The 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 re

The 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...