Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
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..
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.