Self-destructing mosquitoes and sterilized rodents: the promise of gene drives
nature.com
nature.com
Looking at history, one would have to conclude that employing science-based methods to improve the natural environment by reversing problems which we have unintelligently created in the past (mosquitoes, rodents, antibiotic resistant bacteria, etc) through our own carelessness isn't necessarily directly linked by a slippery slope to something like eugenics or ecosystem collapse.
We have the potential to do good as well as evil, even capable of implementing laws and international treaties which (for example) prohibit CRISPRing embryos.
Many ideas are worthy of at least being assessed on their merits and not being discarded purely because they belong to a certain class. If there is a genuine slippery slope (which is somewhat ironically claimed with some measure of certainty in the same breath that says we're incapable of foreseeing consequences), but the idea is good, perhaps we could leverage our legal frameworks and social structures to limit that.
It seems crazy that we should be expected to accept the consequences of any negative effects which we have had on the planet to date through our carelessness because approaching them with a scientific method and anything but the crudest tools (pesticides, etc) is labelled "playing god" and totally off limits.
And the death toll is actually quite remarkable, around 700,000 people a year die directly due to mosquito transmitted diseases.
spreading the mosquito species in all sort of vehicles. Killing birds, spiders, bats, fishes and everything except pokemons
> or contribute to the mosquito problem?
Having babies. Lots and lots of human babies full of delicious blood. More humans than ever, mean more mosquito restaurants than ever.
Eugenics in 20th century was evil because government was trying to decide which people could have children together. The normal eugenics where people decide for themselves, worked well for all species so far. So with CRISPR a law that prohibits using it, dooming people to have ill, or not very smart children is the same kind of evil, as the laws prohibiting interracial marriage in 20th century.
So I can agree to a certain point, but it's not like we are at "sure, fire away" levels like in Star Trek.
I don't think gene editing of embryos is necessarily a bad thing (nor are there any international treaties as far as I'm aware), I was simply throwing it out there as an obvious example of something we're likely capable of in this space since many countries, including the US, already have laws which prohibit it.
My personal opinion leans more towards a moratorium while the issues with the technology and ethics are ironed out, because of the inherent complexity in that domain.
The linked article touches on the difficulties in achieving gene drives in mammals, and it would be easy to demonstrate that the scale of ethical concerns dwarfs those for attempting to eliminate malaria over a few mosquito generations and only after careful consideration of the consequences and implementation of failsafes. Nobody is concerned that CRISPR will only be available to socioeconomically advantaged mosquitos, for example.
Edit: trying to use fewer parentheses
For instance if not for multiple countries banning human cloning, we could already have human clones, which would have been very useful in studying how much of human behavior is determined by genes. There already should have been multiple clones of prominent scientists like Feynman, Gell-Mann, Penrose.
Given that a significant number of people identify many ethical and technological issues with human CRISPR, and that public opinion is far from reaching a consensus (if anything, my intuition tells me that in the West your stance is in the minority for people who are thinking about the problem), I'd say that talking about it is actually likely to do more good than harm.
But it won't be for all mankind, just those in wealthy nations and even then only to those who can afford it similar to In Vitro fertilization. The worry becomes further inequality but at a genetic level over just wealth.
If we can eradicate a genetic disease in a few generations, we probably should. But if only the wealthy and powerful are able to then we head toward even more ethical and moral questions.
By the time treatments like this are tested and proven to work, everyone will get them for free, because it will be much cheaper to apply required treatments, and not deal with unproductive member of society later.
Warming climate is spreading more and more diseases via insects. West nile, malaria, zika, chagas, lyme are all very much alive and kicking with no quick effective cure or management method in sight.
It's already ruined outdoor camping for example, I would not want my family members to be at risk of an infected tick bite, and the problem is getting worse every year. Lyme disease would mean a lifetime of medication and discomfort. By not using a gene drive and just arguing on the hypothetical dangers of it, we are letting more and more people suffer and inevitably use much harsher chemical methods to manage the problem.
The west where most of medical research is located hasn't been caring about these diseases for a long time, that's where the neglected in "neglected tropical diseases" comes from. It's really sad that solutions are only being figured out once the west is affected as well, but I guess it's better than not figuring out solutions at all.
Malaria was an issue in the US [1] and southern Europe [2] prior to the 1940s, and Australia has always had and continues to have issues with the Dengue and Ross River viruses.
If the claim is instead that CRISPR was sitting there waiting to be implemented for decades, if only some rich people could finally see a use for it in the face of global warming, a charitable take on that idea would be to call it far-fetched.
But it's not hard for me to imagine that many of the people working on this would like to eliminate malaria today for reasons which are at least partially altruistic. It could be that we've reached a point where the economics, social factors and technology of the present day mean that people have identified that CRISPR provides a more efficient and effective means of relieving the issue than anything we've tried (and people have) before, and in my eyes the fact that this method would use CRISPR instead of spraying and widely-distributed pesticide-coated nets, for example, doesn't make it morally or environmentally worse in any definite way which doesn't need constant reassessment as our technology and understanding improves.
Besides all of that though, and you touched on it in your first comment, it's just not particularly valuable for us to sit and criticize ourselves for not doing better in the past when faced with new technologies which may help us start to make up for our mistakes.
I though the whole white man's burden shtick was considered racist nowadays.
The question is, did we learn anything from this history, or are we going to be equally incautious with each new technology we come across?
If it killed all the insects, resistance would not have developed.
And what are the odds the gene drive spreads to other mosquito or insect species, via e.g. horizontal gene transfer? How sure are we that we can target one species, and leave others unscathed (or rather, un-extinct)?
Why is this so often a question for things that are clearly possible? If this or that particular method doesn't work, well, ok, but I'd find it hard to believe that never in history would people be able to spread genes through a population. Computer viruses, cloning, facial recognition, atomic bombs, genetic engineering, cryptocurrencies. These are things there were weakly (or un-) regulated until they came into existence. Now, you might ask yourself if jetpacks might be a socially viable for of mass-transportation, not if they are technically possible.
Years are wasted asking if something is possible before preparing for it, and precautions and regulations are created post-hoc by lawmakers for stuff that was sure to come. Does anybody know of a good "turned out to be impossible" situation?
That said, I remain very skeptical of this approach as other species are dependent on these little nasty ones, and I don't believe we have a good grasp on what the second-order effects will be when we start eradicating species with such a large presence.
The mind boggles at what that might look like, but if the mosquito is just going to disappear, that will negatively impact on a whole host of other species.
That doesn't mean that eliminating mosquitoes would be consequence-free, of course. It could definitely cause problems for the species who lose a part of their diet, and/or the other prey they eat more of to compensate. But they're not a keystone of the ecosystem like, say, bees are.
Also, apparently all of the really dangerous, disease-carrying mosquitoes are invasive.
I myself had had mercury poisoning (I wrote about that in other posts, treated with chelators with great positive effect). I noticed A) that the numbers of colds I had and their severity and duration are greatly reduced down to almost nothing. It was that just before I was diagnosed I was afraid of catching a cold in fall/winter because it would stay with me until May without ever going away.
During the recovery and treatment I noticed that every time I had a cold there was especially great activity exactly in the places where I had the most issues (in non-cold times), and that when it was gone I felt a lot better than before. I came to suspect, and now firmly believe after having gone through this a few times, that the colds helped the healing (and getting out whatever needed to get out). I think there are other indications as well that mild disease like the cold has beneficial impacts(?).
What if you eradicate a really mild inconvenience only to find out that that was actually a bad idea?
By "eradicate" in my argument one could easily substitute "understand the common cold".
My argument was basically about control and understanding -- I mentioned "have not yet eradicated the common cold" as a proxy for "doesn't yet even understand and control something so commonly occurring and heavily studied as that" (including not knowing whether eradicating it is good or not).
Do you seriously believe that? Do you completely ignore all the things the 'rush-it-for-profit "science"' done right in the past centuries, and the benefits you personally derive from that?
It's like saying that progress is bullshit because we still don't have hoverboards[0]. It turns out that some of the things we can easily conceptualize are hard, whereas some not immediately obvious things are easy, both in engineering and science.
--
[0] - the real kind, not the name-appropriating Li-Ion fire starters on two wheels.
100%.
>Do you completely ignore all the things the 'rush-it-for-profit "science"' done right in the past centuries, and the benefits you personally derive from that?
Do you completely strawman my argument? Who said anything about me "completely ignoring"? Who said all science is "rush-it-for-profit"? Who said all science had the same amount of ignorance and potential dangerous impact?
For one, science was not as much a "for profit" endeavor back in the day, scientists were more often than not independently wealthy or unconcerned with industry (which was still underdeveloped anyway until the 20th century). Nowadays they are mostly salaried employees of major industries.
Second, earlier industrial uses of science had much smaller potential for rapid disruptive impact across the globe compared to custom gene editing of various species.
And even with that, there were still unintended consequences, from idiotic companies suggesting radioactive substances for toothpastes, soap, and other household items as beneficial [1], to the obesity epidemic (food science), to climate change.
If billions are displaced/die from climate change, the verdict of the ultimate utility of those generations living large off of the future, and the "greatness" of all those industrial uses, might still not be favorable.
>It's like saying that progress is bullshit because we still don't have hoverboards[0].
No, it's like saying things have a tradeoff, and blindly accepting everything shining because it's "made with science" is neither scientific nor wise. Science != technology, and science and technology != necessity for commercial applications.
We can study things and invent stuff, without necessarily making them into sellable products, or rushing them to make a profit without understanding their impact. Novel idea huh?
[1] https://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-08/healthy-glow-...
The people who are conscientious will not have kids, while the others will have kids. As a result the next generation will be more likely to be less conscientious due to nature, and nurture.
I think the solution is education, and specifically, education about ethics and conservation. If we make the next generation feel obligated to be stewards of the earth, and smart enough to act on that obligation, then the human race has a chance. But it has to happen with this generation being born now, or we won't have the time to save Earth without leaving it first - one way or another.
That's easy to solve (technically):
a) enforce a "max 1 child per couple" policy for all couples (for as long as needed).
b) or force-sterilize half of the population but randomly (not by their own choice).
And even 200% the current population could have 10% the current carbon impact (with the appropriate lifestyle adjustments, e.g. green energy, much less consumption, less planned obsolesce, less meat, less greedy corporatism, less international travel, etc.).
So, no, population is not really the problem at the moment (besides it's declining anyway).
Then they came for the rodents, and I did not speak out because I was not a rodent.
...
Then they came for the me.
I wouldn't be surprised if our gene editing ego trip blows back. Playing god with things we barely understand the impact of.
Doesn't matter - god doesn't either. That's why it is running this experiment :-)
Seriously, since when did anyone ever understood the impact of anything? What the long-term impact of any new development or invention would be? Apart from running the experiment. Unless it is something very specific I don't see how this ever is a valid argument. Had we stayed in the trees we would have to deal with other issues and felt no better.
When the impact was low and localized, and the methods to affect change crude. I.e. for the most part of human history.
Now we have surgical methods to edit genes etc, but combined with the knowledge and understanding of a Wild West quack doctor (and their profit motive).
> Now we have surgical methods to edit genes etc
I refer back to the comment you replied to... in any case., I don't see how understanding is the main point. We actually understand quite a bit, far more important are the incentive systems that often force us to do stuff against what we actually know. I'm pretty sure companies in the past and present that used landscape (rivers etc.) as garbage dumps knew that that wasn't good, so understanding does not seem to help nearly as much as some think.
Today a modified plant or insect can travel all over the globe, take plane rides, and so on...
The "vast distances" were the whole planet and an ever increasing population, even before the explosion in numbers later. See the reports about the impact the Mongols or the plague, both killing large parts of the populations back then, with great impact on the environment. Humans always had a large impact on their environment especially after inventing agriculture.
Last time I checked gene editing, especially on humans, is basically like using a shotgun to blast DNA and praying we didn't break anything of value. [0] We simply don't understand the mid-long term consequences.
Remember when we used lead paint in kindergartens, uranium in lipsticks, asbestos in everything and sprayed unprotected kids with DDT ? That was "science" and "progress" at the time. We thought we knew everything but we didn't. And we're pulling the same shit with gene editing, something that has the potential to change the human gene pool forever, there is no git revert with that, it's not a "move fast and break things" type of situation. (And I'm not even talking about the moral aspect of it).
[0] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2174149-crispr-gene-edi...
https://www.sciencealert.com/sadly-the-chinese-crispr-babies...
The method is not the important aspect for an ethical consideration, its the subject. Its like saying that a butcher is just a small step away from being a cannibalistic serial killer.
The problem starts once you no longer have "any human" as the subject of ethical considerations but start to define subgroups.
My use of the quote was purely stylistic.