23 ms·

The sooner we get serious and start to deal with mosquitos the better. We already know what needs to be done [1], now all we need to do is get on with. How many

The sooner we get serious and start to deal with mosquitos the better. We already know what needs to be done [1], now all we need to do is get on with. How many millions of people have to die before we solve the problem of mosquito borne disease once and for all. Are we really going to sit around for decades debating if we should use this technology or not? Edit. For those who want to understand more about this gene driver approach (it is pretty complex and amazing genetics) this review is the best I have been able to find [2]. 1. http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nbt.3439.html http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nbt.343... 2. http://longnow.org/revive/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Alphey-AnnRevEnt-2014-genetic-control-of-mosquitoes-copy.pdf http://longnow.org/revive/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Alphey-...

mitchtbaum 11y ago
Focusing on practical approaches seems to yield most beneficial results. I have had very good experiences in tropical climates with window screening, mosquito nets, bio-compatible repellents, traps, zappers, and would like to find more good tools.
- fiatjaf 11y ago
  Yes!
- danieltillett 11y ago
  Not to be harsh did you read the article I linked to? Basically it shows us how we can wipe out all mosquitos for good without any pesticides or on going costs (it is a one-and-done approach). A world with no mosquito borne disease sounds like a pretty good idea to me. To head off the ecological discussion about using this technology, mosquitos that carry human disease play no important ecological role and if every single one disappeared tomorrow the only consequence would be millions of people would stop dying. Over 700 million people a year get a mosquito borne disease and over a million die [1]. To stop this I would gladly sacrifice every mosquito. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito-borne_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito-borne_disease
  - mitchtbaum 11y ago
    I have yet to study if these pests have any benefit, so I can only speak from experience. I dislike them intensely. Since you mentioned a possible solution, I checked to see how well it could do in terms of simplicity, effectiveness, and efficiency. From what I could tell, it would require an impractical[0,1,2] approach; and since I live among mosquitoes, I need to guard against illnesses like these. 0: overly-complex · genetic re-engineering of a wild species 1: ineffective · look at other attempts to control Nature through domination (usually, they backfire) 2: inefficient · I can barely imagine a technology we could manufacture that could do this simultaneoulsy in every affected area where humans and mosquitos live... even then, see again my point on ineffective
    - danieltillett 11y ago
      In regards your three points 0. CRISPR-Cas9 is an amazing simple system that has worked in every species tested. It really is not an issue to generate gene drivers for every species we want to go after. 1. How do you know it is ineffective? Do you understand how a gene driver system works? Arguments against attempting to control nature are rather weak - modern life is a successful attempt to control nature. 2. This is the genius of gene drivers. You let them go and they do all the work for you. We only have to release the driver into the mosquito population and it will do everything from there on its own. This technology really is a massive game changer - we just have to be brave enough to use it.
      - mitchtbaum 11y ago
        > CRISPR-Cas9 is an amazing simple system that has worked in every species tested. But how could we put it into practice? I only saw gene-level mechanics in that article. Please show me a machine that could do this at scale. > modern life is a successful attempt to control nature How so? I imagine 2,400 mothers in Brazil might have another story.
        danieltillett 11y ago
        >But how could we put it into practice? I only saw gene-level mechanics in that article. Please show me a machine that could do this at scale Figure 1C is what you need to look at. This is real mosquitoes, not genes. I think the problem is you don’t understand what a gene driver system is and how it works (it is complex genetics so there is no shame in this). The wiki article [1] is not great, but the original article that raised this idea is complex, but worth reading [2]. The problem was until now we didn’t have a good system to actually make these drivers, we do now. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_drive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_drive 2. http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/270/1518/921 http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/270/1518/921
- personlurking 11y ago
  I'm from the Bay but lived all over Brazil during several years and never once saw window screens. Brazilians tell me they exist, though this goes against the very wide-array of living arrangements I had while there.
  - mitchtbaum 11y ago
    What did you see them using? What do you mean by "very wide-array of living arrangements"?
    - personlurking 11y ago
      They didn't use anything, aside from sprays and the sometimes-seen electric tennis racket. Well, I have yet to find a Brazilian who has lived in as many places (in Brazil) as I have, either number of neighborhoods (15+) or cities (5). Also, I lived in many slums, in many middle class apartments, in a few upper-class places and even some hostels.
  - saint_fiasco 11y ago
    The Aedes Aegypty mosquito feeds during the day, so window screens and mosquito nets won't help them anyway, unless they don't leave the house.
- saint_fiasco 11y ago
  One of the most annoying things about the Aedes Aegypty mosquito is that it feeds during the day. That means mosquito nets and window screening are not enough, and people have to use repellents all the time.
rewqfdsa 11y ago
We need to make mosquitoes extinct, just like we made smallpox extinct.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  We don’t even need to drive all mosquitoes to extinction, just the species that carry human diseases. If it is really so important to people that they survive then we could put some on an island as a kind of zoo.
  - rewqfdsa 11y ago
    Sure. We don't need extreme specificity though: I'd be content with wiping out the whole family if that's what it takes to hit the ones that prey on humans.
  - mitchtbaum 11y ago
    > If it is really so important to people that they survive... I very much like where you're going with this... > then we could put some on an island as a kind of zoo. wait, what??
    - Frondo 11y ago
      The mosquitos, I think he meant.
      - SwellJoe 11y ago
        Well, the people who like mosquitoes can go, too.
      - danieltillett 11y ago
        I was trying to be sly here by being ambiguous, but yes I mean the mosquitoes.
      - mitchtbaum 11y ago
        Ah, thank you.. Then again, they have wings; and, sea levels both rise and fall...
arthur_debert 11y ago
In Brazil's case, as least, it's simpler than that. Mosquito eradication used to be done at the federal level, with military like organization. It kept things in control. A few years ago it has been re-assigned to municipalities. Not only are local authorities less equipped to handle it, but mosquitoes do not conform to city boundaries. If one city is doing a good job but it's neighbor isn't you're screwed. There's probably lots to be done through technical advances, but most of this could be avoided using common sense.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  It is not a case of do one or the other, but do both.
personlurking 11y ago
This will be Brazil first (southern) summer having to deal with a triple epidemic (zika virus, dengue and chikungunya fever), all due to the Aedes aegypti mosquito. Translating from a December 11th BBC Brasil article [1]: "Two promising biotech projects have been tested in Brazil over the past few years, however, the results still aren't being felt on a large scale. The first one, betting on an insect inoculation scheme with a bacteria (Wolbachia) that stops the transmition of tropical diseases, is still in test phase and its impact will take 3 to 5 years to be evaluated. The strategy behind the second project aims for the extermination of the species in certain regions via the use of genetically-modified mosquitos. The technique is said to have been tested successfully, according to the company that makes the transgenic mosquito - but it caused an uproar in the city in Bahia that served as the test ground. Even so, a city in São Paulo adopted the program since April, with promising results." http://www.bbc.com/portuguese/noticias/2015/12/151210_combate_aedes_aegypti_genetica_mw_rb http://www.bbc.com/portuguese/noticias/2015/12/151210_combat...
- danieltillett 11y ago
  Yes these approaches have potential - the problem with them is the cost is much higher than using a CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive system. From the BBC article "As the mosquito only lasts a generation, it is necessary that the environment is continuously fed by new GMOs until it reaches the extermination.” This costs a lot of money and would not be able to implemented in most countries. If a country can’t afford to spray then they are not going to be able to continually release GMO mosquitoes. With the CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive approach once released it spreads through the mosquito population on its own - it really is a one-and-done approach. It is also relatively easily adapted to every mosquito species we want to go after. This work truly is world changing.
  - themartorana 11y ago
    Have we ever on-purpose driven another species to extinction in order to save ourselves?
    - hguant 11y ago
TheCondor 11y ago
My wife works in research on vector borne disease, mostly mosquito carried viruses. Oddly, bourbon, heartland and lacrosse are becoming more interesting because they impact Americans. Many people have never even heard if them. Dengue, chikungunya, zika kill more people and are better known but they don't kill the people that fund the research. It's an ugly situation. Dengue in particular was a real mess until relatively recently, like they didn't even gave consistent mechanisms to detect it or identify the different subtypes. Like you might test positive if cdc tested your blood but negative if a doctor in South America tests you. Really one of two things would be best for it, either climate change brings it in to Europe and North America or some tropical countries become serious enemies so the DOD takes it more seriously since they'll plan on fighting in places with it.
- protomyth 11y ago
  Didn't one or more of Dengue, chikungunya, zika make it to the US Virgin Islands? I would imagine that would get some well off Americans to take notice.
sanxiyn 11y ago
Note that it is far from clear [1] is what needs to be done. [1] introduces sterility using gene drive. Sterility is effective but in a sense self-defeating, and it can only suppress, not eradicate, mosquito population. [2] demonstrates introducing malaria immunity using gene drive. To attack malaria, it is enough to immunize mosquito against malaria, instead of eradicating mosquito. Immunity is also not self-defeating and can reach 100% fixation. 2. http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/E6736.full http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/E6736.full
- danieltillett 11y ago
  With multiple gene drivers you can drive a species to extinction - the power of CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive system is that you can make multiple different drivers easily. Yes you can use gene drivers to create immunity in mosquitos against carrying certain diseases, but that only targets one disease at a time. Better to remove the vector rather than try to make the vector less dangerous. This paper by George Church is a pretty good overview [1]. 1. http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2014/07/17/007203.full.pdf http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2014/07/17/007203.f...
  - sanxiyn 11y ago
    Yes, gene drive can be used for extinction. No, the article you originally linked and said "we already know what needs to be done", is not for extinction.
    - danieltillett 11y ago
      By we I mean humanity, not the authors of the paper. They tended to hide behind sciencese in regards the significance of their work and didn’t go too much into its importance - the English don’t like to boast in public about themselves :) What is important is they have showed how you can achieve extinction - we have known for a while that it was possible in theory, but there has not been a practical way of achieving this. We now have a practical way doing this - basically there are no limit to the number of genes you can target with the CRISPR-Cas9 driver system. Target enough and the species goes extinct. If this approach is implemented it will save millions of people - every day we delay means another 3000 people die.
tiatia 11y ago
You would not release a gene into the wild, but the CRISPR-Cas9 system. The long tail risk would be tremendous.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  What would be the “long tail risk”? All the CRISPR-Cas9 systems would die out with the mosquitos. We have 700 million cases of mosquito caused misery a year (along with more than a million deaths) on one side, and a completely vague risk that something bad might happen on the other. It is like worrying if you are going to get cancer from the smoke while your house is burning down.
  - tiatia 11y ago
    > What would be the “long tail risk”? All the CRISPR-Cas9 > systems would die out with the mosquitos. May I assume you have zero background in biology/biochemistry/chemistry?
    - danieltillett 11y ago
      No you may not (you can look at my profile here). Once again what is the long tail risk? Up thread there is lots of discussion about all of this.
      - tiatia 11y ago
        A few points http://www.nature.com/news/caution-urged-over-editing-dna-in-wildlife-intentionally-or-not-1.18123 http://www.nature.com/news/caution-urged-over-editing-dna-in... http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/03/new-dna-construct-can-set-off-a-mutagenic-chain-reaction/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/03/new-dna-construct-can... http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.5787.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.5787.pdf You release not only a gene but a technology into the wild. This is something that can not be undone. You may easily underestimate the scale, rapidness and evolutionary pressure of a fast replicating species. Throw a few atomic bombs on Brazil. The effects are a) temporary b) geographically limited. If something screws up with the CRISPR/Cas9 system, the effects are a) not temporary b) geographically unlimited. Proceed with caution.
purpled_haze 11y ago
The world needs more bats. While bats will eat other more nutritious insects like moths, wasps, etc. before mosquitos, they can help control the mosquito population in areas where there are many mosquitos, and most of the insects they get rid of are a nuisance to humans: http://www.mosquito.org/faq#bats http://www.mosquito.org/faq#bats
- danieltillett 11y ago
  While I am generally pro-bat, I don’t think bats are going to solve the mosquito borne disease problem. If DDT couldn’t do it then bats aren’t going to be able to either.
  - ams6110 11y ago
    DDT almost did it, then it was banned.
- geomark 11y ago
  I wasn't aware of that. Where I live, in a mountainous area of Thailand, we have lots of bats, small insect eaters to large fruit eaters. It's quite a show around sundown watching them swoop overhead. We also have lots of mosquitoes and the population sure isn't dwindling. We've got the aedes aegypti and there have been a few cases of dengue in my area. I don't think bats are going to solve the problem.
  - purpled_haze 11y ago
    https://www.batcon.org/pdfs/bathouses/MosquitoControl.pdf https://www.batcon.org/pdfs/bathouses/MosquitoControl.pdf "Individuals of some bat species can capture from 500 to 1,000 mosquitoes in a single hour and large colonies can consume tremendous quantities. For example, a Florida colony of 30,000 southeastern bats consumes 50 tons of insects annually, including over 15 tons of mosquitoes and from 77.4% to 84.6% of little brown bats living in the northern U.S. and Canada eat mosquitoes." Bats don't get rid of mosquitoes completely, but the right species of bat can be great to have to help keep their numbers down.
powertower 11y ago
Just 40 years ago "global warming" was called "global cooling", and an ice-age apocalypse was predicted. Imagine if the powers-that-be decided to do global scale climate geo-engineering by dispersing chemicals into the atmosphere (to increase the temperature). > We already know what needs to be done [1], now all we need to do is get on with. The good old thinking that you know everything and can't be wrong almost guarantees that you will be wrong.
- tzs 11y ago
  > Just 40 years ago "global warming" was called "global cooling", and an ice-age apocalypse was predicted That's rather misleading. As noted in the Wikipedia article on "global cooling" [1], which I know you are aware of because you cited it in the original version of your comment: This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. Those who did support it generally did so not because they thought global warming was wrong. They just thought that smog levels would continue rising faster than greenhouse gas levels, so that the cooling affect that smog causes would be more significant than the warming effect greenhouse gases cause. Their only mistake was not anticipating that we would actually start taking air pollution seriously enough to not only stop the smog rise but reverse it. Since the '70s smog levels have come way down. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
  - powertower 11y ago
    The predominant theory with the media and general public was Global Cooling. You can quickly see this using Google Image Search and the news clippings ("Global Cooling"). Or just check this compilation - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compila... The point is they thought they were also very right.
- 11y ago
raphinou 11y ago
Are we sure wiping out a mosquito will not wreak havoc? Eg (just an hypothetic illustration) starving out a spider species which results in another nefast insect to proliferate? Are we sure the mosquito is not a key element in the ecosystem? Really curious to know more on this.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  Yes we are as sure as we can be about anything in science [1], but even if it did cause some ecological issue it would be worth it given the misery mosquitoes cause. 1. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html
rewqfdsa 11y ago
What prevents gene drive techniques from working on humans? The implications are disturbing, considering that humans have numerous ancestry-specific markers.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  In principle they would work, but it would take thousands of years for a driver gene to spread through the human population. We also have the ability to do something about it and we could remove any driver gene from the population. South Africa tried to develop a pathogen that would target black people during the apartheid era. This is certainly scary, but this is nothing to do with gene drivers like this.
tomjen3 11y ago
We would have solved this long ago if we hadn't given up on using DDT. We assumed it was a trade-off to save some birds, now it is more a trade-off to save humans vs birds.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  This is a really complex topic, but DDT alone is not enough to remove mosquito borne disease. In some parts of the world you just can’t spray enough to make a difference even if you had a massive budget.

mitchtbaum 11y ago

Focusing on practical approaches seems to yield most beneficial results. I have had very good experiences in tropical climates with window screening, mosquito nets, bio-compatible repellents, traps, zappers, and would like to find more good tools.

fiatjaf 11y ago
Yes!
danieltillett 11y ago
Not to be harsh did you read the article I linked to? Basically it shows us how we can wipe out all mosquitos for good without any pesticides or on going costs (it is a one-and-done approach). A world with no mosquito borne disease sounds like a pretty good idea to me. To head off the ecological discussion about using this technology, mosquitos that carry human disease play no important ecological role and if every single one disappeared tomorrow the only consequence would be millions of people would stop dying. Over 700 million people a year get a mosquito borne disease and over a million die [1]. To stop this I would gladly sacrifice every mosquito. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito-borne_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito-borne_disease
- mitchtbaum 11y ago
  I have yet to study if these pests have any benefit, so I can only speak from experience. I dislike them intensely. Since you mentioned a possible solution, I checked to see how well it could do in terms of simplicity, effectiveness, and efficiency. From what I could tell, it would require an impractical[0,1,2] approach; and since I live among mosquitoes, I need to guard against illnesses like these. 0: overly-complex · genetic re-engineering of a wild species 1: ineffective · look at other attempts to control Nature through domination (usually, they backfire) 2: inefficient · I can barely imagine a technology we could manufacture that could do this simultaneoulsy in every affected area where humans and mosquitos live... even then, see again my point on ineffective
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    In regards your three points 0. CRISPR-Cas9 is an amazing simple system that has worked in every species tested. It really is not an issue to generate gene drivers for every species we want to go after. 1. How do you know it is ineffective? Do you understand how a gene driver system works? Arguments against attempting to control nature are rather weak - modern life is a successful attempt to control nature. 2. This is the genius of gene drivers. You let them go and they do all the work for you. We only have to release the driver into the mosquito population and it will do everything from there on its own. This technology really is a massive game changer - we just have to be brave enough to use it.
    - mitchtbaum 11y ago
      > CRISPR-Cas9 is an amazing simple system that has worked in every species tested. But how could we put it into practice? I only saw gene-level mechanics in that article. Please show me a machine that could do this at scale. > modern life is a successful attempt to control nature How so? I imagine 2,400 mothers in Brazil might have another story.
      - danieltillett 11y ago
        >But how could we put it into practice? I only saw gene-level mechanics in that article. Please show me a machine that could do this at scale Figure 1C is what you need to look at. This is real mosquitoes, not genes. I think the problem is you don’t understand what a gene driver system is and how it works (it is complex genetics so there is no shame in this). The wiki article [1] is not great, but the original article that raised this idea is complex, but worth reading [2]. The problem was until now we didn’t have a good system to actually make these drivers, we do now. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_drive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_drive 2. http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/270/1518/921 http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/270/1518/921
personlurking 11y ago
I'm from the Bay but lived all over Brazil during several years and never once saw window screens. Brazilians tell me they exist, though this goes against the very wide-array of living arrangements I had while there.
- mitchtbaum 11y ago
  What did you see them using? What do you mean by "very wide-array of living arrangements"?
  - personlurking 11y ago
    They didn't use anything, aside from sprays and the sometimes-seen electric tennis racket. Well, I have yet to find a Brazilian who has lived in as many places (in Brazil) as I have, either number of neighborhoods (15+) or cities (5). Also, I lived in many slums, in many middle class apartments, in a few upper-class places and even some hostels.
- saint_fiasco 11y ago
  The Aedes Aegypty mosquito feeds during the day, so window screens and mosquito nets won't help them anyway, unless they don't leave the house.
saint_fiasco 11y ago
One of the most annoying things about the Aedes Aegypty mosquito is that it feeds during the day. That means mosquito nets and window screening are not enough, and people have to use repellents all the time.

rewqfdsa 11y ago

We need to make mosquitoes extinct, just like we made smallpox extinct.

danieltillett 11y ago
We don’t even need to drive all mosquitoes to extinction, just the species that carry human diseases. If it is really so important to people that they survive then we could put some on an island as a kind of zoo.
- rewqfdsa 11y ago
  Sure. We don't need extreme specificity though: I'd be content with wiping out the whole family if that's what it takes to hit the ones that prey on humans.
- mitchtbaum 11y ago
  > If it is really so important to people that they survive... I very much like where you're going with this... > then we could put some on an island as a kind of zoo. wait, what??
  - Frondo 11y ago
    The mosquitos, I think he meant.
    - SwellJoe 11y ago
      Well, the people who like mosquitoes can go, too.
    - danieltillett 11y ago
      I was trying to be sly here by being ambiguous, but yes I mean the mosquitoes.
    - mitchtbaum 11y ago
      Ah, thank you.. Then again, they have wings; and, sea levels both rise and fall...

arthur_debert 11y ago

In Brazil's case, as least, it's simpler than that. Mosquito eradication used to be done at the federal level, with military like organization. It kept things in control. A few years ago it has been re-assigned to municipalities. Not only are local authorities less equipped to handle it, but mosquitoes do not conform to city boundaries. If one city is doing a good job but it's neighbor isn't you're screwed. There's probably lots to be done through technical advances, but most of this could be avoided using common sense.

danieltillett 11y ago
It is not a case of do one or the other, but do both.

personlurking 11y ago

This will be Brazil first (southern) summer having to deal with a triple epidemic (zika virus, dengue and chikungunya fever), all due to the Aedes aegypti mosquito. Translating from a December 11th BBC Brasil article [1]: "Two promising biotech projects have been tested in Brazil over the past few years, however, the results still aren't being felt on a large scale. The first one, betting on an insect inoculation scheme with a bacteria (Wolbachia) that stops the transmition of tropical diseases, is still in test phase and its impact will take 3 to 5 years to be evaluated. The strategy behind the second project aims for the extermination of the species in certain regions via the use of genetically-modified mosquitos. The technique is said to have been tested successfully, according to the company that makes the transgenic mosquito - but it caused an uproar in the city in Bahia that served as the test ground. Even so, a city in São Paulo adopted the program since April, with promising results." http://www.bbc.com/portuguese/noticias/2015/12/151210_combate_aedes_aegypti_genetica_mw_rb http://www.bbc.com/portuguese/noticias/2015/12/151210_combat...

danieltillett 11y ago
Yes these approaches have potential - the problem with them is the cost is much higher than using a CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive system. From the BBC article "As the mosquito only lasts a generation, it is necessary that the environment is continuously fed by new GMOs until it reaches the extermination.” This costs a lot of money and would not be able to implemented in most countries. If a country can’t afford to spray then they are not going to be able to continually release GMO mosquitoes. With the CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive approach once released it spreads through the mosquito population on its own - it really is a one-and-done approach. It is also relatively easily adapted to every mosquito species we want to go after. This work truly is world changing.
- themartorana 11y ago
  Have we ever on-purpose driven another species to extinction in order to save ourselves?
  - hguant 11y ago

TheCondor 11y ago

My wife works in research on vector borne disease, mostly mosquito carried viruses. Oddly, bourbon, heartland and lacrosse are becoming more interesting because they impact Americans. Many people have never even heard if them. Dengue, chikungunya, zika kill more people and are better known but they don't kill the people that fund the research. It's an ugly situation. Dengue in particular was a real mess until relatively recently, like they didn't even gave consistent mechanisms to detect it or identify the different subtypes. Like you might test positive if cdc tested your blood but negative if a doctor in South America tests you. Really one of two things would be best for it, either climate change brings it in to Europe and North America or some tropical countries become serious enemies so the DOD takes it more seriously since they'll plan on fighting in places with it.

protomyth 11y ago
Didn't one or more of Dengue, chikungunya, zika make it to the US Virgin Islands? I would imagine that would get some well off Americans to take notice.

sanxiyn 11y ago

Note that it is far from clear [1] is what needs to be done. [1] introduces sterility using gene drive. Sterility is effective but in a sense self-defeating, and it can only suppress, not eradicate, mosquito population. [2] demonstrates introducing malaria immunity using gene drive. To attack malaria, it is enough to immunize mosquito against malaria, instead of eradicating mosquito. Immunity is also not self-defeating and can reach 100% fixation. 2. http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/E6736.full http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/E6736.full

danieltillett 11y ago
With multiple gene drivers you can drive a species to extinction - the power of CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive system is that you can make multiple different drivers easily. Yes you can use gene drivers to create immunity in mosquitos against carrying certain diseases, but that only targets one disease at a time. Better to remove the vector rather than try to make the vector less dangerous. This paper by George Church is a pretty good overview [1]. 1. http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2014/07/17/007203.full.pdf http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2014/07/17/007203.f...
- sanxiyn 11y ago
  Yes, gene drive can be used for extinction. No, the article you originally linked and said "we already know what needs to be done", is not for extinction.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    By we I mean humanity, not the authors of the paper. They tended to hide behind sciencese in regards the significance of their work and didn’t go too much into its importance - the English don’t like to boast in public about themselves :) What is important is they have showed how you can achieve extinction - we have known for a while that it was possible in theory, but there has not been a practical way of achieving this. We now have a practical way doing this - basically there are no limit to the number of genes you can target with the CRISPR-Cas9 driver system. Target enough and the species goes extinct. If this approach is implemented it will save millions of people - every day we delay means another 3000 people die.

tiatia 11y ago

You would not release a gene into the wild, but the CRISPR-Cas9 system. The long tail risk would be tremendous.

danieltillett 11y ago
What would be the “long tail risk”? All the CRISPR-Cas9 systems would die out with the mosquitos. We have 700 million cases of mosquito caused misery a year (along with more than a million deaths) on one side, and a completely vague risk that something bad might happen on the other. It is like worrying if you are going to get cancer from the smoke while your house is burning down.
- tiatia 11y ago
  > What would be the “long tail risk”? All the CRISPR-Cas9 > systems would die out with the mosquitos. May I assume you have zero background in biology/biochemistry/chemistry?
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    No you may not (you can look at my profile here). Once again what is the long tail risk? Up thread there is lots of discussion about all of this.
    - tiatia 11y ago
      A few points http://www.nature.com/news/caution-urged-over-editing-dna-in-wildlife-intentionally-or-not-1.18123 http://www.nature.com/news/caution-urged-over-editing-dna-in... http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/03/new-dna-construct-can-set-off-a-mutagenic-chain-reaction/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/03/new-dna-construct-can... http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.5787.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.5787.pdf You release not only a gene but a technology into the wild. This is something that can not be undone. You may easily underestimate the scale, rapidness and evolutionary pressure of a fast replicating species. Throw a few atomic bombs on Brazil. The effects are a) temporary b) geographically limited. If something screws up with the CRISPR/Cas9 system, the effects are a) not temporary b) geographically unlimited. Proceed with caution.

purpled_haze 11y ago

The world needs more bats. While bats will eat other more nutritious insects like moths, wasps, etc. before mosquitos, they can help control the mosquito population in areas where there are many mosquitos, and most of the insects they get rid of are a nuisance to humans: http://www.mosquito.org/faq#bats http://www.mosquito.org/faq#bats

danieltillett 11y ago
While I am generally pro-bat, I don’t think bats are going to solve the mosquito borne disease problem. If DDT couldn’t do it then bats aren’t going to be able to either.
- ams6110 11y ago
  DDT almost did it, then it was banned.
geomark 11y ago
I wasn't aware of that. Where I live, in a mountainous area of Thailand, we have lots of bats, small insect eaters to large fruit eaters. It's quite a show around sundown watching them swoop overhead. We also have lots of mosquitoes and the population sure isn't dwindling. We've got the aedes aegypti and there have been a few cases of dengue in my area. I don't think bats are going to solve the problem.
- purpled_haze 11y ago
  https://www.batcon.org/pdfs/bathouses/MosquitoControl.pdf https://www.batcon.org/pdfs/bathouses/MosquitoControl.pdf "Individuals of some bat species can capture from 500 to 1,000 mosquitoes in a single hour and large colonies can consume tremendous quantities. For example, a Florida colony of 30,000 southeastern bats consumes 50 tons of insects annually, including over 15 tons of mosquitoes and from 77.4% to 84.6% of little brown bats living in the northern U.S. and Canada eat mosquitoes." Bats don't get rid of mosquitoes completely, but the right species of bat can be great to have to help keep their numbers down.

powertower 11y ago

Just 40 years ago "global warming" was called "global cooling", and an ice-age apocalypse was predicted. Imagine if the powers-that-be decided to do global scale climate geo-engineering by dispersing chemicals into the atmosphere (to increase the temperature). > We already know what needs to be done [1], now all we need to do is get on with. The good old thinking that you know everything and can't be wrong almost guarantees that you will be wrong.

tzs 11y ago
> Just 40 years ago "global warming" was called "global cooling", and an ice-age apocalypse was predicted That's rather misleading. As noted in the Wikipedia article on "global cooling" [1], which I know you are aware of because you cited it in the original version of your comment: This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. Those who did support it generally did so not because they thought global warming was wrong. They just thought that smog levels would continue rising faster than greenhouse gas levels, so that the cooling affect that smog causes would be more significant than the warming effect greenhouse gases cause. Their only mistake was not anticipating that we would actually start taking air pollution seriously enough to not only stop the smog rise but reverse it. Since the '70s smog levels have come way down. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
- powertower 11y ago
  The predominant theory with the media and general public was Global Cooling. You can quickly see this using Google Image Search and the news clippings ("Global Cooling"). Or just check this compilation - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compila... The point is they thought they were also very right.
11y ago

raphinou 11y ago

Are we sure wiping out a mosquito will not wreak havoc? Eg (just an hypothetic illustration) starving out a spider species which results in another nefast insect to proliferate? Are we sure the mosquito is not a key element in the ecosystem? Really curious to know more on this.

danieltillett 11y ago
Yes we are as sure as we can be about anything in science [1], but even if it did cause some ecological issue it would be worth it given the misery mosquitoes cause. 1. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html

rewqfdsa 11y ago

What prevents gene drive techniques from working on humans? The implications are disturbing, considering that humans have numerous ancestry-specific markers.

danieltillett 11y ago
In principle they would work, but it would take thousands of years for a driver gene to spread through the human population. We also have the ability to do something about it and we could remove any driver gene from the population. South Africa tried to develop a pathogen that would target black people during the apartheid era. This is certainly scary, but this is nothing to do with gene drivers like this.

tomjen3 11y ago

We would have solved this long ago if we hadn't given up on using DDT. We assumed it was a trade-off to save some birds, now it is more a trade-off to save humans vs birds.

danieltillett 11y ago
This is a really complex topic, but DDT alone is not enough to remove mosquito borne disease. In some parts of the world you just can’t spray enough to make a difference even if you had a massive budget.