.

Re: TOO LATE

[locketine]

I'm sure there's no way that could possibly go badly with a species of blood-feeders that already routinely inject their DNA into their host's bloodstream.

This was my first thought after reading the article. Mosquitos are particularly risky to genetically modify due to how they interact with other species. What are the chances that they might bite and exchange the gene drive DNA with another species with a similar enough gene sequence to the target of the gene drive? And what if the gene drive mutates within the mosquito population in a way that better targets other species?

Hopefully one stage of lab testing involves a massive hermetically sealed warehouse full of millions of mosquitoes and a wide variety of their prey.

Re:TOO LATE

[Immerman]

Actually, not really. It's conceptually horrifying, but would be relatively easy to control. I mean, the original race-targeting virus would not be, but that has nothing to do with gene-drives, and there's not a whole lot of motive to insert a gene-drive rather than just killing or modifying the targeted individuals outright, which is considerably faster and easier. Gene drives only affect your children.

Also, there are no gene sequences present in all members of one race but none of another - the reason scientists say there is no genetic basis for race. Though for such a hypothetical monster, killing 10% of their own race might be an acceptable price to pay to kill 90% of another.

The biggest factors controlling the spread of a gene drive is the speed that the species reproduces, and the generational fan-out. Infect one male corn stalk with a gene drive, and it can have thousands of offspring, including many wild hybrids, and those offspring can have thousands more next season - With a good growing year you could easily be looking at millions, even billions of carriers within a single year. You'll never get that under control again. Infect one mosquito, it can have hundreds of offspring, and with a lifecycle of around 10 days even if only 5 offspring of each clutch survive to reproduce it could easily spread throughout the population in a single year. Humans though - you've got 15-30 years per generation, and only 2-3 offspring. It'd take over 20 generations (300-600 years) to infect half the global population. And we're mostly intelligent beings who would be reasonably easy to screen for treatment or quarantine.

Re:TOO LATE

[Immerman]

That is a decent argument, but I disagree.

I know it sounds callous, but several tens of millions of people die every year, and nothing we do will ever change that (well, we might invent immortality, but that would likely soon result in billions of people dying). People dying is the natural course of events. Jeopardizing the future viability of the global biosphere to save the lives of a few percent of those is hopelessly reckless.

Re:TOO LATE

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, isn't that also where Trump went bankrupt for a little while before he started up some 'education' scams.

UN has no authority.

[HornWumpus]

Just a bunch of politicians playing pretend. Ignore them.

Re: UN has no authority.

[Type44Q]

Ignore them

By all means, ignore those clowns; just don't ignore the message.

Re:UN has no authority.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to the North Koreans. The authority of its member states is what it works with.

Re:UN has no authority.

[RenderSeven]

Seems like the sole purpose of the UN is letting 192 nations vote on how much money the United States should pay each of them.

Re:UN has no authority.

[Applehu Akbar]

Just a bunch of politicians playing pretend. Ignore them.

As it stands now, this isn't about the UN. It's about activists who are haranguing a conference to get the UN to do its bidding.

Re:UN has no authority.

[ljw1004]

Seems like the sole purpose of the UN is letting 192 nations vote on how much money the United States should pay each of them.

How do you get that from this story? I don't see any aspect of it being about the US paying other nations. (indeed, it looks like it's other nations telling a US charity not to spend its money on something that might arguably help those other nations, i.e. the exact opposite of your characterization).

Re:UN has no authority.

[Anonymous Coward]

The US has never even entertained the idea of paying it's UN dues, so I wouldn't worry about it.

Re:UN has no authority.

[RenderSeven]

According to the article in Technology Review, the technical advisor to the UN says that opposition is simply lobbying to protect those countries with their own biotech industries. The assumption being (I think) that if Gates were to simply write a check to other countries or non-US industries for gene driver projects, it would be largely accepted. That aside, I was generalizing. You may be correct that some other UN policies are off-topic here.

640 KB of genes

[Anonymous Coward]

640 KB of genetic modifications ought to be enough for everyone. - Bill Gates

Re:640 KB of genes

[Anonymous Coward]

"There is nothing to fear but feat itself" -- Abraham Lincoln

Mosquito genocide

[mveloso]

I for one am looking forward to the coming mosquito genocide.

Re:Mosquito genocide

[Anonymous Coward]

And when the bats start disappearing will that be OK too?

Playing God has consequences.

Re:Mosquito genocide

[Anonymous Coward]

So what is the big deal? We already wiped 60% of all species, what difference few more going to do?

Re: Mosquito genocide

[Type44Q]

And the subsequent 'food chain domino effect??'

Re: Mosquito genocide

[Type44Q]

This is just as shortsighted as draining wetlands.

Re: Mosquito genocide

[crow]

I believe they studied that, and it's not significant, especially if you only target the species of mosquitoes that spread diseases to humans (malaria, west nile, etc.), as that leaves many others unharmed.

Re: Mosquito genocide

[oh_my_080980980]

Think again, FTA:

"Contrary to Gates’s time line, which he later amended to “several years,” gene-drive technology remains highly experimental. Scientists aren’t sure how well it would work in the wild and don’t even have insects they consider ready for field tests."

Re: Mosquito genocide

[crow]

Think again:

If you actually read what I wrote an the comment it was responding to, it has nothing to do with the technology being ready. It's a discussion on whether the elimination of mosquito species would disrupt the food chain.

Re: Mosquito genocide

[Anonymous Coward]

We have eliminated millions of species, one more (and one which actually causes harm) won't cause the apocalypse. There's tons and tons of other insects for all the insectivores to eat. Including non-malaria-spreading mosquito subspecies which will be all too happy to replace the malaria-bearing ones in that particular ecological niche.

Re:Mosquito genocide

[Areyoukiddingme]

And when the bats start disappearing will that be OK too?

The majority of the diet of bats is not mosquitos, either in numbers or in weight. Among insect-eating bats, mosquitos are no more than 20% of their diet.

Also, the modified species the Gates Foundation wants to release is only one mosquito species that bites humans. There are numerous other mosquito species which do not bite humans. They'll still be available for bats to eat.

The Gates Foundation is known for being a bit self-serving, but they're not proposing this solution to malaria in a vacuum. It's fairly well considered.

Re:Mosquito genocide

[Anonymous Coward]

So what is the big deal? We already wiped 60% of all species, what difference few more going to do?

There are many indirect impacts to humans from doing what you said. Just because we manage to survive doesn't mean it won't eventually cause the harm that we can't deal with. Stop seeing a short-term solution to a problem as the solution. Look further and understand what it may happen before making any decision. Want an example? Look at how business model nowadays does -- look at how to make money in 5 years -- which creates another huge problem from outsourcing to other countries.

Re: Mosquito genocide

[Gilgaron]

Not an issue if you only wipe out the ones that bite humans, most of which would be considered invasive species in much of their range. Unlike spray or draining, a gene drive would actually give you a way to selectively eliminate only the 'bad' ones!

Re:Mosquito genocide

[Immerman]

Why would the bats disappear? Human-feeding mosquitoes are an invasive species that followed humans across the globe. There's no shortage of other mosquito species, nor of other flying insect species. Their sudden extinction might make for a rough year, but other species of fast-breeding pollen-feeders would almost certainly fill the ecological niche almost immediately.

I'm strongly opposed to gene drive technology for reasons listed in my reply to the first post, but if we could safely drive human-feeding mosquitoes to extinction I see no reason not to do so.

Re: Mosquito genocide

[DontBeAMoran]

I prefer the food chain pizza hut effect.

Re:Mosquito genocide

[Shotgun]

Mosquitoes make up only a very small portion of a bats diet (I've been studying that lately because of the moquito population around my back deck.) A still pond with a few guppy fish has a much large effect on moquito populations.

Re:Mosquito genocide

[Applehu Akbar]

I for one am looking forward to the coming mosquito genocide.

There are over 3000 species of mosquito. Out of these, only 200 even bite humans, and only a small fraction of these spread disease. Eliminating even the 200 would have no effect on ecosystems.

Re: Mosquito genocide

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing my graduate degree taught me is that most studies are bullshit. When you read them, most are crap and all have some minor issues. And that was mainly in the field of computer science where you can control nearly all of the variables. In other fields such as biology, the control is even worse. These types of studies are only theories. What will actually happen isn't known. There are more things about the world that we don't know compared to what we do know, which is amazing considering how much we do know.

A better solution would be to cure malaria, west nile, etc... than to kill their carriers. Where's the research on giving the insects a way to fight off those diseases instead of simply killing the insects? Instead people are pushing for the option with the most risk. Since we currently only have one planet to live on, we shouldn't be taking these types of risks so lightly. And they are being taken lightly. This ban/anti-ban is a lobbying effort, not an education effort. The outcome will be based on emotional arguments and back scratching rather than rational science.

Re: Mosquito genocide

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Other mosquitoes will just fill the gap. There is nothing special about this species other than it hosts malaria plasmodia. Mosquitoes will even profit because when they don't transmit diseases, they're just a nuisance to humans who will make much less of an effort to destroy their breeding grounds or poison them.

Re:Mosquito genocide

[suutar]

what we should do is modify humans to be poisonous to mosquitos :)

Re: Mosquito genocide

[Anonymous Coward]

But how can you be sure only one species of mosquito is erased?

Mosquitoes suffer from viruses, just like we do. The same virus can attack several insect species. Viruses try to spread their own DNA, but sometimes also scoops up other DNA (some of our inactive DNA is such garbage DNA that got into our ancestors.) So, this sterility gene drive could jump to other insects and kill them off too. Or to organisms that aren't insects.

Getting bitten by a malaria-infected mosquito is bad, but at least we have an (expensive) cure. What happens if you get bitten by a genetically modified mosquito, that may have other diseases than just malaria?

Perhaps the money is better spent eradicating the malaria parasite instead of its carrier.

Re:Mosquito genocide

[DNS-and-BIND]

How about the vast swathes of land in Africa that are off-limits to human colonization due to endemic malaria? Without the ability to protect itself, these vulnerable wetlands will be slashed and burned by human locusts. You think global warming is bad now, just wait until humans drain and burn down the protected lands.

Re: Mosquito genocide

[Falconnan]

This is a fair consideration. However, it's not quite as dire as that for a number of reasons. My approach would be to engineer a mosquito which won't transmit malaria, but otherwise of the same species. The problem isn't that mosquitoes bite humans exactly, but rather that they transmit the disease. If we could provoke the mosquitoes to have an immune response to the pathogen, the problem should self-resolve.

In the end, nature is doing these experiments all of the time in less overt, but very random ways. Banning a technology won't really make it go away, anyway.

Obligatory Jurassic Park Reference

[Anonymous Coward]

"Life finds a way..."

Re:Obligatory Jurassic Park Reference

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and hopefully, it will find a way to wipe us off the face of the earth before the human cancer becomes incurable.

Re: Mild pesticides work wonders

[Type44Q]

No one needs to make up stories about Dow.

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

They can use it to get rid of snakes, spiders and roaches next. Good riddance.

640 KB of genes

[Anonymous Coward]

640 KB of genetic modifications ought to be enough for everyone - Bill Gates

OMG GMO

[Anonymous Coward]

gmo, omg!

Re:OMG GMO

[DontBeAMoran]

RUFR GTFO MOFO

Won't happen.

[Gravis Zero]

According to Kuiken, the UN is unlikely to endorse a ban, because that requires consensus, and some countries with biotech industries are expected to oppose the measure.

It's not even worth discussing here.

But seriously

[crow]

Ticks should be next. First we get rid of deer ticks (Lyme disease), and maybe a few others that spread serious illnesses.

We can't have that. Who's bringin' the gene-o-cide

[Seven Spirals]

Pandemic virus that kills only a certain race? No problem. Live to 1000 years old? Sure, man. As long as you have the cash, it's a brave new world.

Re:Mild pesticides work wonders

[Anonymous Coward]

DDT also makes seagulls homosexual

Horny Wuss isn't even up to that level

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a whiny nazi incel trying to assert his influence, fecklessly like the cunt he is.

MIT Technology Review has a paywall

[tepples]

MIT Technology Review allows 3 page views per user per month before putting up a paywall, or 0 page views per user per month for users who use Disconnect, Firefox Tracking Protection, or any of several other privacy tools. Editors: In the future, please add "(may be paywalled)" when posting articles from technologyreview.com.

Re:MIT Technology Review has a paywall

[DontBeAMoran]

The website is still not UTF-8 compliant near the end of 2018, they can't even avoid posting duplicates of the same news and you want them to have a list of websites which need to have a warning added to their URLs?

Re:Mild pesticides work wonders

[Anonymous Coward]

https://qz.com/1023638/the-gulls-are-alright-how-a-lesbian-seagull-discovery-shook-up-1970s-conservatives/

"The males, he posits, were dying off because of exposure to DDT, the insecticide that was banned in the US in 1972, but would have taken a number of years to disappear from gulls’ food sources. DDT builds up within fat; female seagulls were likely exposed to the chemical too, but they could hypothetically offload the DDT from their bodies into the fatty yolks of the eggs they laid. Males had no system to rid their bodies of the chemical, and, George posits, would die from a lethal dose when their bodies used up fat stores during cold winters."

I agree with this

[Rick Schumann]

I am almost always shouted down for it, but I agree that we're forging ahead with genetic modifications without fully knowing what the long-term consequences will be, and it's a one-way street, once it's done you can't take it back, and we won't know what the ultimate consequences will be for decades or centuries -- or maybe a matter of just years, if we're really unlucky. Worse, there could be consequences we'll never even realize are due to something we've modifed genetically; imagine our species dying out and never even understanding why it's happening?

Ironically I'm not even worried about this on an emotional basis. There's already enough GMO that's been released into the wild that it's already too late to do anything about it, and countries like China are even less cautious about doing it than anyone else. One way or another our fate is already sealed. Odds are about even that those of us alive right now won't live to see any possible negative consequences; it might take several generations before anything shows up.

Re:I agree with this

[Lab Rat Jason]

I am almost always shouted down for it, but I agree that we're forging ahead with genetic modifications without fully knowing what the long-term consequences will be, and it's a one-way street, once it's done you can't take it back, and we won't know what the ultimate consequences will be for decades or centuries -- or maybe a matter of just years, if we're really unlucky. Worse, there could be consequences we'll never even realize are due to something we've modifed genetically; imagine our species dying out and never even understanding why it's happening?

It is not enough for Icarus to fly near the sun, he must fly to it's center... just to ensure it's really that hot.

You have set a bar so high, as to be totally impossible to reach. I therefore award you the rank of "Twelve Sigma Black Belt." Now go, and use your powers to frustrate all of humanity.

Re:I agree with this

[schklerg]

Humans have rarely looked at long term consequences before going far down a path. I wish they would, but I don't think it's going to start now.

Re:I agree with this

[Anonymous Coward]

... once it's done you can't take it back, and we won't know what the ultimate consequences will be for decades ...

Zombie Apocalypse.

Grab your crossbow.

Re:I agree with this

[rogoshen1]

Sounds like a totally reasonable point of view to me. No matter how 'careful' we think we're being, or how well considered we are regarding unintended consequences; there's always a chance something will sneak past the goalie, and who knows what happens then?

The iterative approach to figuring things out falls flat when an unintended consequence or other unforeseen outcomes have the potential for devastation. Sure, this attempt might only effect a particular type of mosquito, but who's to say that it'll never mutate and/or change in ways we have no ability to predict?

Surely there is a better way to control mosquitoes (and parasites in general)

Re:I agree with this

[Anonymous Coward]

While where bar should be set might be a conversation you're incapable of participating, The rest of us understand perfectly well the idea of knowing what you're doing before you go and do it.

Gates spending his monopoly money on a PR Campaign ought to tip someone you off that, at present, there is no discussion about where the bar is at.

That's the biggest issue here.

Re:I agree with this

[Anonymous Coward]

I am almost always shouted down for it, but I agree that we're forging ahead with genetic modifications without fully knowing what the long-term consequences will be, and it's a one-way street, once it's done you can't take it back, and we won't know what the ultimate consequences will be for decades or centuries -- or maybe a matter of just years, if we're really unlucky. Worse, there could be consequences we'll never even realize are due to something we've modifed genetically; imagine our species dying out and never even understanding why it's happening?

Ironically I'm not even worried about this on an emotional basis. There's already enough GMO that's been released into the wild that it's already too late to do anything about it, and countries like China are even less cautious about doing it than anyone else. One way or another our fate is already sealed. Odds are about even that those of us alive right now won't live to see any possible negative consequences; it might take several generations before anything shows up.

You need to balance not just the potential unknowns, but also the things we know. For example, we know which animal kills the most humans annually. It isn't our fellow humans as might be expected, but mosquitoes. The Gates foundation are trying to prevent the deaths of the millions(plural) killed every year by mosquito born illnesses.

There will always be unknowns, even if we discovered a magical genie tomorrow that could kill all mosquitos overnight with zero other affects, we still would have to face the unknown consequences to the food chain from their abrupt extinction. Fact is though, unless you can strongly demonstrate that literally millions would die as a consequence of the unknowns, we are still saving lives.

The case for GMO crops isn't as in your face, but feeding the global population matters too, and like it or not, GMO's absolutely are allowing large increases in food production which absolutely saves lives as well. Failing to account for that in your fear of the unknown is not wisdom, but simplistic fear mongering.

Re:I agree with this

[Anonymous Coward]

The entire history of life revolves around making random changes and injecting dna wherever and hoping it all works out. This is really no different. Wait, no, it's definitely safer because instead of making all these changes directly in production (the open biosphere) it will be done in test and at least checked for basic function before being released.

Re: I agree with this

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing is for sure: Humans will always do it, then regret for lifetimes (3 generations usually), then forget!

Re:I agree with this

[Aighearach]

once it's done you can't take it back

That's how it works, non-adaptive modifications take themselves back.

Positive feedback loops will kill themselves. Negative feedback loops are self-limiting, and can evolve.

The reason you get shouted down is probably that your concerns are hand-wavy, and easily replaced by hand-wavy stuff with different conclusions. Also, the fatalism; fatalists should just shut the fuck up because even they don't believe they're adding anything to the conversation.

Re:I agree with this

[Aighearach]

If you're flying high and they're calling you Icarus but your wings don't melt, and so you keep flying higher, and then they say, "Oh now he's trying to fly into the center of the Sun!" you should probably just look down and laugh at the dimwits.

Predictions aren't useful or knowledgy if you double them whenever they're wrong. You can't Martingale your way to science.

Re:I agree with this

[fafalone]

The potential harm should be considered, but so should the harm of not doing it. At a certain point, the benefits outweigh the risks. Wiping out malaria and things like it after thorough studying potential problems clearly meets that.

Re:I agree with this

[Rick Schumann]

Yes, I agree with you, but this is one of those things that you can't take back or reverse the damage it causes if you're wrong.

Re:I agree with this

[Rick Schumann]

What the hell is so gods-be-damned wrong with being more cautious about things with potentially far-reaching consequences? And again I assert: China. They're not going to be cautious, they want world dominance in all things and screw the consequences. Wouldn't at all be surprised if as we speak they're doing genetic experiments on humans. (Yes, I think the Chinese government are monsters.)

Re:I agree with this

[Rick Schumann]

But do we really know where mosquitoes fit into the overall biosphere and what the real-world consequences are of them being wiped out as a species? Practically a rhetorical question since I don't think we have enough knowledge to really understand everything about how any species affects things overall.

Re:I agree with this

[Gilgaron]

Eh, maybe you could... it'd probably only locally extirpate the species, and the ones that transmit malaria are invasive species in much of their range, having cmoe along with humans like rats or house mice.

Re:I agree with this

[Rick Schumann]

I dunno. Seems to me more like uploading something to the Internet: once it's out there, almost impossible to delete every copy of it.

Re:I agree with this

[rkordmaa]

without fully knowing what the long-term consequences will be

Perhaps what we should start with known factual and at hand consequences of not doing anything. 216 million illness cases and 445,000 to 731,000 deaths, per year, every year. This is not a maybe, decades down the line, we don't know bullshit, this is reality today, right now. That's a corpse every minute you fail to make a decision, think about that very carefully.

Re:I agree with this

[Your.Master]

The thing that's wrong with it is that inaction bias can also cause immense human suffering.

The solution here is to establish a consistent, quantifiable principle about how much caution is enough caution for this. We can't wallow in an endless series of "it needs more research", but sure, it needs some research so we don't accidentally engineer the Rage virus. So, how much?

Re:I agree with this

[rkordmaa]

Clearly there isn't a better way to control mosquitoes available, or a person wouldn't die of malaria every minute, now would they? Having the capability to wipe out malaria and choosing to not use it, is as good as killing that person yourself, every minute of every day. That inaction is a crime against humanity, there are no two ways about it. If I were a gene engineer working on the problem I would absolutely release the solution from the lab, no matter what the law, ethics committee or anyone else says. If I were in a position to wipe out malaria, I am pretty sure I could not choose inaction and live with that decision for the rest of my life as minutes and corpses are ticking by.

Re:I agree with this

[sad_]

we should keep a bunch of those mosquitoes alive somewhere 'safe', just as we do with all those deadly virusses that are erradicated.
in case we did screw up, hopefully we can still restore the situation by releasing our safely kept species.

Re:I agree with this

[Gilgaron]

Only if it doesn't work! In which case it won't have an affect. To your point about caution, I'd suppose the safest thing would be to pick a large island with an invasive mosquito species and test it there.

Re:I agree with this

[Anonymous Coward]

But do we really know where mosquitoes fit into the overall biosphere and what the real-world consequences are of them being wiped out as a species? Practically a rhetorical question since I don't think we have enough knowledge to really understand everything about how any species affects things overall.

You are skipping over the entire point of looking at the known factors as well though.

We know that literally millions of people are killed annually by mosquito born illnesses, their elimination as a species would save those lives. Knowing that, you have to argue how that is balanced against the unknown other side effects of their extinction. Simply waving a hand and saying nobody knows so do nothing is irrational argument from ignorance.

Re:I agree with this

[Anonymous Coward]

I am almost always shouted down for it, but I agree that we're forging ahead with genetic modifications without fully knowing what the long-term consequences will be, and it's a one-way street, once it's done you can't take it back, and we won't know what the ultimate consequences will be for decades or centuries -- or maybe a matter of just years, if we're really unlucky. Worse, there could be consequences we'll never even realize are due to something we've modifed genetically; imagine our species dying out and never even understanding why it's happening?

Well said. We definitely don't want to get to the point where Captain Kirk has to take a rickety starship back in time to capture 2 mosquitoes and bring them back to the future to save Earth from an attack by the spacesquitoes.

This is more than Genetic Engineering

[Anonymous Coward]

"The gene-drive technique involves modifying a mosquito's DNA so that, when the insect breeds, it spreads a specific genetic change -- one that's bad for its survival."

No.. That's genetic engineering. And we're okay with that. Gene drives are far worse than this. A gene drive is self-propagating gene editing. It works such that if ever a mutation occurs, the unmodified gene is put back in place. Gene drives break any chance of mutation ever happening, and break evolution.

Re: This is more than Genetic Engineering

[c6gunner]

Where the hell did you get that nonsense from? Literally none of that is in any way correct.

Re:This is more than Genetic Engineering

[Aighearach]

You can't stop us from using the Warp Drive to kill mosquitos, I don't care how many subspace cultures we destroy. Do we live in subspace? No. So do we care? No.

Back off the gene warp, cowherd.

Re:Mild pesticides work wonders

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjZ7f2Gib9E

Bill Wants To Kill Us All

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck thar psychopath Bill G and his fucked up wife. They're ruch assholes, not visionary leaders. They'll fuck the entire planet to save a buck on their taxes. FUCK THEM.

Re:Bill Wants To Kill Us All

[Anonymous Coward]

ac is not wrong

Re: Mild pesticides work wonders

[Anonymous Coward]

Rachel Carson's book was proven to be a fraud. The harm from DDT was shown to be nonexistent except in extreme overuse.

Everything is dangerous.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know how many viruses are around you right now? Trillions and trillions. Each one a message to rewrite the DNA of something in your body (mostly of bacteria), each one indirectly competing with eachother to carve a larger niche out of our existences.

We took a couple of those and use them in the safest way we can to fight against a small number of pathogens.

I understand the fear - that of Andromeda strains, grey goo, and other explicitly fictional thought experiment scenarios.

Someone, somewhere is going to use this tool, and the environment is going to adapt to it - I'd rather use it at least as well as we've used penicillin, and push diseases back for a while, rather than hold it back until it is used in some predictably irresponsible group. in the ironic name of bottomless responsibility.

Mosquitoes aren't a vital part of any food chain. We can keep their DNA in archives. It's a genuine health benefit to limiting the species to non-mammal-biting varieties.

We're already living with a giant experiment in mass animal extinction through mass irresponsibility. This is an action that at least helps many of the most vulnerable species (land mammals) have a better chance, and increases our own quality of life at the same time.

Mosquitoes won't be extinct - but the varieties that bite mammals are worth the effort to select against..

Re:Everything is dangerous.

[Aighearach]

but but but but but it has a WARP DRIVE so it goes REALLY FAST and we'll all die if viruses hit us at that speed... right?

FTFY, Trumptards

[Anonymous Coward]

What it ACTUALLY seems like is that you're too uneducated an AM-radio "angrylectual" to understand or even be able to imagine any ACTUAL reasons for having an international forum to discuss issues, like most bankrupt Trumptards.

The budget is actually not that much considering how much the US has asked the UN to do with it, which, if you could read, you could know about, moron. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_United_Nations

Re:FTFY, Trumptards

[Anonymous Coward]

Angry, much? :P

They're crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

These people aren't environmentalists or species protectors, they're irrational ideologically driven anti-technology nuts. And to abuse the Convention on Biological Diversity is disingenuous. It's totally out of scope. This would actually increase biological diversity. It's not going to eradicate moskitoes unless applied globally which won't happen for a long time. And even when it does, only one species of moskitoes goes extinct. (Which would be a good thing btw.) So what are they protecting, the malaria plasmodium?

REMEMBER SMALLPOX!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one, do not like genetic modifications done on any agricultural animals & plants!
(Especially changes to try to force them to provide much more food!)

But, using genetics (or any) technology to erase diseases/parasites from existence is a goal, I for one, fully support!!!

Can we say mosquitoes are really necessary to exist for humans & animals & plants?
IMHO, the answer is NO!!!

Can we say the proposed genetic modifications can really make mosquitoes a bigger problem/danger for humanity?
IMHO, the answer is NO!!!

What will/should be the long term future like?
Is humanity really want to keep fighting against mosquitoes, and all the diseases they cause, FOR ETERNITY?
How many more human/animal lives must be lost before we say enough is enough?

Was not really a good thing that humanity erased smallpox disease from existence?
Would be really better to let it live (to preserve 'diversity of nature'(!?), and keep fighting against it, FOR ETERNITY?
How many lives would be lost every year, FOR ETERNITY!? (& not to mention how much HEALTHCARE COST, endlessly?!!!)

IMHO, erasing all diseases/parasites permanently from existence must/should be a general long term goal of humanity!!!

Can't Lie

[Anonymous Coward]

I've often day dreamed about releasing genetically modified mosquitos, tics, and mites into the wild to completely wipe those fuckers out. But on the other hand this genetic tampering is probably how we will end up wiping ourselves off the face of the planet.

Re: Mild pesticides work wonders

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you were proven to by a lying faggot of no value to science, just now by lying. Run along now and drink your fracking fluid you typical dishonest Republican fagchild.

Who decides which species to terminate?

[Sepulep]

This technology clearly needs an international regulatory framework, since in principle its possible to exterminate a species in another country with it - country A could decide to wipe out a species it shares with country B, without the consent of country B; I mean: could mexico decide which species should life in the US? Can think of many many nasty scenarios that go beyond the "lets kill these obnoxious mosquitos" type...

Re:Who decides which species to terminate?

[DalM]

How about we limit the use of this technology to only species of animals that kill more that 100,000 people per year. (Yes that would include humans, but let's exclude them.)

Re:Who decides which species to terminate?

[Aighearach]

Words on paper won't stop that at all.

You're either afraid that your neighbors will nuke you for doing it... or you're not.

If words on paper were going to stop you, you'd already not be doing that thing without an agreement.

See what I mean about the left hating science?

[Applehu Akbar]

Gene drives are a powerful new technology which needs to be deployed with caution and respect, with review by peer biologists who are as fully informed as possible about the effect they are having on ecosystems. But when "environmental groups" get involved, the usual suspects will insist on banning any tech that didn't exist in their great-grammaw's time.

Furthermore, note the shift going on here from opposing an implementation of technology to opposing basic scientific research in a field. When we look more closely into who's behind this, we will undoubtedly find the grimy fingerprints of the same thugs who tried to kill off research astronomy, a pure science, in Arizona during the Nineties and today in Hawaii.

Re:See what I mean about the left hating science?

[Gavagai80]

Any group which opposes gene drives will inevitably, by definition, be an environmental group. That obviously doesn't mean that all environmental groups oppose it. Nor does the attitude of environmental activists define "the left" on any issue. I, for one, am a leftist socialist who welcomes our mosquito-extinction-causing overlords.

Re:See what I mean about the left hating science?

[Applehu Akbar]

Then let's put an end to the groupthink by which today's version of the Party That Used To Build Stuff rubber-stamps every antiscience cause the hippies come up with. If they wanted to, Democrats could become popular again by building again.

Bad analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Modifying mosquitos IS scary and those without concerns are just stupid. But the purpose (aside from Gates getting brownie points) is to help mankind. Corn and soy mods, despite what the modders say about feeding the planet, are all about profits (for Bayer, ADM, whoever).

Re: Bad analogy

[c6gunner]

The reason they're profitable is because they are better at feeding the planet. The "it's all about the profit" objection is just blatant propaganda; if you're going to object to efficiency based on the fact that it's more profitable than inefficiency, I really hope you enjoy being a cave dwelling hunter-gatherer.

Mosquitos kill more humans than humans do.

[DalM]

That's a lot of humans.
We should stop them from doing that.

Re:Mosquitos kill more humans than humans do.

[helpfulcorn]

At risk of being modded a troll, and that's not my intent, a lot of radical environmentalists are extremely anti-human and would prefer vast numbers of humans die rather than mosquitoes, many of the non-radical ones are simply indifferent to human suffering in favour of fear and paranoia. I honestly feel bad for genuinely decent environmentalists who are also fine with being human and caring for others, it must be really lonely.

Re:Mosquitos kill more humans than humans do.

[DalM]

If you aren't a troll, they you are wildly ignorant. ...Or you watch far too much right-wing propaganda.

I'm sure you can scratch the bottom of the "environmentalism barrel" and some absolute nut job that would say they want that. But they are such a tiny and insignificant minority of environmentalists (even those you would call "radical") that your statement is horrifyingly incorrect. How could you even say that?
 

Re:Mosquitos kill more humans than humans do.

[helpfulcorn]

So I'm wildly ignorant because of far too much right-wing propaganda and yet you readily admit there are people like that, even if they are a tiny minority? So I say people like that exist and they are bad and you say they are bad too, and therefore I'm ignorant and "horrifyingly incorrect." Do they exist or not? It doesn't matter if they're a minority, they still exist

Did you ever consider that blindly ignoring people who could be bad for your movement and literally pretending they don't exist (except when you admit they do) because they are a tiny minority and criticising people who bring them up as being ignorant and highly incorrect probably makes look ridiculous?

It's interesting because I didn't indict all environmentalists and went out of my way to mention good ones with a conscience, but you sure want to pretend I like I'm mouthing off like Rush Limbaugh. Spoken like a true new-lefty though, getting mad and agreeing at the same time, and of course assuming that anyone who would dare say anything you disagree with (though end up agreeing with ironically, but with a qualifier it isn't everyone, even though I explicitly said it wasn't) reads a lot of right wing propaganda, because of course only people on the right are critical of nutjobs (your word, not mine).

This is why the new left is a joke, it's all zero sum and everyone has to hug and totally agree or they are on the far right. Hippie bullshit.

Re:Mosquitos kill more humans than humans do.

[Your.Master]

You're shifting goalposts. You started with "a lot of", which Dallas May refuted, and now you've moved to "does any awful person exist?", and acted like Dallas May is insane for making arguments that don't refute your new position that you didn't take in the first place.

Re:Mosquitos kill more humans than humans do.

[helpfulcorn]

I'm not sure it's moving goal posts when someone else just calls my argument ignorant and horrifyingly incorrect for pointing out misanthropy within the environmental movement and meanwhile admits those people exist, but saying I must be watching too much right-wing propaganda to make such an argument and thus can easily dismiss it -- I notice you don't point out the logical fallacies with that, but then again, logical fallacies only matter when you disagree I guess.

It'd be moving goal posts if I were trying to defeat the argument with a new one rather than just pointing out it's ridiculous and hypocritical and since no counter-argument was made other than "you're wrong because you say X even though X is true, but just a little bit" that makes it to where I have no real room to say anything. I'm not sure what in the hell I could possibly do to defeat the counter argument when all it is saying is what I said, in different grammar, and meanwhile saying i'm wrong.

But fine, *there are and aren't* misanthropic people in environmentalism and *you are or aren't ignorant* and horrifyingly incorrect for pointing it out so long as you are on the right side of being in denial about it, and depending on the side you're on you're either moving goal posts or are making iron clad and reasoned arguments... and if you dare point it out, too much right-wing propaganda must be the issue. Though I'm sure you can dredge up some supposed other logical fallacy and accuse me of that even though it doesn't apply.

Zach Patterson / ZIP "Greatest Hits" (lol, not)

[Anonymous Coward]

See how STUPID "ZIP" (Zach Patterson) the CHIMP is (tried to take credit for what I solved before him) https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... (he needs to LEARN TO READ)!

I even SHOW ways to do it YOURSELF https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... (he couldn't).

Delphi/FreePascal/ObjectPascal HAS no issue w/ null-term'd string bufferoverflows - C does, C++ can UNLESS you do what I said 1st loser.

Tell us about CODE SIGNING (which has been STOLEN & ABUSED) https://www.helpnetsecurity.co... MY METHOD CAN'T BE (upmodded +2 INTERESTING in CODING FOR DEFCON no less) https://it.slashdot.org/commen...

"I'm a much better programmer than APK" - by Anonymous Coward ZIP on Monday October 08, 2018 @11:27PM (#57449082) FROM https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... yet nothing to show in programs. I can from registered /.ers liking/using/praising my work (& 100k users worldwide too). He can't.

LIAR ZIP says he has no account "I don't have an account, so I don't have mod points" https://news.slashdot.org/comm...

Yet LIAR ZIP says he downmods my posts (IMPOSSIBLE MINUS AN ACCOUNT on /.): "I down-modded a few of your post on other threads" - by Anonymous Coward "ZIP" on Thursday October 11, 2018 @11:31AM (#57461058) FROM https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

APK

P.S.=> KEEP PLAYING PUSSY GAMES IMPERSONATING ME YOU CHIMP - this comes out every time, lol!... apk

Our experience with deliberate bio changes is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

We've introduced species into ecosystems, sometimes with good results, sometimes with spectacularly bad results --- and almost always, with unexpected, unintended, consequences. Introducing a gene into an ecosystem of mosquitoes is much the same; it's not like a pesticide, that fades away: it is designed to self-propagate, "live forever". We need a lot more understanding and control before we do that.

Re:Mild pesticides work wonders

[Anonymous Coward]

someone with a beef against Dow made up a wild story about it killing eagles the stuff got banned.

[citation needed]

As far as I can tell, the science says DDT is bad for birds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ddt#Eggshell_thinning

What's your source?

Re: Our experience with deliberate bio changes is

[Anonymous Coward]

naw fuck em!

Web of Life

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just the genetic engineering though. There's also the danger that if we kill off one species, whether through genetics or old-fashioned chemical or mechanical means, we might also be killing off other animals that use that use that species as food, etc. Law of Unintended consequences.

I hate /. bullies like ZIP & c6gunner... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: I'm so sick & tired of /. BULLIES. You shitweasels have nothing better to do than HARASS, STALK & IMPERSONATE little ol' me. I've done absolutely NOTHING wrong & just try to make everyone's lives better w/ my work that stops ads & malware.

* As soon as I post, I'm CENSORED to -1 w/ ABUSED downmodpoints by bullies like ZIP, who even admit to this. I caught c6gunner mocking then IMPERSONATING me when he forgot to log out. Zontar mailed me a postcard w/ THREATS on it, then LIES & STALKS me. All because you JEALOUS JOWIE "ne'er-do-wells" KNOW I'm World-Class & you're shit. It's why you hide behind FAKE names & UNIDENTIFIABLE ANONYMOUS.

I'm even improving my already GREAT PHYSIQUE by getting calf implants while you weezils sit around all day on /. STALKING & HARASSING your BETTERS. I repeatedly dust the no-mind bullshit blatherings you BULLIES post to attack me. Like always I WIN & YOU LOSE.

APK

P.S.=> This BULLYING of me is SO UNFAIR & is probably a HATE CRIME because I'm gay. GROW UP... apk

Destruction of the environment and ecosystems

[Anonymous Coward]

Destruction of the environment and ecosystems is never a good solution to any problem.

Try the Rats on Tristan da Cunha

[Ken McE]

Tristan is an island a good thousand miles away from anyplace else and rats are not native there. They cause all kinds of grief and there is no normal way to get rid of them. Try a "death gene" drive with them. They are not likely to breed with anything from off island, and if it somehow goes bad you are naturally isolated from, well, everything else in the world.

Re:Try the Rats on Tristan da Cunha

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what they said about Jurassic Park

Re:TOO LATE... James Tiptree Jr.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Screwfly Solution

https://lexal.net/scifi/scifiction/classics/classics_archive/sheldon/sheldon1.html

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

Once they let the genie out

[p51d007]

We're screwed! We "eliminate" mosquitoes. Then, the species that only survive on mosquitoes or their larvae die off. Then the species that only exist on those die off and so on and so on and so on. Or, the species that mosquitoes "kill off" overpopulate and kill off something else and so on. It's called a balance of nature. LEAVE IT ALONE

is this irony

[Anonymous Coward]

So, Bill Gates, the man who brought us DOS and then Windows, operating systems that spawned the creation of entire industries existing solely to patch security holes in those same systems, the man who destroyed inovative companies out of greed now wants the world to trust him on this? Is this goal of his just his last FU to the world, or again an effort to serve his vanity regardless of the risks?

Against Gates

[QuadEddie]

I'm against Gates because he's trying to artificially change the natural course of life in Africa with outside resources. If he artificially stops the mortality rate of babies and adults, that means Africa is set for a population explosion. Where are they going to go? They're certainly not going to stay in Africa. They become everybody's problem as we're seeing with the current migrant crisis in Spain, France and England.

Okay

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what? Go ahead and ban the things. I can't build a nuke in my house, but I *can* do genomics. If you try to ban this research, I'll try doing it myself just to show than I can.

The bats will adapt

[mveloso]

Adapt or die, as the saying goes.

Inaction is also an action

[rkordmaa]

Environmental protection argument stands on very shaky ground if you consider 200 million malaria cases and near half a million malaria deaths per year as the cost of your caution. I'd like to see greenpeace address grieving mothers and explain why deaths of their children were not prevented because it would have been a risk to the environment.

Mother Nature is out of her league.

[sabbede]

Put the old biddy out to pasture and let the experts take over.

Seema obvious.

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything alive today plays a role in existance.

Until we understand that role and the effects of that role completely...why do we want to change it?