Quote :

"Researchers have recently conscripted a gene for a toxin from a sea cucumber, of all things, in the fight against malaria. Inserting this gene into mosquitoes creates a toxic environment for the malaria-causing parasite that usually lives happily in a mosquito's gut. These tweaks make it impossible for malaria to be passed from human to human via mosquito. In order for this scheme to work, the modified mosquitoes have to outbreed normal mosquitoes in the wild. This has been the main challenge for scientists thus far. But the current generation proves to be surprisingly robust in a caged trial, dominating the mosquito population at 70 percent in the ninth generation when feeding on malarial blood. In fact, killing the malaria-causing parasite may actually give the genetically-modified mosquitoes an edge by allowing them to live longer and lay more eggs, according to the scientists at the Malaria Research Institute at Johns Hopkins University. "This fitness advantage has important implications for devising malaria control strategies," they write in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/mar/20/controversiesinscience.infectiousdiseases
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/environment/malariafree+mosquitoes+/1215157
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0609809104v1

Any thoughts as to this moral quandary? Precautionary principle, anyone?

Personally, I would prefer that we just lift the ban on DDT and wipe out all mosquitos, but I recognize that after extensive testing this might be a good solution.

1/22/2008 12:58:49 AM

IF these things are heartier than malaria-carrying mosquitos, wouldn't that mean in places where they're deployed, you get overrun with mosquitos? What other effects does this cause? Increased bats? More bat feces, more bat infestations.

The food web is called a web for a reason. You can touch one part of it without having some effect on all parts of it.

This type of tampering seems that it could easily run out of control.

I seem to remember reading a report a while back where some GM plant got out of control. Also, isn't the reason Kudzu is everywhere because someone thought introducing a new species was a good way to control erosion?

1/22/2008 1:16:14 AM

^i agree with that 95 percent

the other 5 percent is the passenger pigeon going extinct...pretty sure that bird was so stupid it didnt really affect any other animal populations

1/22/2008 1:24:51 AM

^^
agree 100%

human death is underrated

we do not need to be fucking with the web of life

humans have a long losing record when it comes to using new technology

malaria is a natural "check and balance" with humans

we fucked with nature, creating breeding grounds and lots of mosquitoes

now they kill us

that is fair

that is fair



fucking with the web of life not only can, BUT WILL get out of our control

it is unnecessary, lame, cheap, wrong, dangerous, egocentric, and a big fucking cheat

there is no honor in the research or application of this deadly science




plus

according to libertarian principle

actions that pollute the organic gene pool in nature

harm others liberty, who have a right to live in the organic world that has existed for millions of years

just like you can't pave over a national park -- that harms future generations "right to the same"

you may not care about the "organic" distinction, but others do, greatly.

who are you, though the use of force, without the consent of those affected, to destroy or harm that which is organic?

PERHAPS FOREVER

the butterfly effect is real and permanent

we must prevent these things from happening

don't start no shit, won't be no shit!

1/22/2008 2:41:02 AM

^what is your opinion on the production of recombinant insulin?

1/22/2008 3:25:02 AM

^
if you're just making something, like humulin, where the result is so simple (molecule, not animal)

and it's completely contained within a lab

that's ok

gmo's should really only be used like that, in very controlled laboratory environments

it's when modifications with uncertain "unintended" consequences get out into the wild, uncontrollable

that's a problem

1/22/2008 3:55:18 AM

Quote :

"Personally, I would prefer that we just lift the ban on DDT "

The material is a known carcinagin, increases in concentration as it progresses thru the foodchain, causes birthdefects, and ultimatly results in DDT resistant mosquitos. Why would this be helpful?

1/22/2008 5:44:29 AM

...because it's also very effective at killing mosquitoes, which are a pretty big problem as a malaria vector?

1/22/2008 7:14:06 AM

how about cloned food.

illl eat

1/22/2008 9:08:10 AM

tough choice Malaria or more Bat Feces

1/22/2008 9:51:18 AM

Quote :

"IF these things are heartier than malaria-carrying mosquitos, wouldn't that mean in places where they're deployed, you get overrun with mosquitos? What other effects does this cause? Increased bats? More bat feces, more bat infestations. The food web is called a web for a reason. You can touch one part of it without having some effect on all parts of it. This type of tampering seems that it could easily run out of control."

While I cannot pretend to know all the variables, this would not be introducing a new species as 392 is raving about, just a slightly different type of mosquito. In fact, the research seems to suggest the new mosquito only performs better than old mosquitos when feeding on malarial blood due to their 90% ability to avoid catching the malaria parasite (which then proceeds to eat the mosquito from the inside out, slowely killing it). So, in regions where malaria is non existant, the new mosquitos are aparently indistinguishable from the old mosquitos. What this also means is that the new mosquitoes are no more hardy or capable of reproduction, so their numbers should remain the same everywhere except areas prone to malaria.

It all sounds too perfect. They are mosquitoes with hardy DNA, so they are not prone to mutation. So, whatever we release them as they will stay. The biggest problem I see, of course, is that Malaria moves around; the vast majority of mosquitoes never catch it. So, if avoidance of Malaria is their only improvement over their brethren, then it seems unlikely to me that the new mosquitoes will displace the old ones sufficiently to eliminate malaria. The more sucessful they are at reducing Malaria the less relatively fit they are.

That said, if it got out of control, how would we know? If the new mosquitoes somehow manage to flood the world, all we have managed to do is eliminate mosquitoes as a vector for parasites. It is not like they have made them winter proof or anything.

[Edited on January 22, 2008 at 9:58 AM. Reason : .,.]

1/22/2008 9:57:09 AM

'Not Prone to mutation' is an interesting way of describing a species who reproduces in the billions every year. The problem with genetic engineering is that small changes can remain dormant for some time and then with the introduction of a new variable become a catalyst for catastrophic change.

Not saying this will happen, but rapidly multiplying species are the quickest adapters to change.

Poisonous mosquitos world wide? Not a stellar idea.

1/22/2008 11:00:46 AM

They could just remodify the mosquitos to not suck blood... actually, that's what they should have started with. Find the gene that turns off their blood desiring nature.

1/22/2008 11:08:04 AM

Bring back DDT. Problem solved.

1/22/2008 2:07:06 PM

I agree, we should gas the fuckers. Bald eagles be damned.

1/22/2008 2:13:50 PM

This is all cool until the new mosquitoes mutate to become poisonous. I've seen that movie. I didn't like how it ended.

1/22/2008 3:09:06 PM

Quote :

" "To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT... In little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that otherwise would have been inevitable." [National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Research in the Life Sciences of the Committee on Science and Public Policy. 1970. The Life Sciences; Recent Progress and Application to Human Affairs; The World of Biological Research; Requirements for the Future.]"

FUCK THE HUMANS!

1/22/2008 3:20:15 PM

and fwiw:

Quote :

" Many experiments on caged-birds demonstrate that DDT and its metabolites (DDD and DDE) do not cause serious egg shell thinning, even at levels many hundreds of times greater than wild birds would ever accumulate. [Cecil, HC et al. 1971. Poultry Science 50: 656-659 (No effects of DDT or DDE, if adequate calcium is in diet); Chang, ES & ELR Stokstad. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 3-10 1975. (No effects of DDT on shells); Edwards, JG. 1971. Chem Eng News p. 6 & 59 (August 16, 1971) (Summary of egg shell- thinning and refutations presented revealing all data); Hazeltine, WE. 1974. Statement and affidavit, EPA Hearings on Tussock Moth Control, Portland Oregon, p. 9 (January 14, 1974); Jeffries, DJ. 1969. J Wildlife Management 32: 441-456 (Shells 7 percent thicker after two years on DDT diet); Robson, WA et al. 1976. Poultry Science 55:2222- 2227; Scott, ML et al. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 350-368 (Egg production, hatchability and shell quality depend on calcium, and are not effected by DDT and its metabolites); Spears, G & P. Waibel. 1972. Minn. Science 28(3):4-5; Tucker, RK & HA Haegele. 1970. Bull Environ Contam. Toxicol 5:191-194 (Neither egg weight nor shell thickness affected by 300 parts per million DDT in daily diet);Edwards, JG. 1973. Statement and affidavit, U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, 24 pages, October 24, 1973; Poult Sci 1979 Nov;58(6):1432-49 ("There was no correlation between concentrations of pesticides and egg shell thinning] .") ] Experiments associating DDT with egg shell thinning involve doses much higher than would ever be encountered in the wild. [J Toxicol Environ Health 1977 Nov;3(4):699-704 (50 ppm for 6 months); Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 1978;7(3):359-67 ("acute" doses); Acta Pharmacol Toxicol (Copenh) 1982 Feb;50(2):121-9 (40 mg/kg/day for 45 days); Fed Proc 1977 May;36(6):1888-93 ("In well-controlled experiments using white leghorn chickens and Japanese quail, dietary PCBs, DDT and related compounds produced no detrimental effects on eggshell quality. ... no detrimental effects on eggshell quality, egg production or hatchability were found with ... DDT up to 100 ppm)] "

[Edited on January 22, 2008 at 3:22 PM. Reason : .]

1/22/2008 3:22:06 PM

I hate responding to uninformed people, but 392's uneducated rant is rediculous.

There are thousands upon thousands of genetically modified organisms in use to mass produce medication and other supporting molecules such as individual acids and proteins. No honor? I've worked with products (Embrel in particular) that give people their lives back, or products that are directly injected into people in IVs.

There is a responsiblity that people have in making this organisms unable to survive in a natural environment (in fact there are government regulations covering this) and we were able to learn from mistakes in the past. To call in unhonorable demostrates your lack of education about the subject. Nothing you said carries any weight, its just objective diatribe with no purpose.

1/22/2008 3:50:56 PM

yeah well the modified measels virus that cured cancer in I Am Legend turned out much differently.

1/22/2008 4:00:12 PM

Check mate.

1/22/2008 4:01:37 PM

gotcha bastard

1/22/2008 4:15:08 PM

Quote :

"They are mosquitoes with hardy DNA, so they are not prone to mutation. So, whatever we release them as they will stay."

This sentance doesn't make sense, period. The size of an organism's genome doesn't have anything to do with its mutation rate. Also, it doesn't matter what we do to that organisms genome the selective pressure of the environment is alwayschange the organisms genetic makeup over time. Genetic matierial is not static, its dynamic and redunant so that single changes in the genetic code do not lead to the death of the species.

ppl still think DDT is a "good" idea, wowzahs

1/22/2008 5:01:39 PM

Quote :

"This sentance doesn't make sense, period"

lol


LOLOLOLOLOLOL

1/22/2008 5:10:07 PM

^^ You can't make the statement "DDT was a bad idea" so unequivocally. It's still used in parts of the world.

You just have to weigh the benefits with the risks, and for Americans, we have the money to pursue better alternatives, so we did.

1/23/2008 12:01:18 AM

i dont think there is any one "good" solution. When i said it was a bad idea i ment that it was a bad idea using it as and overall solution to the problem (from the bring back DDT comments). DDT is cheap and good for killing the mosquitos carring the disease that kills people. I understand peoples concern for introducing GMO's into the environment, they dont want it to endup like kudzo. But insertion of single genes into other species has proved to be relatively safe and donesn't seem to affect the organism otherwise, for example GFP in fish and rabbits or BT corn. Either way its a bad idea for other venues not to be explored. And i find it ironic that the people that can afford to create alternatives are the ones that spend the most time debating the ethics. The people dying from malaria would proably much rather have more mosquitos that dont give them malaria then use a spray that poisens their food supply and affects their food sources.

1/23/2008 12:41:15 AM

^ Wading into the deep end of the discussion pool, Jen? Good for you.

Be advised: There are rabid moonbats here--and they bite! FYI.

1/23/2008 12:55:50 AM

^^ I think this is a reasonable concern, and if we're debating alternative strategies for fighting malaria, certainly we'd want to go with the one with the highest effectiveness and the lowest other disruption of the environment. So, I understand the concern about using DDT - if we were to do nothing else.

But, I think genetically modified mosquitoes are one approach. One concern I can see coming up is whether the selective advantage of malaria-resistance would not lead to a net increase in mosquitoes - I'd leave that question to the experts. And, there's other methods we've employed successfully, too - like sterilizing male mosquitoes and releasing them back into the wild, thus causing a "blanks" competition for mates, and lowering the overall mosquito population.

Either way, I think we should go into a problem like this will all the options on the table.

1/23/2008 1:22:31 AM

But what if they have a Silent Spring?[/sarcasm]

1/23/2008 5:50:42 AM

Quote :

"The people dying from malaria would proably much rather have more mosquitos that dont give them malaria then use a spray that poisens their food supply and affects their food sources."

LOL said by someone without mosquites swarming around their body 24 hours a day.

Yes, they would be happy to trade in mosquitoes without malaria for mosquitoes with malaria... but I think they're prefer to do without them period.


And the whole "poisons the food supply" thing is bullshit alarmist conjecture that fuels the global warming debate today.

Same tactics, 40 years later.

1/23/2008 10:10:20 AM

But you forgot to mention how DDT was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (unless you are a moron) to be hazardous thus why it was banned.

1/23/2008 10:48:45 AM

i actually messed up that sentance. It was supposed to read "that poisens their food supply and causes birth defects in their children"

And as far as poisons the food supply i challenge you prove sir that it does not, as i assure you it does. Mabey "poison" is a bad phrase but the substance remains in the organsim that ingested the DDT and the concentration of DDT increases as it moves thru the food chain producing the greatest impact on those at the top of the food chain, aka People. The same people that DDT was being used to help in the first place.

Eliminating malaria with DDT causes causing cancer. Are you saying cancer is preferable to malaria?

1/23/2008 1:29:03 PM

what about other mosquito-borne illnesses that this new robust mosquito population will become more likely to carry?

the law of unintended consequences can work exponentially in biological situations.

i'd rather treat the problem with increased access to anti-malarials and researching less dangerous alternatives to DDT.

1/23/2008 2:00:48 PM

DDT may have some effect on human health, but there's no way it's worse than malaria. Malaria is almost as bad as you can imagine. I can see the problems to both solution, but we're talking the lives of millions of people here.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6083944

1/23/2008 2:01:53 PM

Quote :

"what about other mosquito-borne illnesses that this new robust mosquito population will become more likely to carry? "

why would the absense of one type of mosquito parisite make them more likey to carry another?

1/23/2008 3:04:54 PM

because the people proving DDT was dangerous were not the same people who were suffering of the dangerous of malaria.

1/23/2008 3:47:16 PM

Mass use of DDT would have wrecked quite a few ecosystems.

1/23/2008 3:51:59 PM

Quote :

"Mass use of DDT would have wrecked quite a few ecosystems."

As I understand it, agricultural use of DDT was the worst. Current usage is different.

1/23/2008 3:55:47 PM

We should learn a lesson from the last time a modified insect was brought into the wild, thus the beginning of killer bee's reign of terror. To make it all the way to Montana by 2010.

1/23/2008 4:08:12 PM

that shit wont make it any place that has hard freezes during the winter

1/23/2008 4:27:45 PM

Quote :

"why would the absense of one type of mosquito parisite make them more likey to carry another?"

it won't directly, but longer lifespan and increased fecundity in the mosquito population increases the incidence rate for acquiring other parasites.

1/23/2008 10:12:02 PM