8 ms·

I watched a Ted talk sometime ago about how they've discovered a method to genetically modify mosquitoes to eradicate entire populations of mosquitoes from an a

I watched a Ted talk sometime ago about how they've discovered a method to genetically modify mosquitoes to eradicate entire populations of mosquitoes from an area (I think it was it made them mos babies die due to genetic engineering). I couldn't find it now but it seemed like a massive success at the time almost eliminating all mosquitoes from the a city in Brazil (iirc). Anyone know what happened to it? If that were to come to fruition than a lot of disease in addition to malaria like chikungunya, dengue, etc will be cured too.

ChefboyOG 7y ago
This kind of experiment is called a gene drive, and there's a huge debate in scientific communities right now around whether it's responsible or not to use them, particularly around the mosquito problem. A professor of mine who works in the field was discussing this with us last week. The idea with mosquitoes specifically is that we can wipe out specifically the mosquito populations that carry most diseases. The debate is around whether or not this will upset balance in ecosystems (many feel it will not). This is just my interpretation, but it seems like there is a sensible portion of detractors who simply want to derisk the experiment as much as possible by collecting more and more data. Then there are others who are in general opposed to this sort of interference in an animal population on ethical grounds. Related article: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/lab-tests-gene-drive-wiped-out-population-mosquitoes https://www.sciencenews.org/article/lab-tests-gene-drive-wip...
- mullingitover 7y ago
  > This is just my interpretation, but it seems like there is a sensible portion of detractors who simply want to derisk the experiment as much as possible by collecting more and more data. This is so infuriating. Many people will die during this extended hemming and hawing. Humans have driven countless important species to extinction with no thought, but we have to vacillate over a species that is responsible for more deaths than all the wars in human history combined? My only reservation about driving the mosquitoes to extinction with a gene drive is that we can't guarantee that the mosquitoes will suffer.
  - ses1984 7y ago
    When we drove species to extinction before, it was accidental, and it's usually viewed as a huge mistake. I wouldn't want to be one of the people who advocates for it, and then it turns out to be a giant disaster. The potential risk seems huge and could affect generations. Although I it would be pretty easy to hedge against that risk by keeping some mosquitos/eggs alive in a lab, and if the experiment goes wrong, re-populate the mosquitos. From an economic perspective, how does the cost of all this research compare to mass producing malaria medicine?
    - BurningFrog 7y ago
      > and then it turns out to be a giant disaster The purpose of this is to stop the current giant disaster of 1000+ people a day dying from malaria. I can't help thinking that if this was affecting American middle class neighborhoods where environmentalists live, the mosquitos would be wiped out quicker than plastic straws.
      - hubert1234 7y ago
        Dont be so sure, I personally believe that alligators and crocodiles should be wiped out but the majority believes that the risk of being eaten alive during a swim in a pond nextdoor is an acceptable risk and the natural right of nature over humans. People have a weird disposition to protect nature beyond what is due. We effectively wiped out wolves from Europe and I personally couldnt be happier that I dont have to worry about a wolf attack or bear attack when I'm out in the forest, cycling.
        saiya-jin 7y ago
        Wolves wouldn't attack you, I guess you read one too many children's stories. The only possibility would be desperate, starving big pack of wolves and a lone traveler in the middle of nowhere. I've experienced it a bit, alone in winter mountains ski touring and camping, but even then they just carefully observe from distance and then move on. As for bears, we have them back home in eastern europe, in fact vastly overpopulated given the area available and their territoriality. Practically no attacks on cyclists, hikers etc (yes like 1 every year or two something minor, more people die from ticks and tripping over stones and roots). If you make any noise while in the forest, they will notice you from far and avoid you. That said, we don't have grizzly or polar bears, those are a bit different and majestic beasts. As for general discussion, your point doesn't make much sense. We could wipe out just types of mosquitoes responsible for super-deadly diseases like malaria and dengue (and few others) and keep the annoying but otherwise harmless suckers still around. In my subjective opinion we wouldn't even notice the transition (at least not in the bad sense).
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
  >Then there are others who are in general opposed to this sort of interference in an animal population on ethical grounds. There are over 250,000 children under the age of 5 that die every year from malaria. In my ethical system, there is very little that can possibly justify trying to prevent something that will save the lives of 250,000 children a year. Anyone who actively tries to delay wiping out malaria causing mosquitoes is classified with climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers.
  - sszz 7y ago
    There are legitimate concerns about efficacy (there’s research that suggests that evolution will help mosquitoes escape the gene drive effect, making it useful for only a short period of time) and about unknown ecological consequences (knocking out a primary food source in an ecosystem can have devastating health and economic consequences). That’s not to say it’s not worth it, but it is worth debating and figuring out how to do it correctly. I don’t think it’s fair to say there’s a silver bullet that is being held up by ignorant/uninformed/unethical skeptics.
    - maxerickson 7y ago
      Which ecosystem are human-biting mosquitoes a primary food source in?
      - wolco 7y ago
        The unknown ecosystem changes are concerning. A few years ago someone might say kill all bees kids are dying. We know better now.
        maxerickson 7y ago
        In most places, honeybees are introduced livestock, not a 'natural' part of the ecosystem.
      - stubish 7y ago
        Its not even human-biting... it is the handful of species capable of transmitting certain diseases and parasites, out of thousands of other mosquito species waiting to fill the empty ecological niches.
- Crazyontap 7y ago
  This was rather insightful. But seriously I cannot believe that this technology exists, has proven successful in lab test but the reason they're holding it back is because they are afraid of tampering with the eco-system. I'm glad they didn't feel that when eradicating polio and smallpox and other things. Anyway after reading some more I feel that part of it may be because it is modification to the gene. People are just afraid of some words like "nuclear", "gene", etc. It seems whenever such technology is part of the solution the progress takes a lot time to happen because we cannot be too catious using it.
  - _Microft 7y ago
    It is not because of gene manipulations per se but because by design it is proliferating by itself. Contrast that to a vaccine that turns out to be not safe: administering the vaccine would then just be stopped. If these gene-drive mosquitoes, on the other hand, turn out to be a problem, then there is no easy way to stop that. So better get it right the first time and - as much as you do not seem to like that - that requires time for due diligence.
    - projektfu 7y ago
      There is some chance that a modified live vaccine can mutate into a superpathogen that becomes immediately widespread and deadly. There is a theory that this happened with the feline panleukopenia vaccine and that this became canine parvovirus, with rapid, worldwide distribution of the new pathogen. Something to think about when we put 250,000 human lives on one side of the balance and a big question mark on the other, and telling people that there's no good reason to be cautious.
      - roywiggins 7y ago
        If the actual full-strength virus hasn't managed it why would a live vaccine be any more likely to? It's not going to be replicating very much- it was designed to be bad at actually infecting people but good at provoking an immune response.
- stubish 7y ago
  A problem is the discussion almost immediately derails into the eradication of all mosquitos, such as almost immediately happened right here. My understanding of these experiments is it is the eradication of particular subspecies of mosquitos, the ones able to transmit malaria, dengue fever, zika etc. And the difference is huge; wipe out a dozen subspecies and their ecological niches will be filled by other subspecies of mosquito.
  - blisterpeanuts 7y ago
    Correct, there are thousands of species of mosquito that do not feed on human blood. The question is whether a genetic weapon could be made specific enough to target only the blood suckers while sparing the pollinators.
    - stubish 7y ago
      The techniques being looked at only target a single species. To spread, it requires interbreeding between species which is rare, and for the the new species to out compete and spread, which is unlikely since the condition is fatal to the carriers of the genetic modification's next generation.

ChefboyOG 7y ago

This kind of experiment is called a gene drive, and there's a huge debate in scientific communities right now around whether it's responsible or not to use them, particularly around the mosquito problem. A professor of mine who works in the field was discussing this with us last week. The idea with mosquitoes specifically is that we can wipe out specifically the mosquito populations that carry most diseases. The debate is around whether or not this will upset balance in ecosystems (many feel it will not). This is just my interpretation, but it seems like there is a sensible portion of detractors who simply want to derisk the experiment as much as possible by collecting more and more data. Then there are others who are in general opposed to this sort of interference in an animal population on ethical grounds. Related article: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/lab-tests-gene-drive-wiped-out-population-mosquitoes https://www.sciencenews.org/article/lab-tests-gene-drive-wip...

mullingitover 7y ago
> This is just my interpretation, but it seems like there is a sensible portion of detractors who simply want to derisk the experiment as much as possible by collecting more and more data. This is so infuriating. Many people will die during this extended hemming and hawing. Humans have driven countless important species to extinction with no thought, but we have to vacillate over a species that is responsible for more deaths than all the wars in human history combined? My only reservation about driving the mosquitoes to extinction with a gene drive is that we can't guarantee that the mosquitoes will suffer.
- ses1984 7y ago
  When we drove species to extinction before, it was accidental, and it's usually viewed as a huge mistake. I wouldn't want to be one of the people who advocates for it, and then it turns out to be a giant disaster. The potential risk seems huge and could affect generations. Although I it would be pretty easy to hedge against that risk by keeping some mosquitos/eggs alive in a lab, and if the experiment goes wrong, re-populate the mosquitos. From an economic perspective, how does the cost of all this research compare to mass producing malaria medicine?
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    > and then it turns out to be a giant disaster The purpose of this is to stop the current giant disaster of 1000+ people a day dying from malaria. I can't help thinking that if this was affecting American middle class neighborhoods where environmentalists live, the mosquitos would be wiped out quicker than plastic straws.
    - hubert1234 7y ago
      Dont be so sure, I personally believe that alligators and crocodiles should be wiped out but the majority believes that the risk of being eaten alive during a swim in a pond nextdoor is an acceptable risk and the natural right of nature over humans. People have a weird disposition to protect nature beyond what is due. We effectively wiped out wolves from Europe and I personally couldnt be happier that I dont have to worry about a wolf attack or bear attack when I'm out in the forest, cycling.
      - saiya-jin 7y ago
        Wolves wouldn't attack you, I guess you read one too many children's stories. The only possibility would be desperate, starving big pack of wolves and a lone traveler in the middle of nowhere. I've experienced it a bit, alone in winter mountains ski touring and camping, but even then they just carefully observe from distance and then move on. As for bears, we have them back home in eastern europe, in fact vastly overpopulated given the area available and their territoriality. Practically no attacks on cyclists, hikers etc (yes like 1 every year or two something minor, more people die from ticks and tripping over stones and roots). If you make any noise while in the forest, they will notice you from far and avoid you. That said, we don't have grizzly or polar bears, those are a bit different and majestic beasts. As for general discussion, your point doesn't make much sense. We could wipe out just types of mosquitoes responsible for super-deadly diseases like malaria and dengue (and few others) and keep the annoying but otherwise harmless suckers still around. In my subjective opinion we wouldn't even notice the transition (at least not in the bad sense).
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
>Then there are others who are in general opposed to this sort of interference in an animal population on ethical grounds. There are over 250,000 children under the age of 5 that die every year from malaria. In my ethical system, there is very little that can possibly justify trying to prevent something that will save the lives of 250,000 children a year. Anyone who actively tries to delay wiping out malaria causing mosquitoes is classified with climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers.
- sszz 7y ago
  There are legitimate concerns about efficacy (there’s research that suggests that evolution will help mosquitoes escape the gene drive effect, making it useful for only a short period of time) and about unknown ecological consequences (knocking out a primary food source in an ecosystem can have devastating health and economic consequences). That’s not to say it’s not worth it, but it is worth debating and figuring out how to do it correctly. I don’t think it’s fair to say there’s a silver bullet that is being held up by ignorant/uninformed/unethical skeptics.
  - maxerickson 7y ago
    Which ecosystem are human-biting mosquitoes a primary food source in?
    - wolco 7y ago
      The unknown ecosystem changes are concerning. A few years ago someone might say kill all bees kids are dying. We know better now.
      - maxerickson 7y ago
        In most places, honeybees are introduced livestock, not a 'natural' part of the ecosystem.
    - stubish 7y ago
      Its not even human-biting... it is the handful of species capable of transmitting certain diseases and parasites, out of thousands of other mosquito species waiting to fill the empty ecological niches.
Crazyontap 7y ago
This was rather insightful. But seriously I cannot believe that this technology exists, has proven successful in lab test but the reason they're holding it back is because they are afraid of tampering with the eco-system. I'm glad they didn't feel that when eradicating polio and smallpox and other things. Anyway after reading some more I feel that part of it may be because it is modification to the gene. People are just afraid of some words like "nuclear", "gene", etc. It seems whenever such technology is part of the solution the progress takes a lot time to happen because we cannot be too catious using it.
- _Microft 7y ago
  It is not because of gene manipulations per se but because by design it is proliferating by itself. Contrast that to a vaccine that turns out to be not safe: administering the vaccine would then just be stopped. If these gene-drive mosquitoes, on the other hand, turn out to be a problem, then there is no easy way to stop that. So better get it right the first time and - as much as you do not seem to like that - that requires time for due diligence.
  - projektfu 7y ago
    There is some chance that a modified live vaccine can mutate into a superpathogen that becomes immediately widespread and deadly. There is a theory that this happened with the feline panleukopenia vaccine and that this became canine parvovirus, with rapid, worldwide distribution of the new pathogen. Something to think about when we put 250,000 human lives on one side of the balance and a big question mark on the other, and telling people that there's no good reason to be cautious.
    - roywiggins 7y ago
      If the actual full-strength virus hasn't managed it why would a live vaccine be any more likely to? It's not going to be replicating very much- it was designed to be bad at actually infecting people but good at provoking an immune response.
stubish 7y ago
A problem is the discussion almost immediately derails into the eradication of all mosquitos, such as almost immediately happened right here. My understanding of these experiments is it is the eradication of particular subspecies of mosquitos, the ones able to transmit malaria, dengue fever, zika etc. And the difference is huge; wipe out a dozen subspecies and their ecological niches will be filled by other subspecies of mosquito.
- blisterpeanuts 7y ago
  Correct, there are thousands of species of mosquito that do not feed on human blood. The question is whether a genetic weapon could be made specific enough to target only the blood suckers while sparing the pollinators.
  - stubish 7y ago
    The techniques being looked at only target a single species. To spread, it requires interbreeding between species which is rare, and for the the new species to out compete and spread, which is unlikely since the condition is fatal to the carriers of the genetic modification's next generation.