9 ms·

Eradicating harmful insect species using CRISPR gene drives is so tempting. We could wipe out Medflies with it (without spilling a single drop of pesticide), an

Eradicating harmful insect species using CRISPR gene drives is so tempting. We could wipe out Medflies with it (without spilling a single drop of pesticide), and even more importantly, we could drive the mosquitoes that cause malaria/yellow fever/dengue/etc to extinction. There are a lot of worries about the side effects, but I'm equally worried about the consequences of failing to use it. There's a lot of attention paid to the 100k coronavirus deaths, and not to minimize those, but they pale in comparison to the equally tragic and preventable malaria deaths which go practically unnoticed.

1propionyl 6y ago
A genetic modification designed to spread through a population at higher-than-normal rates of inheritance, spread through a massive population of insects that act as carriers for many rapidly mutating viruses, and that feed on the blood of many different species? What could go wrong?
- mullingitover 6y ago
  Anopheles mosquitoes have killed more people than all the wars in human history combined, so to me the 'what could go wrong' is that we don't do anything to permanently wipe them out. I'm not saying we shouldn't be careful, but that we should carefully, deliberately drive them to extinction.
  - Someone 6y ago
    The goal should not be to eradicate the mosquitos, but to eradicate Plasmodium, and then even just the ones (most) responsible (if you can call an unicellular organism responsible) for malaria. Also, ‘only’ about 40 of 460 Anopheles species commonly transmit malaria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anopheles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anopheles). We should target those, leaving the others around.
  - runeks 6y ago
    > Anopheles mosquitoes have killed more people than all the wars in human history combined […] What makes you sure that CRISPR-gone-wrong couldn’t kill even more people?
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  Could possibly vs the lives already lost and the lives yet to be lost. I know where my opinion firmly lands: definitely worth considering the options.
dfsegoat 6y ago
Devils advocate: mosquitoes and their diseases have been with us since we were rodents. I would express great concern at this idea, but can understand the temptation. Why not just use CRISPR to confer malaria etc. immunity in humans?
- mullingitover 6y ago
  Genetically modifying all humans with no side effects is far more difficult and ethically dubious than genetically modifying mosquitoes.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  If that’s your opinion, how do you reconcile it with being ok that Africans suffer mosquitoes and their diseases, but us Westerners don’t?
- smabie 6y ago
  Gene drive the entire human population? Are you serious? Moreover, that doesn't really help the people today.
- masonic 6y ago
  since we were rodents Humans (well, most, anyway) were never rodents. You have to go back almost to the K-T event even to find a common ancestor.
ip26 6y ago
Engineering mosquitoes to be unsuitable carriers for malaria (and others) could be a less perilous path. It would be something like this option: https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-52530828 https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-52530828
ISL 6y ago
Early in the days when nuclear physics found application, it promised to bring great benefit to society in addition to its tremendous utility in warfare. There are lots of opinions about this sort of thing, but it is a fact that our society has great difficulty dealing with nuclear waste. Furthermore, while accidents are rare, they have enduring impact in the locations where they occur. Today, of all days, we all feel the impact of an uncontrolled and exponentially-spreading biological disaster. Gene drive can have a similar impact, if it goes awry. To wield a weapon of extinction that we barely understand is folly. There are as many opportunities for loss of control through mutation as there are mosquitoes. While the biomechanics probably don't work out, it seems like a bad idea to attempt such an extinction when each of our tiny adversaries are equipped with hypodermic needles and a penchant for mammalian blood. Your point regarding the consequence of not acting is very well-taken. It only takes a day or two in a country with tropical disease to understand how crippling it is, not just to individuals, but to entire continents of people. The happiness of billions of lives does hang in the balance. Before going with the "nuclear" (or should I write "CRISPR"?) option, one should explore every other avenue to its end. I'm a physicist -- I see in CRISPR all the good and bad that physicists encountered at the dawn of the nuclear age. Be real, real careful with it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deathgrips 6y ago
  The problem with this sort of thinking is that we don't live in a bubble. Even if we don't study nuclear weapons or biological engineering, our enemies will.
  - mrunkel 6y ago
    There is also a problem with thinking that everyone that isn't you is an enemy.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
jon_elbrook 6y ago
>we could drive the mosquitoes that cause malaria/yellow fever/dengue/etc to extinction. How?
- Jyaif 6y ago
  "Debug is a group of scientists and engineers developing technology to raise and release sterile mosquitoes to eliminate the ones that carry disease." And it's used in the real world: "Today, our scientific paper reporting near-elimination of Aedes aegypti from three neighborhoods in Fresno County" https://blog.debug.com/2020/04/nature-biotechnology-features-debug.html https://blog.debug.com/2020/04/nature-biotechnology-features...
  - jon_elbrook 6y ago
    Releasing sterile mosquitoes wouldn't eliminate the ones that carry disease. that's basically the opposite of natural selection.
    - ses1984 6y ago
      "sterile" is an over simplification, with something called gene drive, you can actually introduce sterility into the gene pool in such a way that spreads through the entire population driving it to extinction. Crazy.
      - jon_elbrook 6y ago
        I don't see how that could work. Clearly some mosquitoes are going to be resistant to the modification and will survive.
        ses1984 6y ago
        I could explain it but not as well as if you just search for crispr gene drive.
kingkawn 6y ago
If you wipe out entire species of insects you will decimate life throughout the food chain
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  Depends on your choice of insect. The world would mostly be fine without mosquitoes. Losing ants would be a big problem. This is one of the big problems with using pesticides on crops, you kill the good stuff too.
  - kingkawn 6y ago
    We have not lived in a mosquito-less world, you cannot say with justifiable certainty that wiping them out would not devastate birds and other wildlife that have intricate relationships to them in the food web
Retric 6y ago
That’s 100k deaths in the US globally it’s over 350k. The US has effectively eradicated Malaria locally, which is why the 100k deaths are getting so much attention. You need to go much further down the list of US killers to find something we don’t pay much attention to.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rubidium 6y ago
It’s already been shown to not result in what was expected in the trial that was done in Brazil. A total Jurassic park moment. Nature “found a way”. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49660-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49660-6 I feel like everyone missed this news?
- arcticfox 6y ago
  > Evidently, rare viable hybrid offspring between the release strain and the Jacobina population are sufficiently robust to be able to reproduce in nature. ... Thus, Jacobina Ae. aegypti are now a mix of three populations. It is unclear how this may affect disease transmission or affect other efforts to control these dangerous vectors. Uh-oh moment.
S_A_P 6y ago
This response pretty much encapsulates your user name 100%. That said, haven't they already started releasing "GMO" mosquitoes in Brazil? Just googled it and looks like they did:https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/09/study-dna-spread-genetically-modified-mosquitoes-prompts-backlash https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/09/study-dna-spread-gen...
tsimionescu 6y ago
> There's a lot of attention paid to the 100k coronavirus deaths, and not to minimize those, but they pale in comparison to the equally tragic and preventable malaria deaths which go practically unnoticed. Actually, Covid19 has already killed almost as many people this year to date as malaria in 2018, at least according to Wikipedia (400k died of malaria, 360k of Covid19). And this is only after a shutdown of large number regions or countries. I know this is somewhat besides your original point, but I feel that it is important to bring up, given the trend to downplay Covid19 in some circles.
lvs 6y ago
You've just read an article about bioterrorism and concluded that human engineering of ecology is not only safe but obligatory? What if I told you that, if there were ever a working and effective gene drive -- instead of just people self-promoting on the basis of such things -- that it could be used as much for evil as it could be used for good?

1propionyl 6y ago

A genetic modification designed to spread through a population at higher-than-normal rates of inheritance, spread through a massive population of insects that act as carriers for many rapidly mutating viruses, and that feed on the blood of many different species? What could go wrong?

mullingitover 6y ago
Anopheles mosquitoes have killed more people than all the wars in human history combined, so to me the 'what could go wrong' is that we don't do anything to permanently wipe them out. I'm not saying we shouldn't be careful, but that we should carefully, deliberately drive them to extinction.
- Someone 6y ago
  The goal should not be to eradicate the mosquitos, but to eradicate Plasmodium, and then even just the ones (most) responsible (if you can call an unicellular organism responsible) for malaria. Also, ‘only’ about 40 of 460 Anopheles species commonly transmit malaria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anopheles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anopheles). We should target those, leaving the others around.
- runeks 6y ago
  > Anopheles mosquitoes have killed more people than all the wars in human history combined […] What makes you sure that CRISPR-gone-wrong couldn’t kill even more people?
TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
Could possibly vs the lives already lost and the lives yet to be lost. I know where my opinion firmly lands: definitely worth considering the options.

dfsegoat 6y ago

Devils advocate: mosquitoes and their diseases have been with us since we were rodents. I would express great concern at this idea, but can understand the temptation. Why not just use CRISPR to confer malaria etc. immunity in humans?

mullingitover 6y ago
Genetically modifying all humans with no side effects is far more difficult and ethically dubious than genetically modifying mosquitoes.
TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
If that’s your opinion, how do you reconcile it with being ok that Africans suffer mosquitoes and their diseases, but us Westerners don’t?
smabie 6y ago
Gene drive the entire human population? Are you serious? Moreover, that doesn't really help the people today.
masonic 6y ago
since we were rodents Humans (well, most, anyway) were never rodents. You have to go back almost to the K-T event even to find a common ancestor.

ip26 6y ago

Engineering mosquitoes to be unsuitable carriers for malaria (and others) could be a less perilous path. It would be something like this option: https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-52530828 https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-52530828

ISL 6y ago

Early in the days when nuclear physics found application, it promised to bring great benefit to society in addition to its tremendous utility in warfare. There are lots of opinions about this sort of thing, but it is a fact that our society has great difficulty dealing with nuclear waste. Furthermore, while accidents are rare, they have enduring impact in the locations where they occur. Today, of all days, we all feel the impact of an uncontrolled and exponentially-spreading biological disaster. Gene drive can have a similar impact, if it goes awry. To wield a weapon of extinction that we barely understand is folly. There are as many opportunities for loss of control through mutation as there are mosquitoes. While the biomechanics probably don't work out, it seems like a bad idea to attempt such an extinction when each of our tiny adversaries are equipped with hypodermic needles and a penchant for mammalian blood. Your point regarding the consequence of not acting is very well-taken. It only takes a day or two in a country with tropical disease to understand how crippling it is, not just to individuals, but to entire continents of people. The happiness of billions of lives does hang in the balance. Before going with the "nuclear" (or should I write "CRISPR"?) option, one should explore every other avenue to its end. I'm a physicist -- I see in CRISPR all the good and bad that physicists encountered at the dawn of the nuclear age. Be real, real careful with it.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deathgrips 6y ago
The problem with this sort of thinking is that we don't live in a bubble. Even if we don't study nuclear weapons or biological engineering, our enemies will.
- mrunkel 6y ago
  There is also a problem with thinking that everyone that isn't you is an enemy.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

jon_elbrook 6y ago

>we could drive the mosquitoes that cause malaria/yellow fever/dengue/etc to extinction. How?

Jyaif 6y ago
"Debug is a group of scientists and engineers developing technology to raise and release sterile mosquitoes to eliminate the ones that carry disease." And it's used in the real world: "Today, our scientific paper reporting near-elimination of Aedes aegypti from three neighborhoods in Fresno County" https://blog.debug.com/2020/04/nature-biotechnology-features-debug.html https://blog.debug.com/2020/04/nature-biotechnology-features...
- jon_elbrook 6y ago
  Releasing sterile mosquitoes wouldn't eliminate the ones that carry disease. that's basically the opposite of natural selection.
  - ses1984 6y ago
    "sterile" is an over simplification, with something called gene drive, you can actually introduce sterility into the gene pool in such a way that spreads through the entire population driving it to extinction. Crazy.
    - jon_elbrook 6y ago
      I don't see how that could work. Clearly some mosquitoes are going to be resistant to the modification and will survive.
      - ses1984 6y ago
        I could explain it but not as well as if you just search for crispr gene drive.

kingkawn 6y ago

If you wipe out entire species of insects you will decimate life throughout the food chain

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Depends on your choice of insect. The world would mostly be fine without mosquitoes. Losing ants would be a big problem. This is one of the big problems with using pesticides on crops, you kill the good stuff too.
- kingkawn 6y ago
  We have not lived in a mosquito-less world, you cannot say with justifiable certainty that wiping them out would not devastate birds and other wildlife that have intricate relationships to them in the food web

Retric 6y ago

That’s 100k deaths in the US globally it’s over 350k. The US has effectively eradicated Malaria locally, which is why the 100k deaths are getting so much attention. You need to go much further down the list of US killers to find something we don’t pay much attention to.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

rubidium 6y ago

It’s already been shown to not result in what was expected in the trial that was done in Brazil. A total Jurassic park moment. Nature “found a way”. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49660-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49660-6 I feel like everyone missed this news?

arcticfox 6y ago
> Evidently, rare viable hybrid offspring between the release strain and the Jacobina population are sufficiently robust to be able to reproduce in nature. ... Thus, Jacobina Ae. aegypti are now a mix of three populations. It is unclear how this may affect disease transmission or affect other efforts to control these dangerous vectors. Uh-oh moment.

S_A_P 6y ago

This response pretty much encapsulates your user name 100%. That said, haven't they already started releasing "GMO" mosquitoes in Brazil? Just googled it and looks like they did:https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/09/study-dna-spread-genetically-modified-mosquitoes-prompts-backlash https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/09/study-dna-spread-gen...

tsimionescu 6y ago

> There's a lot of attention paid to the 100k coronavirus deaths, and not to minimize those, but they pale in comparison to the equally tragic and preventable malaria deaths which go practically unnoticed. Actually, Covid19 has already killed almost as many people this year to date as malaria in 2018, at least according to Wikipedia (400k died of malaria, 360k of Covid19). And this is only after a shutdown of large number regions or countries. I know this is somewhat besides your original point, but I feel that it is important to bring up, given the trend to downplay Covid19 in some circles.

lvs 6y ago

You've just read an article about bioterrorism and concluded that human engineering of ecology is not only safe but obligatory? What if I told you that, if there were ever a working and effective gene drive -- instead of just people self-promoting on the basis of such things -- that it could be used as much for evil as it could be used for good?