9 ms·
CRISPR machines that can wipe out entire species
- peteretep 8y agoITT: people who live in countries that aren’t ravaged by malaria share their vague feelings of doubt about whether or not getting rid of mosquitos is a good idea
- Filligree 8y agoOne particular species of mosquito, even. The ongoing insect apocalypse is a problem, a potentially civilization-ending one. But wiping out malaria wouldn't be, and at this rate we'll probably do it by accident even if we don't implement this.
- nkozyra 8y agoIf you've been personally affected by malaria your immediate impulse is do whatever it takes to stop it. But we know nothing comes for free, no good human deed goes unpunished. There's a lot of debate about whether destroying malaria-carrying mosquitoes would have any side effects whatsoever. Alternately, it may have some. I don't think your characterization is fair, in other words. Those of us in areas not immediately affected are insulated against that emotional response, but we must be aware of the reality of malaria's toll. But destroying an entire species is a draconian approach that should require a great deal of thought.
- Haga 8y agoCan't we at least have backup plan to reintroduce?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ekianjo 8y ago> There's a lot of debate about whether destroying malaria-carrying mosquitoes would have any side effects whatsoever. Alternately, it may have some. There's nothing to be lost in doing a trial in an isolated area. The world is vast, we don't need to eradicate mosquitoes at the same time everywhere...
- azthecx 8y agoLife find a way, it doesn't really matter how isolated the area is. Once its out there, especially if its a gene that's very likely to be passed down the chances of it spreading are ridiculously high. I imagine even more as we are talking about insects which reproduce very quickly and are generally hardy.
- krageon 8y ago> But we know nothing comes for free, no good human deed goes unpunished. We know nothing of the sort. Perhaps this is something you know.
- nkozyra 8y agoLet's just say it's been pretty reliably proved over time.
- LeifCarrotson 8y agoWiping out smallpox seems to have no negative side effects. In any case, side effects that might exist are hugely less problematic than millions of human deaths!
- TheHypnotist 8y agoThe discussion isn't about wiping out a disease, it's about wiping out a species to wipe out a disease. Smallpox was eliminated in large part due to vaccination, not wiping an animal or insect from the face of the planet. Now, if you can eliminate the malaria within the mosquito, that's something else entirely.
- sampo 8y agoSmallpox was a species, too. If we allow viruses to be species.
- TheHypnotist 8y agoFair - and you are probably right. But I'd rather not get into semantics. You know what I meant.
- krageon 8y agoIf everyone knew what you meant we wouldn't be having the discussion that we are definitely having.
- chesterakos 8y agoWhy ITT since no one but you has commented yet.
- marcosdumay 8y agoA single species of mosquito, that is domestic and invasive. And also carries a large variety of diseases, not just malaria.
- easshvsh 8y agoI don't live in a country ravaged by malaria and I want to get rid of mosquitoes.
- LinuxBender 8y agoSame here. My bats can live off the moths. I currently have to use several measures to reduce mosquitoes in my area and it is costly and time consuming.
- wuschel 8y agoClassical ad hominem argument. Attack the people who make the immoral choice of thinking about the fact instead of blindly going forward and doing it, regardless of the cost. Perhaps it is worth to consider carefully before eradicating a species by any means? And perhaps it is worth to consider using a domain of technology - biotechnology - we have yet to understand better? Every tool comes with it's price, and so does CRISPR/Cas9. Gene drives can override and change the hereditary mechanism which makes genes propagate in populations. There are possible second order effects in place, which would be very important to rule out before applying such a method in the wild. <irony>Unless... unless, of course, we are happy with the import of rabbits et al to Australia.</irony>
- petters 8y agoIf importing rabbits to Australia would have saved 500,000 lives annually, it would have been one of the best health-related things to happen to humanity. (The eradication of this particular mosquito species is likely harmless, but that does not matter. We should do it even if it isn't)
- wuschel 8y agoSorry, there are two separate questions here: A) the use of a technology - a gene drive - we have no full control of in the wild B) the act of eradication of a species to help to lower the loss of human life in Malaria affected regions. Your statement regarding the Australian ecosystem engineering is purely hypothetic. The import of alien lifeforms always had a detrimental effect on ecosystems, and often, as a second order effect, on humans as well. It scares me how a lot of people think that it is not worth thinking and evaluating the use of a technology. Perhaps it is because they have no experience and knowledge in this particular domain of science?
- stickfigure 8y agoOr perhaps they have thought and evaluated and made their judgement call.
- petters 8y agoActually, the previous time this was discussed on Hacker News, I saw a lot of posters with reasonable opinions.
- Angostura 8y agoAbsolutely! Let's not let decisions about irreversibly altering an ecological web raise even vague feelings of doubt.
- fiblye 8y agoIn a world where total insect population collapse is a very real possibility, there exist people who think calling out people who want to not exterminate a cornerstone insect species is a good idea. Before anybody says "well actually there was a study that said nothing bad would happen", the horribly flawed studies about wiping out mosquitoes being harmless acts under the assumption that animals that feed off mosquitoes will find other insects to live off of. With insect populations dropping to tiny fractions of what they were years ago, it's incredibly short-sighted to think that's feasible. It's the same as saying "all the rice in the world could vanish and humans would just eat something else." Technically, yes, but taking away a large portion of so many people's daily calories isn't a good idea. And looking at how fish, amphibian, bat, and bird populations are lower than ever, getting rid of a readily available food source that links entire ecosystems together is pretty selfish. Work on treating the diseases instead of taking the easy way and just destroying things.
- rincebrain 8y agoTBF to humanity, we're also trying to develop effective malaria treatments, but AIUI: - there are several parasites that fall into that umbrella - none of them give you permanent immunity or even permanent resistance to reinfection, so we can't crib from those metaphorical notes to find a good vaccine - the parasites are developing drug resistance/immunity So while I agree we should be extremely careful about even considering wiping out a species on purpose, it's not for lack of exploring other options that we're at this point.
- astazangasta 8y agoIf you're referring to this[1] article that I love to hate, it is not a study, it is a news item by some Nature journalist who whimsically interviews some folks. https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html
- jmh530 8y agoMalaria and other diseases are one of the main reasons Europeans kept their African ambitions relatively contained. What is the geopolitical implication of eliminating malaria?
- Nasrudith 8y agoIt has long been gone since Quinine essentially already let alone successors. Population spike maybe but also potential to stabilize more as persistent dangers cause humans to reproduce more. It would encourage more investment in children as well. No worries about "if my child dies all I spent on education would be lost and unrecoverable while say a jeep or plow would have something in the worst case".
- vinniejames 8y agoThe impact of extermination could be far greater reaching https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5c611921e4b0f9e1b17f097d/amp https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5c611921e4b0f9e1b17f097d/... We ought to think twice before expediting this
- ataturk 8y agoSure, because species collapse and your ultimate demise are a better outcome?
- slackfan 8y agoBecause we haven't fucked the environment enough.
- vacant0 8y agoPlus we're already losing at least 200 species (of plant, insect and animal) every year. Might as well save half a million human lives while we're at it..
- amelius 8y agoFrightening question: what if this technology could be targeted not at species, but at races?
- unlikelymordant 8y agowhat if you could target specific dna i.e. a specific person?
- greenhatman 8y agoThey'd have to abduct hundreds of thousands of people (or clone a bunch), edit their genes, and release them back into their countries of origin. And then it would take a few generations.
- Tade0 8y agoYou mean humans? AFAIK human "races" are largely superficial biologically - there are some correlations, but weaker than the variability between individuals.
- 8y ago
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Insanity 8y agoIt's horrible that people are dying because of malaria. I'm a bit divided on this approach though, I don't know enough about the topic at hand to suggest a different approach, but let me try. Would it be feasible to suggest using CRISP to create another adaptation to the gene, one that preserves the mosquitoes but makes them unable to transfer the disease to humans? Eliminating a species because we don't like it reminds me of speciesism as Peter Singer outlines in one of his books. (Animal Liberation I believe it was). Where humans assume another species to be inferior and have less of a right to live a decent life. I do think it's a normal response to value human life more. And in fact, I also do think that in this case it makes more sense to safe the humans if no other approach is viable..
- vinniejames 8y agoSounds like youre suggesting creating a mosquito malaria vaccine
- Insanity 8y agoNot entirely - I'm suggesting still altering the species but not with extinction as a consequence.
- vinniejames 8y agoI agree, a vaccine would be one way to accomplish that
- shireboy 8y agoThe article mentions they tried to engineer mosquitos to not carry malaria, but it made them weak and so natural selection favored the non-engineered mosquitoes. As for the rest, yeah tricky business. By all accounts we have more value than a mosquito, but as you move up the food chain what are the unintended consequences?
- Nasrudith 8y agoWhat about the effect of existing anti-mosquito measures? We aren't exactly using pleasant chemicals for that.
- pvaldes 8y agoWe have to learn first how to de-extinct a species. The cascade of known, expected and unexpected comsequences from wiping mosquitoes could be enough to distroy the economy of entire countries. And is so easy to think in believable sceneries that is astonishing to see people repeating again the mantra that nothing is proved and nothing will happen. Wiping mosquitoes in Africa could affect profoundly Europe, for example. The same birds that save harvests in Europe each year, pass the winter in Africa. Finding some alternative food, here and there, is not the same as "finding enough fuel to not die in the return". Do we really want to start an experiment that could lead to Europe losing decens of insectivorous birds overnight and episodes of famine in many points of Europe? Or... What if malaria strikes back being forced to jump to the next species of mosquito available, those able to stand cold temperatures that can be found in Scottland or Swedden?
- ascotan 8y ago"Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee;". But in our new worlds we'll just CRISPR them away. No more roses with thorns (they cause thumb injuries), sweet smelling stink bugs, glow in the dark pets. Can't imagine what could go wrong. Someone needs to be writing the movie plot right now.
- Balgair 8y agoA little dated, but here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oryx_and_Crake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oryx_and_Crake
- chdaniel 8y agothis sound like that game — horizon zero dawn
- avium 8y agoNot my area of expertise at all, but mosquitoes seem unique in nature in that they can pick up diseases from one animal and spread them to another by direct blood transfusion. I've long wondered if this might confer some kind of advantage to the animals being bit, perhaps along the lines of how vaccines work.
- zimpenfish 8y agoPossibly also leeches - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8073013 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8073013 "many fish leeches directly transmit several blood parasites" "Consequently, the leech is a potential vector of many pathogens, especially in regions with an endemic spread of human and/or animal pathogens."
- tomatotomato37 8y agoWhat technical limitations allow us to genetically target mosquitos with this but not the malaria parasite itself?
- sampo 8y agoThis is a good question. I don't have a full answer. The proposed gene drive causes male mosquitoes to produce sperm that, when it fertilizes egg cells, will lead to only make offspring. After several generations of this spreading, eventually all offspring will be male, and that will be the last generation. The gene drive does this by attacking the genes in the mosquito sex determination system called doublesex. I guess, no-one has discovered a similar vulnerable mechanism in the malaria plasmodium sex determination genes. The malaria plasmodium is a single-celled organism, and it goes through both asexual and sexual reproductive phases in its life cycle. But it does go through the sexual phase, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublesex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublesex
- davesque 8y agoWhat will be the effect on humanity when we lose a constant source of stimulation for our immune systems? Perhaps it will actually set us up for a pandemic of apocalyptic proportions.
- vagab0nd 8y agoI remember having a conversation with a friend a couple years ago, about a hypothetical scenario where a more intelligent species would someday threaten human existence. We'd then point to mosquitoes and say, look how we hate these little guys and they are still everywhere. Well, that was that.