4 ms·
This projection of what OP meant doesn't speak to the reality. Malaria was an issue in the US [1] and southern Europe [2] prior to the 1940s, and Australia has
by jddj 7y ago
This projection of what OP meant doesn't speak to the reality.
Malaria was an issue in the US [1] and southern Europe [2] prior to the 1940s, and Australia has always had and continues to have issues with the Dengue and Ross River viruses.
If the claim is instead that CRISPR was sitting there waiting to be implemented for decades, if only some rich people could finally see a use for it in the face of global warming, a charitable take on that idea would be to call it far-fetched.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history/index.html
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC547919/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC547919/
- est31 7y agoThere are possibly many remedies against NTDs, without needing any gene drives or CRISPR or anything. We don't know because we haven't tried. Sure, to some degree you can blame developing contries for e.g. not deploying rabies prevention well enough (which were deployed in the west decades ago, making rabies in the west irrelevant while it still persists in developing nations), but mostly it's the west's fault for not researching cures.
- jddj 7y agoI think it probably has a number of factors, none of which excuse us on a whole for allowing these diseases to earn the adjective "neglected". But it's not hard for me to imagine that many of the people working on this would like to eliminate malaria today for reasons which are at least partially altruistic. It could be that we've reached a point where the economics, social factors and technology of the present day mean that people have identified that CRISPR provides a more efficient and effective means of relieving the issue than anything we've tried (and people have) before, and in my eyes the fact that this method would use CRISPR instead of spraying and widely-distributed pesticide-coated nets, for example, doesn't make it morally or environmentally worse in any definite way which doesn't need constant reassessment as our technology and understanding improves. Besides all of that though, and you touched on it in your first comment, it's just not particularly valuable for us to sit and criticize ourselves for not doing better in the past when faced with new technologies which may help us start to make up for our mistakes.
- deogeo 7y ago> but mostly it's the west's fault for not researching cures. I though the whole white man's burden shtick was considered racist nowadays.