> “To be honest with you, if there were some kind of emergency and one absolutely needed to do it, we could pretty much do it.”
I can not understand this comment. How is 438,000 annual deaths not an emergency!? We DO absolutely need to do it!
I can not understand this comment. How is 438,000 annual deaths not an emergency!? We DO absolutely need to do it!
We humans don't really have a very good track record of dealing with the things Nature throws at us as can be seen with countless examples invasive species (imported to solve some problem or other) wrecking havoc on native species, super-germs &etc.
I seem to recall reading that mosquitos are a staple food source for birds or bats or something, what could possibly go wrong with killing them all off?
Humans have a natural immunity to malaria but nobody is saying we need to genetically modify everyone to have sickle cell anemia.
I personally would like to put on trial for crimes against humanity ever single person arguing for a delay in using this technology. Let them argue in court why hundreds of thousands of people (mostly young children and pregnant women) should die every year so they can pontificate about "unintended consequences" from the comfort of their armchairs.
For the record people do not have a natural immunity to malaria and removing all human pathogen spreading mosquitos would have no direct impact on any natural ecosystem.
People with sickle cell do. That's part of why certain genetic defects are prevalent in certain populations: survival of the fittest in circumstances where the alternative is worse.
I think they have signed "right to try" into law. But there are very good reasons we want to test stuff before taking a big step. People tend to die as our way of finding out the theory is only half baked.
That's how we got rounded airplane windows: by planes going down in gruesome crashes that killed everyone on board, thereby serving as a clue that there was a design flaw somewhere in our lovely new jets.
Anyway this is totally irrelevant to the question of if we should continue to let people die while we sit around pontificating about unintended consequences. When the house is burning down it is not the time to talk about the unintended consequences of getting the carpet wet.
I am just expressing my extreme frustration at how something that could save millions of people is being held back because certain people are excessively cautious. I would like them held responsible for the deaths they are responsible for.
I thought the "unintended consequences" of thalidomide was common knowledge and seen as a warning against the "look before you leap" mentality you're advocating.
It is even a more stupid argument as thalidomide wasn't stopped in the USA because of any concern about "unintended consequences", it was stopped because of the incompetence and sloth of the FDA. The FDA would have approved thalidomide with no issues, the USA just got lucky that thalidomide was used elsewhere first and so the effects were noticed before it was released in the USA.
Think The Simpsons did an episode on this involving gorillas and snakes or something.
Oh, and anyone who thinks that it's maybe is a good idea to study this irreversible idea a bit beforehand should be brought up on charges of Crimes Against Humanity.
And the thalidomide incident lead to the total rethinking on how drugs were approved throughout the world so the fact that it was or wasn't approved by the FDA is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand, it was the catalyst of change that keeps people from willy-nilly releasing genetically modified insects into the wild today.
As far as I can tell they are actively working on this idea with test releases in Florida (on non-native mosquitoes) so it's not like anyone is trying to kill this idea as you imply. Ok, to be fair, some people are trying to kill this idea but that hasn't stopped them from releasing genetically modified mutants into the wild.
Thalidomide had nothing to do with the changes in how drugs are approved. The thalidomide "problem" was solved by never testing drugs in pregant women - of course if you are pregnant and get ill then tough luck.
The FDA has nothing to do with the regulation of genetically modified mosquitos as it is outside its regulatory control.
Yes plenty of people are trying to kill this idea and yes these people have slowed and will probably stop this idea ever being used. I would like them to be held responsible for the millions of deaths that result.
I am guilty of not reading the entire discussion here, so I apologize if this is a derail, but historically they outright eradicated the mosquitoes on some island... Which led to other things dying that ate the mosquitoes... Which led to yet more things dying.
I am failing to find a source, but maybe this blog post references it:
During WWII the Navy (which had a large base on the island) sprayed the village heavily with DDT to cut down the mosquito population. As you might imagine, DDT killed the mosquitoes...and most of the frogs, and is suspected of contributing to a number of cancer deaths on Ocracoke.
https://villagecraftsmen.blogspot.com/2011/09/mosquito-contr...
"That might sound disturbing from an ecological perspective, but mosquitoes don’t make up a significant portion of any known predator’s diet; there’s just not a lot of meat there. “So far there’s no evidence really that seems to show that Anopheles gambiae is a key species in the ecosystem,” Jonathan Kayondo, a senior research officer at the Uganda Virus Research Institute and a member of Target Malaria’s scientific team, told Fong. “There’s nothing that exclusively feeds on it. So I’m finding it hard to see how that would collapse the ecosystem, because that’s the fear most people have.”
So either the scientist isn't very good at the google or just doesn't like "vampire spiders" and is lying about there being no predators for this mosquito. Whichever way you look at it this is the person you're trusting to release genetically modified organisms into the wild.
Regarding ecological issues surrounding the release of sterile TMs, of particular importance is that a reduction in the number of Anopheles is unlikely to have a negative impact on local food chains. According to (Pennetier et al. 2010) there are no birds, fish or other insects that feed exclusively on Anopheles mosquitoes, the only known exception being Evarcha culicivora, an East African jumping spider that feeds indirectly on vertebrate blood by selecting blood-carrying female mosquitoes as preferred prey.
from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alicia_Coupe/publicatio...
That sounds like a wise preference.
It's not a matter of it this genetic modification would have consequences, but what will those consequences and side effects be?
Our ecosystem is insanely complex, as show by the Biosphere II project. You can't just try to surgically alter one part without lots of unintended effects down the line.