10 ms·
The debate over whether to use genetically modified mosquitoes to fight malaria
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago>Somewhere between 438,000 and 720,000 people were killed by the parasite in 2015. Seventy-two percent of those were kids younger than 5, Sub Saharan Africa has a population of roughly 1 billion people. So this is about 1/2000 of the population that die every year from malaria. If this was happening in the US, say 150,000 people a year were dying from malaria every year, including 100,000 children, do you really think there would be this huge debate about wiping out these malaria species using CRISPR? Wiping out disease carrying mosquitoes would be one of the best things that could be done for global health. It would disproportionately benefit poor countries in general and children in particular. It is a shame that we as humanity are not making an all out push to eliminate these disease carrying mosquitoes.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- scarmig 8y agoMoral thought experiment: Most scientists are attempting to build a public consensus around using gene drives as a public health measure. It might be possible, though, for a single rogue scientist to introduce a self sustaining gene drive that could eliminate malaria, without seeking permission from any people, governments, or organizations. If you could do it, would you?
- delbel 8y agoSome psychopath or group of psychopaths have already done this. If you try to research the disease, it goes into conspiracy land full of junk information so much that you won't be able to determine if the disease exists or not, by modifying the signal to noise ratio of useful information vs junk. Google Morgellions disease, you can't tell if its real or not. (I can't tell either) This is a purposeful psy-op campaign used by intelligence agencies called "poisoning the well". so this is a double-tap campaign: introduce a crazy disease, and increase fear/doubt/uncertainty about the science around it so people can't figure out if it is real or not.
- maxerickson 8y agoI think it's difficult to weigh that sort of question without actually being the scientist in possession of the technology, believing it is safe and will be effective. History probably gets written based more on whether it works out than on whether the decision was really morally sound based on what they knew about the safety.
- ALittleLight 8y agoWould you need to believe it's effective, or just safe? I think as long as you have justifiable high confidence in safety then you should take a shot even if it may not be perfectly effective, or might fail entirely.
- craftyguy 8y agoIf you don't believe it's effective, then why bother wasting any time on it? Water is safe, but not effective at treating malaria, so why aren't scientists spraying water on people with malaria? Exactly.
- ALittleLight 8y agoIf you think it's 30% likely to work and 99.9% likely safe, you're in the case where you believe it's safe and you don't believe it will be effective (different from believing it will not be effective). I'd suggest this may be a good risk, depending on how unsafe it would be in the worst case.
- jpalomaki 8y agoA bit like computer worm that disinfects routers taken over by malicious botnets.
- posterboy 8y agoThe question is paradox, if wanting to do so is prerequisite to becoming able to do so. Secondly, the knowledge required to do so is prerequisite to determine some of the consequences. Third: other details outside of the specific field can only be understood by a larger group, so acting rogue would be flying blind. Specifically, I'm implying effects on the ecosystem, about which I at least have little idea.
- maxerickson 8y agoThe malaria that infects humans is only transmitted among humans so the ecosystem effects are fairly predictable and limited to the change in environmental impact attributable to the human populations currently impacted by malaria. Prosperity tends to lead to both environmentalism and consumption, so the impacts will likely be a mix of positive and negative.
- posterboy 8y agoThis doesn't target the pathogen, but the mosquitoes transmitting it. So the ecosystem effects are fairly different from those you implied. Although, I wouldn't know what those effects might be either way. To answer the GP more concretely: It is far easier for me to ignore the crisis far away than to risk the tiniest chance of problems close by. Yes, that's deplorable.
- petters 8y ago> If you could do it, would you? I think so. If I were really rich, I would seriously look into this and try to recruit scientists. Hard to say if I would actually do it since I would need to gather information first.
- Roritharr 8y agoWhat laws would you break, if any?
- kpil 8y agoI would. There are thousands of other species of mosquitos. I don't think there would be any noticeable consequences at all after a while.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- petre 8y agoYou bet I would. I can't believe there is even a debate about this. I even have a friend who's father died of malaria.
- strictnein 8y agoThere was a radio play (from ~20-25 years ago), where this is more or less the plot. Scientists find a cure to violence and unleash it on the world. It was a chemical that makes everyone friendly. But what they didn't figure out was that it also makes you really stupid. So the scientists avoid the rain (because that's what transmits it), but after a while they all give into being stupid.
- TangoTrotFox 8y agoThe content of the article and the title of the article are in contradiction. Like the article mentions this likely would not eliminate malaria. You'd need a reproductive release and at that point nature kicks in with all the unforeseen consequences that entails, including resistance ultimately creating a 'super malaria.' And that really is the fundamental problem. We have a pretty bad track record with genetic engineering stuff. For instance one of the early selling point of genetically engineered crops is that it would mean we could reduce usage of herbicides. Glyphosate in particular is a very powerful herbicide that killed everything except what was engineered to be resistant to it. So get your glyphosate resistant crops, spray just a little bit, and you're set. And it worked great. Until it didn't. Of course nature kicked in and invasive weeds started evolving natural resistance to the compound leading farmers to pour more and more of the stuff on their crops to try to kill them off - a cycle that continues to this day [1] with no end in sight. Needless to say, our total herbicide usage has skyrocketed from something that was supposed to dramatically reduce it. Citronella, bed nets, and if you're feeling real frisky - the introduction of natural predators seems perhaps more reasonable. [1] - https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-016-0070-0 https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-0...
- delbel 8y agoAnother way to eliminate malaria is to modify it so that it kills the host, eventually eliminating the ability of malaria to replicate and go to extinction. I am not seriously suggesting this, but this is how nature works. There are unknown diseases in the past that have extincted themselves this way.
- bilbo0s 8y agoHow? I can't speak with authority on many subjects, but as it happens, medicine is one that I maintained a deep familiarity with in a past life. (Medical and bio tech startups.) There are over 200 surprisingly different species of Malaria. Humans are affected by five or six of them if I'm remembering everything correctly. Here is the thing, the number of species of birds, bats, antelope, monkeys, etc affected by those malaria strains is legion. So here's your problem in extremely simplified layman's terms, how do you make malaria kill ALL of its potential hosts? Then there is the question of Anopheles. Will your modifications kill that species as well? How do you stop the other 194 or 195 species of malaria from mutating to affect humans? Etc etc etc. Continuing with overly simplified explanations, malaria has learned to "survive" over the past few million years. There are many parasites out there and I'd argue that malaria is far and away among the most savagely cunning in this respect. What you propose is akin to the jedi handwave-y manner that people propose we "cure" cancer. It really is just not as simple as that. Historically, people have always found themselves to be "really, really, really close"... and that last 1% never materializes.
- delbel 8y agoI don't know the answers. But your questions are important.
- dogma1138 8y agoWe’ve managed to eradicate malaria in many parts of the world without any consequences, sure other strains may mutate but so far they haven’t. If they do we’ll figure out how to deal with them when that happens. Malaria isn’t the first parasite we’ve eradicated some of them we’ve eradicated globally and hopefully it won’t be the last. The biggest problem isn’t the how but it’s how to do it in Africa where the infrastructure and the stability of governments across the entire region makes it a hard task to accomplish.
- sametmax 8y agoGiven that malaron can actually cure Malaria (and not just prevent it as most people think) by killing the plasmodium directly in the liver, I think all the money for all the projects against malaria would be better invested in creating a dedicated african run factory to make those locally and cheap. Or planting a lot of Artemisia annua, since both the CNRS and the Gates foundation now recognize this plant is a good alternative. Ending malaria may take decades. We can prevent millions of people from dying now.
- bilbo0s 8y agoI think you're talking about Malarone. It only gets rid of malaria in the red blood cells. Oftentimes it is prescribed in concert with other medications, like primaquine or something for that reason. In any case, malaria can infect you despite having taken Malarone. It can come back, or even persist, after having taken Malarone. It's a good treatment, but malaria is a persistent little devil.
- sametmax 8y agoI have Malaria. I went to the Pasteur institute for a diagnosis (which is basically the NASA of french biology) and saw a specialist in tropical diseases there. The doctors nicely explained to me that the mix of Atovaquone–Proguanil does attack the parasite in the liver, not just in the blood cell, and that they had protocols to cure it.
- miduil 8y agoGet well soon, glad you have proper treatment availble!
- tzumby 8y agoAlso Malerone is not good on your liver and does not give you 100% protection. I honestly never took my malerone while I travelled in a Malaria risk zone based on the stories I heard about the side effects.
- 8y ago
- petters 8y ago> “To be honest with you, if there were some kind of emergency and one absolutely needed to do it, we could pretty much do it.” I can not understand this comment. How is 438,000 annual deaths not an emergency!? We DO absolutely need to do it!
- UncleEntity 8y agoTwo words: unintended consequences. We humans don't really have a very good track record of dealing with the things Nature throws at us as can be seen with countless examples invasive species (imported to solve some problem or other) wrecking havoc on native species, super-germs &etc. I seem to recall reading that mosquitos are a staple food source for birds or bats or something, what could possibly go wrong with killing them all off? Humans have a natural immunity to malaria but nobody is saying we need to genetically modify everyone to have sickle cell anemia.
- DoreenMichele 8y agoI seem to recall reading that mosquitos are a staple food source for birds or bats or something, what could possibly go wrong with killing them all off? I am guilty of not reading the entire discussion here, so I apologize if this is a derail, but historically they outright eradicated the mosquitoes on some island... Which led to other things dying that ate the mosquitoes... Which led to yet more things dying. I am failing to find a source, but maybe this blog post references it: During WWII the Navy (which had a large base on the island) sprayed the village heavily with DDT to cut down the mosquito population. As you might imagine, DDT killed the mosquitoes...and most of the frogs, and is suspected of contributing to a number of cancer deaths on Ocracoke. https://villagecraftsmen.blogspot.com/2011/09/mosquito-control.html https://villagecraftsmen.blogspot.com/2011/09/mosquito-contr...
- modeless 8y agoDDT affects a lot more than just mosquitos. A gene drive wouldn't even kill all mosquitos, just the specific ones that spread human diseases. You can't compare the effects.
- crankylinuxuser 8y agoI thought we did similar modifications to the screw-worm fly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochliomyia_hominivorax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochliomyia_hominivorax If I remember the procedure better, they radiated thousands of pounds of males so hey were sterile. They evidently only mate once, so it destroyed the population. I don't remember any real dissent discussion. The negatives of getting rid of them were minor compared to the pain and suffering this parasite introduced. They are much more of what we think of as "tropical disease/parasite". I'd warn anyone looking at more detailed pictures other than wikipedia I linked.
- raphinou 8y agoThe article says malaria was eradicated in France. Anyone knows how? Why can it not be replicated in africa?
- murbard2 8y agoIn large parts, draining the swamps and wetlands crashed the mosquito population.
- vilhelm_s 8y agoGoogle shows this article about eradication of malaria in Corsica after WWII: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2927611/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2927611/ . The mosquito population was suppressed by draining marshes and by spraying breeding grounds with insecticides such as DDT. If you disrupt the mosquito population for a few years, the malaria parasite will die out since it needs to be transmitted to humans or other animals as part of its life cycle. The same thing was done in the U.S., where malaria used to be endemic until the 20th century. http://dcmosquitosquad.com/history-of-malaria-in-the-usa/ http://dcmosquitosquad.com/history-of-malaria-in-the-usa/
- maxerickson 8y agoThe malaria that infects humans only infects humans, which is simpler than if you also have to deal with animal reservoirs.
- mkstowegnv 8y agoUnfortunately "three human Plasmodium parasites" have been found in chimpanzees. "If malignant malaria were eradicated from human populations, chimpanzees, in addition to gorillas, might serve as a reservoir for P. falciparum." http://www.pnas.org/content/107/23/10561 http://www.pnas.org/content/107/23/10561
- kpil 8y agoThere was malaria in Sweden and it was relatively common 250 years ago, especially in the archipelagos around Stockholm. The climate is probably not the best for the parasite, but there was a number of changes that more or less unintentionally helped erradicate the disease. First, there were enormous projects to improve farming. Basically all lakes became regulated and most wetlands were dried out to gain farmland. Before that there was a long period of improvements of living standards and hygiene - as simple as separate and better houses for the people rather than sharing a single house with the kettle. Glass windows got affordable for basically everyone, etc. There are still mosquitos, including those that may transmit malaria, but the breeding opportunities and contamination paths got reduced below a critical level for the parasite. I suspect that having cold winters helps, but I guess that the situation in Africa could be improved too with better houses and better control of potential breeding areas. It took a couple of hundred years in Sweden though..
- Dowwie 8y agoWe need this for ticks..
- craftyguy 8y agoFar more people die from malaria than from lyme disease.
- theothermkn 8y agoThere are serious nonfatal diseases. The Guinea worm doesn’t really kill anyone, but the eradication of it, along with other of the neglected tropical diseases, is still a boon to humanity. Reducing debilitating suffering is perfectly valid.
- craftyguy 8y agoI see your point, but malaria is 1) debilitating and 2) kills hundreds of thousands per year. With unlimited funding for research, it would make sense to try to cure all the things. Since that's not the case, should we really be shifting priority away to diseases that effect fewer people?
- theothermkn 8y agoAbsolutely. Work should definitely proceed in parallel. The marginal utility of an extra dollar to a more or less fully funded research activity is small, even after factoring in the effect size. That same dollar spent on another disease could have much more benefit. Even without considering the varied research interests of scientists, or without considering any other human factors in the labor supply, the maximum benefit to humanity is not going to be achieved by throwing all or most money at a single disease.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- jvandonsel 8y agoThere are plans for this: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/science/ticks-lyme-disease-mice-nantucket.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/science/ticks-lyme-diseas...
- adictator 8y agoWhatever happened to the laser that could a thousand mosquitoes every second or so?
- sxates 8y agoI'm unclear how the modified mosquitoes replicate and spread if the genetic alteration sterilizes them. Do you just have to continue releasing the GMO versions, or is it not entirely effective, or what am I missing?
- dan353hehe 8y agoThere were two different kind of mosquitos mentioned in the article. The one you are talking about are sterile males. All they do is compete with the unmodified wild males, and can depress the population. As the mutation isn't passed onto any future generations, new males have to be continuously released. I remember reading somewhere else that this is already done in some places ( but I can't remember where I read it, so don't quote me on that ). The other kind mentioned in the article are non-sterile mosquitoes designed with a trait, and paired with another set of genes that cause almost all offspring to carry the same traits. I think the article mentioned around 95% of the first generation would carry the change. Pair that with a trait that causes more children to be male then female, and the population could be suppressed by only releasing one batch of altered males. To me it sounds like a really good idea, but as mentioned in the article, once released there wouldn't be any way to really control where it spread.
- matte_black 8y agoIf we completely fuck up couldn’t we just release a new breed of GMOs?
- api 8y agoWhy is this a debate? Seriously. There probably wouldn't be a debate if malaria were a big problem here.
- madaxe_again 8y agoThat may well be what ultimately tips the balance, sadly - as climate change extends the range of anopheles and friends, associated tropical diseases including Malaria will start to appear in Europe and the US.
- Fomite 8y agoPeople forget that the reason the CDC is in Atlanta is mosquito control, particularly for malaria. Philadelphia had yellow fever outbreaks. These aren't diseases we worry about in the U.S. due to the largest public health infrastructure programs in the world.
- org3432 8y agoBest line: "I don't look at it [nature] as this morally benevolent place, it's a horror show"
- Jedd 8y agoI recall reading about this idea (but not using CRISPR, natch) in New Scientist back in the 1990's. They covered off the precautionary principle / unintended consequences concern by proposing to retain a breeding stock of the target species in a closed system (say a greenhouse). You'd be looking at a few years to deplete or render extinct the wild stock, during which time you could be sure the malaria pathogen was absent from your breeding stock. Once malaria, and the modified mosquitoes, are confirmed absent from the wild, you have the option to re-introduce. Naturally the option also exists at any earlier time if the species turns out to be more important than originally determined.