3 ms·
It's even worse than you're making out, actually. I'm all for eliminating malaria, or mosquitoes, or whatever. And I'm generally in favor of GMOs and related te
by Reelin 8y ago
It's even worse than you're making out, actually. I'm all for eliminating malaria, or mosquitoes, or whatever. And I'm generally in favor of GMOs and related technologies. However, the described approach uses a gene drive, meaning genetic modifications are transmitted in the wild through the target species.
> So doing this to Anopheles shouldn't affect the Aedes aegypti mosquito.
If all goes according to plan, at least. But good luck containing things if they don't...
It really shouldn't require any help from Hollywood to see the potential failure cases that this sort of technology entails - incredibly thorough testing is merely the absolute minimum requirement.
- gascan 8y agoTrust us, pyrus calleryana- sorry, I mean anopheles gambiae- definitely won't crossbreed with anything.
- Reelin 8y agoHad to look that one up, that's a really good example of the sort of unexpected complexities that can come up (many years later in this case). For others (like myself) who haven't seen it before: https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/57/11/956/234351 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/57/11/956/234351 > Consequently, individual cultivars themselves are not invasive, but the combination of cultivars within an area creates a situation in which invasive plants can be produced.
- godelski 8y agoI fully agree that it is a horrendously difficult problem. But from cross breeding, most of the time the offspring is sterile. Like a mule or liger. But you're right, things often don't go according to plan. But there is an overwhelming amount of scientists, who are smarter than me and actually study this, that believe it is worth the risk. I'm willing to put my trust into their judgement. Btw, there has been a LOT of testing. But what I mentioned in the OP was more about that at a certain point you have to take a leap of faith.