Dengue rates plunged after release of lab-altered mosquitoes
dw.com
dw.com
As a side note, I wonder why this kind of research is not more popular in university labs of tropical countries. Malaysia, Singapore, India, etc are home to plenty of university labs that should have the expertise and motivation to do this kind of thing, but they're really dropping the ball if they're not working on it right now. Every time I read about new mosquito fighting innovations it's out of an American or European lab, far away from where it's most impactful.
Is it a problem of funding? Somehow the Malaysian government funds less mosquito disease research than the US? Political will? I would hope that the health ministries of tropical countries are willing to throw some money at the problem. Institutional knowledge? Plenty of the professors are educated in Australia/UK/US, so that can't be it. Coverage? Western media covers western labs, and don't notice when labs elsewhere do the same thing?
[1] Wolbachia Malaysia [ https://imr.nih.gov.my/wolbachia/ ]
[2] Singapore NEA Wolbachia info [ https://www.nea.gov.sg/corporate-functions/resources/researc... ]
[3] A 2021 news article on Wolbachia in Malaysia [ https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/malaysia-fight-dengue-m... ]
> making sure there's no stagnant water[...]
I've wondered if the opposite of the "no stagnant water" advice wouldn't be more effective in countries that suffer more from mosquitos. I.e. intentionally create ideal breeding ponds for mosquitos, then kill the eggs/larva/pupa before they emerge from the water as adults.
Edit: Searching some more there's commercial products which allow for the DIY creation of cheap mosquito larva traps: https://www.audubonva.org/news/how-to-set-up-a-mosquito-larv... & https://summitchemical.com/products/mosquito-dunks/
So this would work for the same reason the more high-tech release of sterile mosquitos works, it robs them of a breeding opportunity.
But perhaps I'm misunderstanding your question...
https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/center-drug-evaluation-and-res...
Also there have been an number of locally acquired dengue causes in the US. Maybe with climate change it might increase.
https://www.cdc.gov/dengue/statistics-maps/historic-data.htm...
As some sort of bonus it also prevents the host from developing other viral diseases in the case of mosquitos, I guess because it's a parasite, so it's advantageous for it to do so? Wild little thing. Does a lot.
>"Computational models predict that introducing Wolbachia strains into natural populations will reduce pathogen transmission and reduce overall disease burden.[64] An example includes a life-shortening Wolbachia that can be used to control dengue virus and malaria by eliminating the older insects that contain more parasites. Promoting the survival and reproduction of younger insects lessens selection pressure for evolution of resistance.[65][66]"
>"In addition, some Wolbachia strains are able to directly reduce viral replication inside the insect. For dengue they include wAllbB and wMelPop with Aedes aegypti, wMel with Aedes albopictus.[67] and Aedes aegypti.[68]"
They're usually only transmitted maternally and different strains came up with different strategies to maximise Wolbachia offspring: some strains prevent male offspring from developing, some strains prevent reproduction with Wolbachia-uninfected females so the infected males have only offspring with infected females!
You can make models of Wolbachia population spread with these strategies forever and ever :)
Unforeseen consequences are a thing, and nature can evolve in difficult to predict ways. For instance one of the big early arguments for GMO crops is that it'd enable us to reduce our overall usage of herbicides. The main modification was glyphosate resistance, and since glyphosate was otherwise highly toxic to all plants, it was thought that just a bit of it would be enough to take care of what used to require much more herbicide.
And it lived up to this promise at first. But nature responded by naturally evolving glyphosate resistant weeds, and farmers responded by just spraying more of it, and more regularly, and we're now using more herbicide/acre than ever before. In 1991 (just prior to GMO crops starting to really kick off), we were using a rate of 1.18 units of herbicide per acre. By 2000 that had declined to 1.06. "Now" (2014) we're up to 2.02 and rapidly increasing. [2]
So many things (related to interacting with nature in various forms) seem to be being done under the assumption of a stationary target, when nature is anything but.
Caring for the sick also has economic costs.
The original vaccines for these had to be scrapped because they had the same effect, though current ones work against all 4 strains.
It could be that the figures match your own as not everyone goes to a clinic when they have it - much more likely when its a bad dose. But a huge amount of people get it each year.
Ive had it twice. Can confirm - it sucks.
[0] https://www.kompas.id/baca/humaniora/2023/09/08/tren-angka-k...
The article quotes a researcher flat out stating "the virus will probably find a way to overcome the Wolbachia effect". They still think their work to ease the agony and suffering of millions is worthwhile, despite it not being a magic bullet.
1: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/millions-of-steril...
When they release new males they put a flyer up at our lift that says "there's gonna be tons of mosquitoes soon, don't worry, they are males and they don't bite" and shortly after, all mosquitoes are gone.
It seems to work. I'm not a fan of meddling with nature in this way, though. I have zero doubts that this will end up in some kind of unforeseen disaster.
It prevents their infection by many viruses.
Even if they were affected by it, they don't feel pain or have emotions, so they'd "choose" to live longer.
Really?
> We found “strong evidence” for pain experiences in adults of two orders, Diptera (flies and mosquitoes) and Blattodea (cockroaches and termites).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00652...
Somehow I had in my head that it was the contrary. Probably because [I also thought that] W. increases their reproductive fitness (but yeah shortens their lifespan).
And even the reproductive fitness thing, it seems I've hallucinated it after all...
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/california-officials...
It seems part of the common pattern for outbreaks of dengue viral infections in other urban centres. However California lacks a non-human primate reservoir would probably limit the risk of it becoming endemic.
https://www.cdc.gov/dengue/statistics-maps/historic-data.htm...
What's the status on gene-drive approach to cull tail harmful insects?
* Golden Rice
* Unleaded gas
* HCFCs (over CFCs)
* etcIn general it's a bad idea to underestimate adaptive systems. It's especially foolish to underestimate the ultimate adaptive system: natural ecosystems. We should be extremely humble and careful when we're toying with the unfathomably complex system that we depend on. We understand very, very, very little about these things except that they're hard to predict and we really need them to continue working well enough to maintain the parameters we need for survival.
I do agree however that the eradication efforts of both caused significantly more good than harm, no question.
At this point I'm prepared to accept that though. The suffering these things cause is immeasurable. I hate mosquitoes so much I wish I could nuke them.
People in these discussions forget that there are lots of mosquito species, most of which don't transmit diseases.
Countless species are already going extinct all the time, both known to us and completely unknown to us, and both "naturally" and from human impact, and no one really cares.
Here's a rare case of a species that there is very good reason to deliberately get rid of, and suddenly people care and object, a lot!?
Of course there's justifiable skepticism and a long, sorry history of unintended consequences of introducing, eradicating or in any way modifying a species or its behavior, but seriously, read up on it, this is not one of those species, pretty much everyone who knows anything about it (including otherwise very environmentally minded people who as a rule would never, ever agree with deliberately eradicating anything) agrees it can be eradicated with no meaningful impact on the ecosystem. (and yes, that includes even the armchair criticism from cynical misanthropes who consider human deaths resulting from this species a good thing "because humans are bad for the environment" - while these mosquitoes do cause a lot of human deaths, the environmental "benefit" of those deaths are completely meaningless in the grand scheme of things)
If ever there was a species under no threat whatsoever it's those guys. I'm all for eradicate and move on, nature will be bound to throw something else at humanity so go for the small wins and to heck with it.
Beyond this, I would also consider the arrogance of the present. When you look back at stupid decisions made in times past, it's not like they just blindly rushed into them (well not always at least). They certainly assessed them using the latest knowledge available at the time, and then moved forward after it was deemed safe and effective. It just turns out that we're quite frequently wrong on such assessments, and so things that fail in 'obvious' ways only look obvious with the benefit of hindsight. It's like how NASA can lose a half a billion dollar probe in modern times because nobody bothered to ensure that all systems were using the same unit systems. [1]
Take yourself a decade in the future and imagine reading about these mosquitoes gaining, at the minimum, a resistance to the bacteria being used. Would it really surprise you? Or would you be thinking something more along the lines of, 'Wow, how could they not see that coming?'
Or are they the concerns of people who don't know much, though they care deeply? I find these folks often pursue actions with great passion that are effectively neutral or sometimes even detrimental to the environment.
You say that most mistakes of the past have been made after careful consideration, but I do not believe that is the case at all. Most disasters, like the dumping of chemicals from semiconducting manufacturing in Silicon Valley that created so many superfund sites, was just carelessness and complete lack of concern or study.
You’re failing to consider the opposite bias, where professionals whose income and prestige depends on a particular idea fail to critically assess it and judge themselves based on their motivations rather than outcomes — and outsiders who only see the claims and outcomes have a less biased view.
That’s the case for gain-of-function research:
- the US banned it despite expert opinions
- a rogue expert circumvented that ban by outsourcing the work to China
- that Chinese lab leaked the studied virus, causing a global pandemic
- the rogue scientist panicked and bribed several peers to help him cover that up and claim a “natural” origin
- millions of people are dead due to hubris and personal biases
I am passionately in favor of this.
But yes, introducing new species or new variants of a species is basically a big box labelled "unintended consequences."
there really isn't. it just sounds bad to uneducated laymen - like I said, every expert who studies this, including biologists and environmentalists, agree the mosquitoes can and should be eradicated with zero impact on ecosystems
> It's like how NASA can lose a half a billion dollar probe in modern times because nobody bothered to ensure that all systems were using the same unit systems
this has nothing to do with the subject
> Take yourself a decade in the future and imagine reading about these mosquitoes gaining, at the minimum, a resistance to the bacteria being used. Would it really surprise you? Or would you be thinking something more along the lines of, 'Wow, how could they not see that coming?'
no, the bacteria and/or mosquitoes evolving together is an anticipated outcome and that would surprise absolutely no one. the real question is, when that happens, so what? then we can deploy CRISPR or some other means to extinct the mosquitoes
it's astonishing that so many of them (not all, but many) are all for keeping all other invasive species in check but somehow make an exception for Aedes Aegypti, literally the most harmful and destructive one :melting_face:
More seriously though: 10 years is a long time, this is super interesting but one would wonder if in such time other limiting dengue factors might've arose.