5 ms·

Who gives clearance to that kind of experiment? Oxitec has done the same in the past with mosquitoes, with small to no result. Some say it's even worse now. ht

• folli 7y ago
  Meh, the most likely outcome of such experiments is that the introduced gene will vanish from the gene pool midterm.
  • aspyct 7y ago
    So basically, it's a temporary solution that we will keep reusing until some genes mix and things really go awry. Great.
  • mr__y 7y ago
    ...or the introducend gene combined with some previously existing genes will create an unexpected feature which will dominate the species and wipe out specimens without it[0]. I believe we don't know enough (yet) to take a risk of such experiments in the wild. More, I think that possibly even proper assesment of such risk is currently not possible [0] while this scenario is probably very unlikely I'm not sure that such risk should be taken
    • folli 7y ago
      The gene pool of a species is much more dynamic than you assume in your scenario. Combinations, deletions, mutations, introduction of new genes from other species is very common on biological timelines. To put it as an optimization problem: a huge portion of the search space has been (and is actively being) searched already, with the current species as the optimal solution for the given ecological niche. Changing the genomic setup will with a high likelihood move away from this optimum, rendering your "new" species less fit for its niche.
  • Shorel 7y ago
    Of course, that's the point. The offspring doesn't grow to adulthood. New self-limiting moths need to be released each season.
  • Sporktacular 7y ago
    And so even though you could be wrong you're prepared to take this gamble? Both genetics and ecology are hugely complex subjects that no one is even close to fully understanding. So we don't know in advance that this will be ultimately beneficial for humans, don't know that the success (for humans) of a previous program for mosquitos will translate into success here, we don't know that infertility won't be circumvented by other genetic factors, don't know that the modification won't become a permanent part of that moth's gene pool, what effects that will have on the moths, don't know how it will affect species that consume these moths and don't know how this will affect the numbers of species these moths consume. And we don't mind that the profits made will probably be private and any costs socialised or paid by the wider ecosystem. But meh, let's not apply the precautionary principle. Let's just roll the dice with an unknown number of sides.
• bilekas 7y ago
  Actually the release of mosquitoes which would steralise was very successfull but there was a huge amount of caution and push back against releasing them into the wild. There are real debates to be had over these things, and I don't think anyone will have the scope of the impact ever understood. That said, when its costing farmers/companies 4-5 Billion a year, you can be sure there will be a push to move this along. Right or wrong, money will move mountains.
  • stubish 7y ago
    The economic cost of Malaria and the other major mosquito borne diseases is also huge, but governments don't choose to push this. It has always seemed odd to me given how popular a move it would be in affected regions.
    • skc 7y ago
      We don't know if it would be a popular move in affected regions. Take GM crops for example. There is an awful lot of suspicion around the motives of the organisations/corps pushing this stuff. Not all of it unwarranted.
      • stubish 7y ago
        I think we know. Knowing your kids are most likely to suffer Dengue Fever 2-3 times before they finish high school, just like you have suffered, means you have a vastly different outlook than those in non-affected regions. These are painful, debilitating diseases that affect every family in certain regions.
• onreact 7y ago
  Also some genes are known to actually "jump" between species. We may end up "limiting" other animals too. As if Frankenfood and pesticides weren't hazardous enough.
  • Accujack 7y ago
    >Also some genes are known to actually "jump" between species. Simple microscopic organisms, sure. Viruses, maybe. There's no evidence it's ever happened in something as large as a moth larva. Even if these genes somehow (let's say a nice Sci-Fi virus) caused these genes to "jump" species... a gene that limits whether female larvae of these moths survive is unlikely to affect whether e.g. bats grow to adulthood or mate. In fact, genes jumping from e.g. a moth larvae to another species (like humans) is rather rare... you haven't seen much on the evening news about humans suddenly developing moth wings, have you? Why do you think that is so?
    • onreact 7y ago
      Please update your science here: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070308220454.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070308220454.h... (2007) and here: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180709101216.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180709101216.h... (2018) "Far from just being the product of our parents, scientists have now shown that widespread transfer of genes between species has radically changed the genomes of today's mammals, and been an important driver of evolution."
      • Accujack 7y ago
        Update yours, and read more carefully. Direct genetic transfer among higher organisms doesn't happen, and in fact the mechanism for how it happens indirectly isn't really known, but probably includes viruses and some carrier for them between species like mosquitos. Also, the chunks of information being transferred aren't coding for specific functions, they're transposable, meaning they're non specific enough that even if you copied them from one organism to another in corresponding area of the DNA strands, the results would be completely different. It'd be like copying the letters "lp" from the word "alphabet" to the word integer, as in "ilpnteger". The result is very different in function to the original. It probably doesn't make sense (not a viable organism) and while it does help drive genetic variation which is important for evolution, that's very different from a wholesale copying of meaning (phenotype, or the function of the genes in the original organism) to the new word. Putting it more simply, if you copy the genes for a bat's wings wholesale to a human, you don't get a winged human. The most likely result is something that won't grow beyond a single cell, or if it does it wouldn't be recognizable as human or even an organism. The chances of getting something resembling wings are very low, and a human that could fly using them is literally impossible. You can't copy the moth's "stale offspring" feature to another organism by copying genes, it just doesn't work.
• red75prime 7y ago
  I don't see how it differs from first thermonuclear bomb test or the large hadron collider. They were peeking into the unknown. After making their best judgement, of course. The years to come will be the years of climate change. The best we can do is lower its severity a bit. Ecosystems will be straining to adapt. We can no longer hope that not doing anything to ecosystems will keep status quo. Proactive measures will be necessary. And we will be still in the dark about consequences of those measures, if we don't start doing experiments now. Majority of people don't have sufficient knowledge to assess risks and benefits of genetically-modified-organisms-in-the-wild scenario, so it should be "Demand to tighten regulations", not "Oppose such practices".
  • markus92 7y ago
    The LHC and thermonuclear bombs don't usually reproduce themselves though, keeping the risk relatively contained.
    • red75prime 7y ago
      In this case it's "specifically designed to not reproduce". Hybrid vigor isn't extinction level threat. And evolution of population to be averse to sterile males is hardly unexpected.
    • funklute 7y ago
      People didn't know that for sure - there was actually a fear that thermonuclear bombs would ignite the atmosphere and turn us into a sun.
      • yesenadam 7y ago
        I remember reading a Feynman story where he was given the job of checking the calculations about that, and asking what if he made a mistake, was told not to worry, as no-one would ever find out. I googled for that but first found this article, which has a range of quotes about those fears from physicists, and some of the chemistry/physics of the actual fusion reactions people thought might happen. I hadn't read about that before - like the nitrogen in the atmosphere turning to magnesium! etc.. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/chung1/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/chung1/
• CoolGuySteve 7y ago
  That mercola article was fascinating until I got to the very end. Then it finished with the paragraph below. Now I’m wondering if I just read a bunch of bullshit quackery. > Available for Preorder > In my upcoming book “EMF*D,” I reveal key strategies outlining how to protect yourself from 5G, Wi-Fi, “dirty” electricity and the harmful effects of electromagnetic fields from cellphones. There's no better time than today to start reducing your EMF exposure — preorder your copy now!
  • PunchTornado 7y ago
    thanks for saving my time.
  • allovernow 7y ago
    My understanding is that Mercola is a generally pseudoscientific website.
  • the_gastropod 7y ago
    Oh, Mercola is a complete and total quack. Among other things, he says AIDS comes from psychological stress, not from HIV, sunscreen causes skin cancer, vaccines cause autism, and microwaving food destroys its nutrients. Conveniently, he sells many dietary supplements and knick-knacks to protect you from the fear-mongery nonsense he spouts.
• stefan_ 7y ago
  "There is no way we can predict the outcome", he said, writing from his climate controlled room surrounded by concrete for miles in any direction. Don't worry, evolutionary systems are continuous and highly robust. Remember, nature is out there rolling dices and so far, no killer moths have been spotted, despite getting in 190 million years of moth gene dice rolls.
  • sorokod 7y ago
    Evolution stopping is not a concern, it's direction is.
  • close04 7y ago
    > no killer moths have been spotted, despite getting in 190 million years of moth gene dice rolls Nature works much slower than humans and with different "targets". There's a reason we shun engineering of deadly pathogens that could wipe out the entire population, and the assumption that "it can't be done otherwise nature would have done it already" doesn't hold.
    • red75prime 7y ago
      Unintended consequences are unintended because they weren't actively searched for. Why do you think that they will be more dangerous than random search performed in nature?
      • ngcc_hk 7y ago
        It is the unknown unknown you worry about when change like this. I wonder the China part as well. Not sure still about the military lab on virus in wuhan. What is the governance and ethic model here?
  • aspyct 7y ago
    > writing from his climate controlled room surrounded by concrete for miles in any direction. What does this have to do with genetic engineering? I'm not worried about killer moths, obviously. But as we've seen in the past, eradicating a species can have surprising effects on the whole ecosystem. Take the extermination of wolves in the Yellowstone park for example: https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wolf-reintroduc... Getting rid of the moths is only a patch on a deeper problem. Like every patch, it's only going to move the problem, and possibly create others. The issue with GE is that we're not merely talking about concrete. Concrete doesn't move, doesn't reproduce. Living beings do so, and sometimes a lot faster than we expect. There's already so many changes going on at the moment with climate change. Insect populations are changing, birds migrate, crustaceans' shells dissolve in the ocean. There's no telling the consequences of GE for anything. And once it starts to be a mess, there's very little we can do to control it.
• mrfusion 7y ago
  On the other hand we don’t want to put up too many hurdles especially for fighting mosquitos spreading terrible diseases. When trying new things I say Let’s do what makes sense, and not be paralyzed by fear.
  • TomMarius 7y ago
    The problem is that it is becoming easier and easier to single-handedly destroy the ecosystem in a large surrounding area. And I say that as an opposer of regulation.
  • Sporktacular 7y ago
    These mosquitos are a benefit for thousands of species, and thus the natural world in general. But they're a problem for one species so they have to go? This is the response to the tired "but humans and therefore all their actions are natural too" argument. This is why it doesn't 'make sense'.
• andyjpb 7y ago
  Thanks for the link. The guarantees they present in that article seem a lot stronger than the HN submission. They explain what they intend by "self limiting" and then it turns out that it doesn't work anyway (with a 4% survival rate of Female carriers in the wild). In the HN submission (a later experiment) they don't seem to be anywhere near as careful. They just say it's "self limiting" but that the genes are passed onto offspring (of which, the males survive). I'm not an expert in genetic biology and my differential calculus is rusty but, intuitively, I'd expect that if you had even a small percentage of matings that didn't produce Female offspring then the overall proportion of males would rise. It's not immediately clear what the equilibrium point of male carriers would be. ...so how does it "self limit" in the case where the limit is not merely "all (female) moths have died"? Do all males end up infected? What is the range of these moths? Can they fly to other places and gradually spread out over a geography? I have so many questions and, to a non-expert, it all sounds rather scary!