Brazilians welcome genetically-modified mosquito to help fight dengue fever(pri.org)
pri.org
Brazilians welcome genetically-modified mosquito to help fight dengue fever
http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-04-25/brazilians-welcome-genetically-modified-mosquito-help-fight-dengue-fever
17 comments
The approach may work a while. But then I am sure some mutant gene will eventually emerge in the wild-type populations that will inhibit the synthetic kill gene. That's how Nature works.
That's a pretty good prediction. Were I a betting man, my money would be on an explosion of females who can use some form of detection to suss out the defective gene based on some secondary characteristic. If those females can then evade mating with the altered males, their offspring would rapidly expand through the ecosystem (given that their niche would be cleared of in-species competitors).
Jury's out on whether this change could happen before the mosquito population falls below sustainable levels, though. Mosquitos breed rapidly, but they don't hold a candle to bacteria breeding rates and it takes a lot of generations for those to evolve resistance to each generation of antibacterials.
Jury's out on whether this change could happen before the mosquito population falls below sustainable levels, though. Mosquitos breed rapidly, but they don't hold a candle to bacteria breeding rates and it takes a lot of generations for those to evolve resistance to each generation of antibacterials.
> The approach may work a while. But then I am sure some mutant gene will eventually emerge in the wild-type populations that will inhibit the synthetic kill gene.
> That's how Nature works.
More accurately, "That's how Nature works, sometimes."
The statement "...some mutant gene will eventually emerge ... that will inhibit [another gene]" describes one subset of the set of all possible causes of future genetic expression branching from this point. There is no law (that we are yet aware of) that allows us to say conclusively that a certain genetic trait will be selected for or against with any meaningful certainty. Furthermore, we have no scientific footing on which to say 'we are sure that a specific mutation will arise that will inhibit this other mutation' as decreed by Nature. In order for the claim to always be true in all arbitrary subsets of Nature, we would need to at least know: whether or not the gene will be selected against, specifically how the gene will be selected against, and nearly all nth order organism-local and population-global effects of a specific mutation or selection event. (We can play Nature in the lab and make approximations of the claim, though! Sort of.)
We can make statements like "If the oxygen content of that atmosphere or environment increases, it is possible that many anaerobic organisms will be selected against." Or, "If low hemoglobin production becomes advantageous, at some point after that, conditions x, y, and ... will likely exhibit reciprocal selective pressures."
Of course, we can also say things like, "All species are statistically likely to go extinct." (That's not very interesting.)
Essentially, we can make broad guesses about future states of genetic expression (and implied warranties and effects) under certain specific contexts. But we cannot say that a specific genetic cause and effect will occur as derived from an inherent property of Nature and a specific sub-state of the universe. As far as we know, genetics, mutation, evolution, and selection are just functions in a mostly random, iterated chaotic system that we are just beginning to comprehend.
We cannot say that 'a particular gene will be selected against, because it is inevitable that specific genes are invariably inhibited or selected against by subsequent shifts in population genetics.' In a sense, that's partially accurate. All species, and by extension, each gene and all genomes, are likely to be selected against. But not always via mutation. It's about the same as saying that species go extinct because of x; it's not certain to be true and may not yield any new information.
There is no law (that we know of) that allows us to make deterministic statements like 'X% of the genome will be inhibited because of the emergence of another mutation'.
For all we know, a rogue asteroid might hit Earth on Tuesday during rush hour in Hong Kong. Or, that particular gene may end up surviving until the closest possible moment before the heat death of the universe. On a more fundamental level, we'd need laws that allow us to predict specific future events (with interesting and meaningful degrees of certainty). We would need to be able to identify and map the exquisitely threaded chaos woven throughout Nature before we can be reasonably certain that 'a mutation will eventually arise to inhibit this other mutation.'
> That's how Nature works.
More accurately, "That's how Nature works, sometimes."
The statement "...some mutant gene will eventually emerge ... that will inhibit [another gene]" describes one subset of the set of all possible causes of future genetic expression branching from this point. There is no law (that we are yet aware of) that allows us to say conclusively that a certain genetic trait will be selected for or against with any meaningful certainty. Furthermore, we have no scientific footing on which to say 'we are sure that a specific mutation will arise that will inhibit this other mutation' as decreed by Nature. In order for the claim to always be true in all arbitrary subsets of Nature, we would need to at least know: whether or not the gene will be selected against, specifically how the gene will be selected against, and nearly all nth order organism-local and population-global effects of a specific mutation or selection event. (We can play Nature in the lab and make approximations of the claim, though! Sort of.)
We can make statements like "If the oxygen content of that atmosphere or environment increases, it is possible that many anaerobic organisms will be selected against." Or, "If low hemoglobin production becomes advantageous, at some point after that, conditions x, y, and ... will likely exhibit reciprocal selective pressures."
Of course, we can also say things like, "All species are statistically likely to go extinct." (That's not very interesting.)
Essentially, we can make broad guesses about future states of genetic expression (and implied warranties and effects) under certain specific contexts. But we cannot say that a specific genetic cause and effect will occur as derived from an inherent property of Nature and a specific sub-state of the universe. As far as we know, genetics, mutation, evolution, and selection are just functions in a mostly random, iterated chaotic system that we are just beginning to comprehend.
We cannot say that 'a particular gene will be selected against, because it is inevitable that specific genes are invariably inhibited or selected against by subsequent shifts in population genetics.' In a sense, that's partially accurate. All species, and by extension, each gene and all genomes, are likely to be selected against. But not always via mutation. It's about the same as saying that species go extinct because of x; it's not certain to be true and may not yield any new information.
There is no law (that we know of) that allows us to make deterministic statements like 'X% of the genome will be inhibited because of the emergence of another mutation'.
For all we know, a rogue asteroid might hit Earth on Tuesday during rush hour in Hong Kong. Or, that particular gene may end up surviving until the closest possible moment before the heat death of the universe. On a more fundamental level, we'd need laws that allow us to predict specific future events (with interesting and meaningful degrees of certainty). We would need to be able to identify and map the exquisitely threaded chaos woven throughout Nature before we can be reasonably certain that 'a mutation will eventually arise to inhibit this other mutation.'
Nature will find a way... until humans kill it. If we can eradicate some species we can eradicate them all - except those little tardigrade things. It's one thing to slowly evolve enhancements to slow pressures/opportunities in the environment. It's another whole thing to be able to withstand a quickly-emerging, severe bottleneck in your particular environment.
Which is exactly why no species ever goes extinct.
Oh wait...
Oh wait...
Recent rabiolab episode on this subject: http://www.radiolab.org/story/kill-em-all/
I came here just to post that link. Cheers.
One of the best new applications of GMOs. Interestingly, Rachel Carson mentioned this approach in Silent Spring: https://twitter.com/mem_somerville/status/457876443586760704...
Oxitec is making the mosquitoes via GM rather than mutation but approach is the same.
Oxitec is making the mosquitoes via GM rather than mutation but approach is the same.
A common fear when deploying systems like this is that we are somehow tampering with nature, and that given our inability to predict outcomes, we should therefore err to the side of caution.
I typically agree with this line of thought. However, in this particular context, something to strongly consider is that Aedes aegypti isn't native to South America. As implied by its name, it's native to Africa. We (humans) brought them over to New World as part of the Columbia Exchange (likely in a slave ship... along with malaria, and yellow fever, and the disease in question Dengue fever).
I typically agree with this line of thought. However, in this particular context, something to strongly consider is that Aedes aegypti isn't native to South America. As implied by its name, it's native to Africa. We (humans) brought them over to New World as part of the Columbia Exchange (likely in a slave ship... along with malaria, and yellow fever, and the disease in question Dengue fever).
As mosquito related problems are just plain hard and in this context ther is no other viable solution, I also think the usual fear is less important in this context.
But for the sake of the argument, the fact that this mosquito comes from Africa doesn't really matter so much, as the consequences of this operation could go from making it immune to this gene, make it mutate in a different/worse direction, or have the engineered mosquitoes affect the environmenr in other unknown and not measurable ways.
But for the sake of the argument, the fact that this mosquito comes from Africa doesn't really matter so much, as the consequences of this operation could go from making it immune to this gene, make it mutate in a different/worse direction, or have the engineered mosquitoes affect the environmenr in other unknown and not measurable ways.
I'm not sure if it's even possible to be "immune", but if it doesn't work oh well, nothing lost.
Changing the mosquitoes in any significant way is incredibly unlikely. Random mutations happen all the time in nature.
Changing the mosquitoes in any significant way is incredibly unlikely. Random mutations happen all the time in nature.
Where I'm from, the city routinely carpet-bombs the city with pesticides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malathion). This is pretty contentious, especially since it's primarily for pest control and not actually for health reasons.
GMO tech that lets us stop breathing in all that delicious malathion is a good thing, in my books
GMO tech that lets us stop breathing in all that delicious malathion is a good thing, in my books
I agree with you, and its hard for me to view carpet bombing a city with pesticides as somehow interfering less with the environment.
Aedes aegypti is a domestic animal here. And we have no lack of moskitoes to fill their niche at Brazil (the best news being that most of them didn't evolve along humans, and are harmless).
It's worth looking at any biological alternative to the widespread use of insecticides.
It's worth looking at any biological alternative to the widespread use of insecticides.
I am not afraid of GM stuff, but does anyone else think this idea is potentially really dumb? What about everything that relies on these mosquitoes as a food source? I am not an expert... but trying to just kill off an entire species sounds like a TERRIBLE idea...
The people behind this program aren't fools. They're experts who have given a lot of thought to this problem. Some basic points should alleviate your fears. First, the mosquito they're trying to eradicate is a non-native species. Second, said mosquito is the primary vector for Dengue fever, which infects hundreds of thousands and kills hundreds in Brazil every year. Even if this mosquito was native to South America, eradicating it would almost certainly help people.
It's interesting how support for this program decreases with distance from it. If this outbreak was happening in your country, hurting your family, killing your friends, I doubt you'd be so loath to support GM solutions.
A side note: 99.9% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. Nature is not some carefully-balanced system. It is chaos and suffering on a scale we cannot imagine. The majority of wild animals live in a state of constant hunger, pain, and disease. Those with sufficiently complex brains live in fear of predators. Speaking of predators: We would be horrified to watch a man vivisect an antelope, but we pay to watch documentaries of lions doing the same thing. Apparently animal cruelty is fine when it's done by other animals.
It's interesting how support for this program decreases with distance from it. If this outbreak was happening in your country, hurting your family, killing your friends, I doubt you'd be so loath to support GM solutions.
A side note: 99.9% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. Nature is not some carefully-balanced system. It is chaos and suffering on a scale we cannot imagine. The majority of wild animals live in a state of constant hunger, pain, and disease. Those with sufficiently complex brains live in fear of predators. Speaking of predators: We would be horrified to watch a man vivisect an antelope, but we pay to watch documentaries of lions doing the same thing. Apparently animal cruelty is fine when it's done by other animals.
Scientists studied getting rid of all mosquitoes globally, and came to the conclusion it wouldn't have much of a negative impact (and a huge net positive for due ending malaria, dengue, etc.) Nothing eats exclusively mosquitoes, and those animals (birds) which do eat them could just switch to other insects, which generally are not in short supply.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html
I'd do it in a second.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html
I'd do it in a second.
>> If this outbreak was happening in your country, hurting your family, killing your friends, I doubt you'd be so loath to support GM solutions.
That's an appeal to shame. It's true that people are generally selfish. And not only those in the developed world. It's also true that, when under physical duress, people can be made to support just about any immoral, illegal or just plain bad idea. Just because the majority of those opposing it are not the same people as those who most stand to benefit directly it does not follow that, in this case, using GM is fine.
That's an appeal to shame. It's true that people are generally selfish. And not only those in the developed world. It's also true that, when under physical duress, people can be made to support just about any immoral, illegal or just plain bad idea. Just because the majority of those opposing it are not the same people as those who most stand to benefit directly it does not follow that, in this case, using GM is fine.
> First, the mosquito they're trying to eradicate is a non-native species.
I really don't get the environmentalist emphasis on the world being, and staying, the way god ordained it at the beginning of the universe. Mosquitoes have a generation time measured in weeks; for any practical purpose, there's no such thing as a non-native mosquito. Assuming a mosquito generation length of one month, and a human generation length of 25 years, we can see that a mosquito population that's been around for 5 years is the equivalent of a human one that's been around for 1500.
Trying to distinguish between "native" species and "non-native" species makes all the sense of distinguishing between "anthropogenic global warming" and "natural global warming". There's no point. A phenomenon is good, or it's bad; it's not bad just because you can finger a particular cause, it's not good just because things were that way 100 years ago, and it's not bad just because things were different 10 years ago. Judge by the effects.
I really don't get the environmentalist emphasis on the world being, and staying, the way god ordained it at the beginning of the universe. Mosquitoes have a generation time measured in weeks; for any practical purpose, there's no such thing as a non-native mosquito. Assuming a mosquito generation length of one month, and a human generation length of 25 years, we can see that a mosquito population that's been around for 5 years is the equivalent of a human one that's been around for 1500.
Trying to distinguish between "native" species and "non-native" species makes all the sense of distinguishing between "anthropogenic global warming" and "natural global warming". There's no point. A phenomenon is good, or it's bad; it's not bad just because you can finger a particular cause, it's not good just because things were that way 100 years ago, and it's not bad just because things were different 10 years ago. Judge by the effects.
The distinction is important because it means that there probably won't be an ecological imbalance if we exterminate the mosquitoes, since there are no species that exclusively depend on them, or which they are responsible for keeping in check.
When you eliminate a native species, the unintended consequences can be wide.
This makes the weird assumption that a non-native species will never occupy any position within the local ecology. Consider a (slightly unintuitive) case of an intrusion into a well-established ecology: maize into human society. Europeans came to America with a level of reliance on maize of exactly zero, since they weren't aware it existed. They brought their own grains. And we grow wheat here today. But... if we decided to completely eliminate maize, would there be any consequences for American society? Or for a case with more historical flavor, consider the introduction of the potato to Ireland. There were problems when the potato population failed.
More generally, if species I ("intrusive") arrives and replaces species A ("autochthonous"), why is removing species I more dangerous than removing species A would have been?
More generally, if species I ("intrusive") arrives and replaces species A ("autochthonous"), why is removing species I more dangerous than removing species A would have been?
The aedes aegyptus is an invasive species in the Americas and should be eradicated.
There are about 3000 species of mosquitoes in the world, of which three bear deadly disease:
1. Anopheles (malaria, elephantiasis, and encephalitis)
2. Culex (encephalitis, elephantiasis, and West Nile virus)
3. Aedes (yellow fever, dengue, and encephalitis)
Asian Tiger mosquitoes are a subspecies of Aedes.
If we were to wipe out these three voracious breeds, the world would go on: flowers would continue to be pollinated, frogs and birds would continue to feed.
The risk of this type of eradication effort is not that we "upset the balance" but that we somehow create a resistant strain or mutation that is an even bigger problem, such as the Africanized honey bee fiasco. But that risk is relatively minor, since they're releasing sterile mosquitoes to end reproduction, not fertile ones designed to continue breeding.
There are a couple of hundred species that feed on blood; the rest don't. If we rid the world of all the blood sucking mosquito species, likely it would make little difference ecologically, and millions of lives would be saved and the quality of life for humans would increase. It's highly unlikely that we can do it, but we should at least try.
The naysayers have a rather weak case. I say, go for it. Nature is always in balance. Life is dynamic, not static; species come and go all the time, and always have done so.
There are about 3000 species of mosquitoes in the world, of which three bear deadly disease:
1. Anopheles (malaria, elephantiasis, and encephalitis)
2. Culex (encephalitis, elephantiasis, and West Nile virus)
3. Aedes (yellow fever, dengue, and encephalitis)
Asian Tiger mosquitoes are a subspecies of Aedes.
If we were to wipe out these three voracious breeds, the world would go on: flowers would continue to be pollinated, frogs and birds would continue to feed.
The risk of this type of eradication effort is not that we "upset the balance" but that we somehow create a resistant strain or mutation that is an even bigger problem, such as the Africanized honey bee fiasco. But that risk is relatively minor, since they're releasing sterile mosquitoes to end reproduction, not fertile ones designed to continue breeding.
There are a couple of hundred species that feed on blood; the rest don't. If we rid the world of all the blood sucking mosquito species, likely it would make little difference ecologically, and millions of lives would be saved and the quality of life for humans would increase. It's highly unlikely that we can do it, but we should at least try.
The naysayers have a rather weak case. I say, go for it. Nature is always in balance. Life is dynamic, not static; species come and go all the time, and always have done so.
First, I'd like to point that those are gender, not species. Those together add to thousands of species, and you forgot at least about Lutzomyia.
That said, I completely agree that we should get rid of them. And think it's more likely than you stated, if we can extinguish so many species, it can't be so much harder to do it on purpose. Currently we are barely trying, with techniques from the earlier XX century.
That said, I completely agree that we should get rid of them. And think it's more likely than you stated, if we can extinguish so many species, it can't be so much harder to do it on purpose. Currently we are barely trying, with techniques from the earlier XX century.
Well, we could extinguish the mosquitoes if we nuked and irradiated the world so thoroughly that we experienced a 10-year nuclear winter that would cause mass extinction. No more animals to feed on, no more breeding zones, hence no more mosquitoes!
But that would come with some undesirable side effects such as the eradication of our own species (except for a few living in hardened, self-sufficient underground shelters as in the "Silo" novel).
Arguably, there are too many humans, so perhaps it would make sense to reboot the world with a tiny core of eugenically superior men and women, plus seed stocks and animals to repopulate, and of course maintain massive DNA banks for future species re-creation and replenishment as needed.
Or, preferably, terraform Mars or Venus and selectively introduce only the flora and fauna that humans like, and hope some jerk doesn't accidentally or deliberately release ticks, mosquitoes, and other pests into this erstwhile perfect new Eden.
But that would come with some undesirable side effects such as the eradication of our own species (except for a few living in hardened, self-sufficient underground shelters as in the "Silo" novel).
Arguably, there are too many humans, so perhaps it would make sense to reboot the world with a tiny core of eugenically superior men and women, plus seed stocks and animals to repopulate, and of course maintain massive DNA banks for future species re-creation and replenishment as needed.
Or, preferably, terraform Mars or Venus and selectively introduce only the flora and fauna that humans like, and hope some jerk doesn't accidentally or deliberately release ticks, mosquitoes, and other pests into this erstwhile perfect new Eden.
Coincidentally, the Africanized honey bee fiasco started in Brazil.
There was a national science foundation study a few years back that suggested if you removed ALL mosquitos from the earth, there were in nearly EVERY case alternative food supplies for animals that currently eat mosquitos.
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2010/07/scientists-go-ahead-kil...
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2010/07/scientists-go-ahead-kil...
I make an exception for the mosquito. Killing the whole species sounds like great idea.
One effect of parasites and diseases is to increase diversity. If a species becomes too common, a disease or parasite targeting it can flourish, cutting back its numbers and allowing other species to take its place. Eradicating mosquitoes might have an unexpected effect like making the number of rats or some other vermin to explode.
And, as the article points out, killing off this one species may not even halt the spread of dengue fever:
"Then there’s the possibility that as Aedes aegypti mosquitos are killed off, other species will just take their place.
Phil Lounibous, an insect ecologist at the University of Florida, says getting rid of Aedes aegypti won’t necessarily solve the dengue problem.
'The so-called Asian Tiger mosquito is (also) very abundant all throughout Brazil,' Lounibous says, 'and it ... is also a vector of dengue.'"
"Then there’s the possibility that as Aedes aegypti mosquitos are killed off, other species will just take their place.
Phil Lounibous, an insect ecologist at the University of Florida, says getting rid of Aedes aegypti won’t necessarily solve the dengue problem.
'The so-called Asian Tiger mosquito is (also) very abundant all throughout Brazil,' Lounibous says, 'and it ... is also a vector of dengue.'"
I’m not sure, but perhaps eradicating the Aedes aegypti is enough to prevent most of the dengue transmission.
And the Aedes albopictus (Tiger mosquito) is also a non native specie in Brazil, so it’s probably a good idea to eradicate it too, perhaps using the same method. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aedes_albopictus
And the Aedes albopictus (Tiger mosquito) is also a non native specie in Brazil, so it’s probably a good idea to eradicate it too, perhaps using the same method. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aedes_albopictus
It's a big and slow mosquito, seems very badly adapted to here (but somehow, it spreads at cities).
Why, between several thousands of other species, do people keep pointing that this one will grow to fill the aegypti's niche?
Why, between several thousands of other species, do people keep pointing that this one will grow to fill the aegypti's niche?
> What about everything that relies on these mosquitoes as a food source?
Nothing in the world relies on mosquitoes as a food source. Some insectivores will happily eat mosquitoes if they can get them, but mainly feed on other species.
Mosquitoes also play a role in pollination in some areas, but, again, all mosquito-pollinated plants are more reliably pollinated by other local insects.
Nothing in the world relies on mosquitoes as a food source. Some insectivores will happily eat mosquitoes if they can get them, but mainly feed on other species.
Mosquitoes also play a role in pollination in some areas, but, again, all mosquito-pollinated plants are more reliably pollinated by other local insects.
[deleted]
It's an invasive species which IMO changes things.
I wish the GMO developers had initially focused on products which were end-user or publicly beneficial like this, vs. just raising yields or reducing pesticide use (which are end user and societally beneficial, but can be cast by opponents as economic arguments). Without the existing anti-GMO movement, GMO would have a much easier time getting adoption in cases where it's essentially unambiguously a win (like this one).
"Just raising yields" has helped save millions of poor folk in third world countries from starvation. I'm not sure that pacifying first world leftist hippies should be the top PR priority of science.
Green revolution did, but that wasn't GMO. (Borlaug was probably one of the top 10 people of the 20th Century)
GMO is much more recent, and generally works on crops which are large and mechanized, which don't really exist in third world countries. The main beneficiaries to date of GMO have been soybeans and corn in the US. The stat I've seen is 5-10% gains in the 90s from GMO. (http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/124/3/923.full)
There probably are ways to use GMO which would work in non-mechanized farming, though.
GMO is much more recent, and generally works on crops which are large and mechanized, which don't really exist in third world countries. The main beneficiaries to date of GMO have been soybeans and corn in the US. The stat I've seen is 5-10% gains in the 90s from GMO. (http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/124/3/923.full)
There probably are ways to use GMO which would work in non-mechanized farming, though.
>Green revolution did, but that wasn't GMO.
The green revolution did a lot of good, but GMO is potentially doing even more.
Have you looked at modern strains of GM rice? That stuff is absolutely amazing. Incredibly drought and flood resistance, and can thrive in a huge range of environmental conditions.
As GMO tech progresses, we'll probably just see better and better stuff. Imagine plants with antifreeze proteins to resist cold snaps.
The green revolution did a lot of good, but GMO is potentially doing even more.
Have you looked at modern strains of GM rice? That stuff is absolutely amazing. Incredibly drought and flood resistance, and can thrive in a huge range of environmental conditions.
As GMO tech progresses, we'll probably just see better and better stuff. Imagine plants with antifreeze proteins to resist cold snaps.
As GMO tech progresses, we are seeing strange side effects like interference with the monarch butterfly and bees, soil depletion, a drive for deeper genetic modification as weeds and insects adapt to old versions, a draconian patent structure effecting farmer livelihood, just to name a few problems.
Who would blame anyone for choosing food over starvation? But GMO is not a solution for the world, and it is not a sustainable solution for fixing poverty.
I aim this generally: it's a bit rich for the so-called developed world to destroy sustainable indigenous populations and then "solve" the problem with intensive agriculture. All under the banner of "isn't science great," "what could possibly go wrong," and "cheaper feed for livestock."
I doubt it's a popular opinion, but there I said it!
Who would blame anyone for choosing food over starvation? But GMO is not a solution for the world, and it is not a sustainable solution for fixing poverty.
I aim this generally: it's a bit rich for the so-called developed world to destroy sustainable indigenous populations and then "solve" the problem with intensive agriculture. All under the banner of "isn't science great," "what could possibly go wrong," and "cheaper feed for livestock."
I doubt it's a popular opinion, but there I said it!
> strange side effects
Most of these are myths or have nothing at all to do with GMOs
> a drive for deeper genetic modification
So? That just means it's working.
> a draconian patent structure effecting farmer livelihood
This is an artifact of patent law, not genetic modification.
> But GMO is not a solution for the world, and it is not a sustainable solution for fixing poverty.
What does "not a solution for the world" mean? And why is it not sustainable? If we use genetic modification to optimize an organism, there is no reason that it can't be sustainable. In fact, we can make farming even more sustainable than it is now.
> it's a bit rich for the so-called developed world to destroy sustainable indigenous populations and then "solve" the problem with intensive agriculture
You're using a misdirected ad-hominem attack against GMO technology. "The developed world damaged some technologically undeveloped populations, so it's somehow negative that any technology from the developed world be used to help any technologically undeveloped populations."
Most of these are myths or have nothing at all to do with GMOs
> a drive for deeper genetic modification
So? That just means it's working.
> a draconian patent structure effecting farmer livelihood
This is an artifact of patent law, not genetic modification.
> But GMO is not a solution for the world, and it is not a sustainable solution for fixing poverty.
What does "not a solution for the world" mean? And why is it not sustainable? If we use genetic modification to optimize an organism, there is no reason that it can't be sustainable. In fact, we can make farming even more sustainable than it is now.
> it's a bit rich for the so-called developed world to destroy sustainable indigenous populations and then "solve" the problem with intensive agriculture
You're using a misdirected ad-hominem attack against GMO technology. "The developed world damaged some technologically undeveloped populations, so it's somehow negative that any technology from the developed world be used to help any technologically undeveloped populations."
The Monarch butterfly thing actually does: It is a result of the fact that herbicide-resistant GMO crops allow you to actually eliminate (rather than just reduce) weeds in a field. Those weeds both sustain butterfly populations and reduce crop yields.
The problem is that indigenous populations are sustainable only while they are very sparse. There is no way current 7 bln people could live on earth without GMO tech progress.
the fact that the rich world did and keeps doing horrible things to the poor world is a given.
But isn't there an issue with considering the indigenous population sustainable?
What I mean is, aren't many countries on a "sustainable" agriculture consumption only in the sense that malnutrition is the norm?
But isn't there an issue with considering the indigenous population sustainable?
What I mean is, aren't many countries on a "sustainable" agriculture consumption only in the sense that malnutrition is the norm?
It's always nice when people down vote you instead of vocalizing their disagreement.
Third world countries are also mechanized. All of South America grows soybeans. It's Round Up all over. I'm from Argentina and can assure you that since early 00's soybean export taxes have paid at least one-third of the gov. budget.
Argentina is running into issues with land going fallow now from too much Soy, and not enough crop rotation last I heard. Or is that not correct?
I think this is true for marginal zones (low quality soil) where there shouldn't be soy but that's the only crop that will make a profit. Part of the problem is the insane taxation.
With the costs of growing other crops I guess it's not that bad, it's not good soil anyway. The good zones are doing OK.
Not an expert, so take it with a grain of salt.
Not an expert, so take it with a grain of salt.
most of the starvation in the world is because someone wants more profits along the way.
The very first commercial application of GMOs was recombinant insulin for diabetics. Followed by a slew of other drugs - GMOs now make 50% of drugs (all the protein ones). The agriculture applications came 5-10 years later as plants were harder to engineer than microbes.
Other examples: The enzymes in washing powders are generally produced by GM bacteria, too, together with the chymosin needed for cheese production.
There used to be a GM-tomato called FLAVR SAVR about 15 years ago, which had direct benefits to end customers = the tomatoes stayed fresh longer. Public opposition out of fear killed it (also a good lesson: don't give flashy, technical names to food).
http://californiaagriculture.ucanr.edu/landingpage.cfm?artic...
There used to be a GM-tomato called FLAVR SAVR about 15 years ago, which had direct benefits to end customers = the tomatoes stayed fresh longer. Public opposition out of fear killed it (also a good lesson: don't give flashy, technical names to food).
http://californiaagriculture.ucanr.edu/landingpage.cfm?artic...
Also, GMO tomatoes have poor flavor and too taut a texture…
I'd like to see the citation on that (there are no GM tomatoes on the market), I'd also like to add that the 'watery', huge, flavour-poor tomatoes you often get in Europe have been created by traditional non-GM breeding: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/06/2...
There have been efforts to create GM-tomatoes with better taste, here's one example from 2007: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gm-tomato-tastes-b...
There have been efforts to create GM-tomatoes with better taste, here's one example from 2007: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gm-tomato-tastes-b...
Citation: my taste buds.
So where are you getting the GM tomatoes?
Shockingly, I was alive in the mid-90s :) It's also a given that any GMO tomato would be a hybrid, a.k.a. a cardboard-esque rubber ball. A little experience and common sense can go a long way in determining something's flavor (lol)!
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."
My girlfriend is diabetic. Her mom is pretty stereotypical anti-GMO hippie type. To me, the irony is delicious.
Course, then I realize that my girlfriend's mom is essentially anti- her living and it stops being funny
Course, then I realize that my girlfriend's mom is essentially anti- her living and it stops being funny
[deleted]
Yeah, for diabetics that was a major revolution. A simple explanation on how it is done here: http://www.iptv.org/exploremore/ge/what/insulin.cfm
Glargine is one of the key recombinant products out there.
Glargine is one of the key recombinant products out there.
Brilliant idea!
Lack of education and government actions on this route is the biggest cause of dengue here in Brazil.
People know they shouldn't keep water in old tyres, food plants, box of waters opened and stuff but they still do it.
People know they shouldn't keep water in old tyres, food plants, box of waters opened and stuff but they still do it.
A similar trial was done in the Florida Keys 2 years ago. The genetically modified mosquitos (same company I believe), were able to reduce the mosquito population immensely. Key West if they didn't carpet bomb it with insecticides from the sky would be miserable.
[1]http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/11/9/genetically-...
[1]http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/11/9/genetically-...
[deleted]
Note that the article makes it seem that the Dengue fever is fatal in most cases, but it certainly is NOT. Most of the time people who get it will recover within 10 days, even though they will be severely incapacitated during that period. Most people who actually die from Dengue are people who were already weakened by something else or older populations.
One of the problems with dengue is that once you've been infected with one strain, getting infected with another one is much more likely to have serious consequences. That's a problem for people who travel for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dengue_fever It is not entirely clear why secondary infection with a different strain of dengue virus places people at risk of dengue hemorrhagic fever and dengue shock syndrome. The most widely accepted hypothesis is that of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). The exact mechanism behind ADE is unclear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dengue_fever It is not entirely clear why secondary infection with a different strain of dengue virus places people at risk of dengue hemorrhagic fever and dengue shock syndrome. The most widely accepted hypothesis is that of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). The exact mechanism behind ADE is unclear.
no they dont welcome it. it happens under they ignorant apathy. the region where that happens in brazil is our red neck equivalent.
some politician just choose to spend a few millions on a british company (and recive the usual 10% back under the table as consultancy in the next year or so) instead of spending half of that in social programs that would have a permanent outcome instead of this joke.
but since politics in those states are viewed like something magical and out of reach of the common folk, nobody cares
some politician just choose to spend a few millions on a british company (and recive the usual 10% back under the table as consultancy in the next year or so) instead of spending half of that in social programs that would have a permanent outcome instead of this joke.
but since politics in those states are viewed like something magical and out of reach of the common folk, nobody cares
Do you have any sources? I, for one, welcome our new self-destructing mosquito overlords.
No i don't have any source because those policies are not discussed BEFORE. they are ADVERTISED AFTER the fact.
which proves my point. ...but i'm sure Veja will write a piece saying how nice that solution is. Even though every single person studying it already commented that trying to kill the mosquito is idiotic.
which proves my point. ...but i'm sure Veja will write a piece saying how nice that solution is. Even though every single person studying it already commented that trying to kill the mosquito is idiotic.
I've recently been thinking about the possibility of a genetic disease for mosquitoes, transmitted down male lines but killing only females of the same brood, with the intended result that a relatively small release of males can cause an extreme imbalance in the sex ratio and possibly the elimination of mosquitoes from an area.
The different mechanisms of mosquito sex determination aside, I haven't been able to work out something that might be feasible. Wondering if anybody else had similar ruminations, and if you'd share some of your thoughts?
The different mechanisms of mosquito sex determination aside, I haven't been able to work out something that might be feasible. Wondering if anybody else had similar ruminations, and if you'd share some of your thoughts?
Once you start to get a sex imbalance then the genetics of future generations as a whole will disproportionately be determined by the female population, which won't have any copies of the gene. Eventually the gene will be eliminated from the population. It's the same principle that causes most species to produce equal number of males and females despite that not being ideal for the species as a whole.
This has basically already been done using a bacteria called Wolbachia [0].
[0] http://www.eliminatedengue.com/our-research/wolbachia
[0] http://www.eliminatedengue.com/our-research/wolbachia
Thanks to your cue, I found a candidate gene that might fit the bill called Medea [0]. Wolbachia itself won't cause catastrophic sex-ratio imbalances, so does not cause a "White Plague" scenario.
[0] http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/bio2.0/engineering_in_th...
[0] http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/bio2.0/engineering_in_th...
Similar to a segregation-distorter. This occurs in some mice. The gene causes copies of itself to be present in all it's children by making them all one sex (male). The gene is highly selected for because it makes twice as many copies every generation than the alternative gene. And there is otherwise no difference between a male carrying the gene and one not carrying it.
If you released a gene like that on a species, soon there would be no females left and they would all die out.
If you released a gene like that on a species, soon there would be no females left and they would all die out.
This would only work for a while, and then, "nature would find a way".
Sometimes I think no one even bothered paying attention to Jurassic Park.
Sometimes I think no one even bothered paying attention to Jurassic Park.
Humans have been very successful at beating evolution, if more by accident than purposeful action. Mosquitoes won't be pushovers like the dodo were, but if we eradicate one species of them they won't be the first insects we've driven extinct on purpose.
Not necessarily. Evolution isn't magic and lots of species go extinct. And evolution has never been optimizing for the survival of the species. It selects for individual fitness and sometimes even the fitness of individual genes.
Nature does not always find a way, look at the fossil record for evidence.
Birds are still around. Nature found a way in that specific case.
Nature will find a way if it has enough room for trial and error. Say, millions of germs mutating inside millions of hosts using antibiotics, trillions of mutations trying to beat a single molecule. By the time the Cretaceous environment recovered, birdosaurs could not regain their place on the top of the food chain because that space was taken over by mammals.
So if the extinction is swift and massive enough, the ecosystem will shift and there will not be a way to be found. So you should always ask: what dreadful bloodsucking beasts will replace the mosquito ?
I would much rather prefer they breed a transgenic mosquito unable to spread dengue than try to wipe all mosquitoes off the face of the planet.
So if the extinction is swift and massive enough, the ecosystem will shift and there will not be a way to be found. So you should always ask: what dreadful bloodsucking beasts will replace the mosquito ?
I would much rather prefer they breed a transgenic mosquito unable to spread dengue than try to wipe all mosquitoes off the face of the planet.
When you look at the successes of nature you cannot help but marvel at it's ingenuity. But then you look at it's failures and you can only marvel at it's stupidity.
Nature is just like a password cracker tries all possible combinations of characters. Most tries are wrong and the clock is always ticking.
Nature is just like a password cracker tries all possible combinations of characters. Most tries are wrong and the clock is always ticking.
some time ago I read about a similar approach (used for malaria, I think) basically the GM mosquitoes have a "beak" too small for the plasmodium to get through and infect people.
Once they interbreed with the anopheles the mosquitoes basically stop being transmitters of malaria.
It seems slightly less likely to be something that comes back and bite us in the ass than eradicating a species from the ecosystem.
Once they interbreed with the anopheles the mosquitoes basically stop being transmitters of malaria.
It seems slightly less likely to be something that comes back and bite us in the ass than eradicating a species from the ecosystem.
Unintended consequences, anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences
E.g. Rabbits in Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia#Biological...
E.g. Rabbits in Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia#Biological...
Simply saying "unintended consequences" means doing nothing, ever.
WHO says "severe dengue is a leading cause of serious illness and death among children in some Asian and Latin American countries." After we don't have so many dead kids, some of them can grow up, and you can ask them how they feel about whatever unintended consequences there are.
WHO says "severe dengue is a leading cause of serious illness and death among children in some Asian and Latin American countries." After we don't have so many dead kids, some of them can grow up, and you can ask them how they feel about whatever unintended consequences there are.
Anthropocentrism does not answer the question...
There are always consequences, both intended and otherwise. It's best to go in with eyes open, having considered every possible consequence of our actions, and make a cost-benefit decision.
When human lives are at stake, notably the millions lost to malaria, dengue, and other mosquito-borne illnesses, the unintended consequences had better be pretty massive to make a difference.
When human lives are at stake, notably the millions lost to malaria, dengue, and other mosquito-borne illnesses, the unintended consequences had better be pretty massive to make a difference.
Somethine something, Hunger Games Tracker Jacker wasps.