Gene drive used to turn all female mosquitos sterile(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Gene drive used to turn all female mosquitos sterile
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/09/controlling-mosquitos-with-a-gene-drive-that-makes-females-infertile/
17 comments
Everyone questioning the wisdom of eliminating "all mosquitos": only a very small number of mosquito sub-species are capable of transmitting malaria to humans. The plan is to target those sub-species only. Other forms of mosquitos would fill in the gaps in the food-chain.
A nitpick, this would aimed at eliminating complete species rather than sub-species. There are thousands of species of mosquito, a handful of those species account for almost all transmission of mosquito-borne, human diseases. Almost all ecological niches would be filled by other species. The capability for human disease transmission would be greatly reduced but not - I think - completely eliminated.
There are reasonable worries about something like this but I'm in favour because malaria really does kill an awful lot of people. We have already massively changed insect populations around the world with land use changes, species introductions and pesticides (including the continuously needed mosquito control). Also, I would think that a gene drive that eliminates populations is self-limiting, to the extent that it works, whereas other genetic interventions would stay around indefinitely and be subject to mutation at any point.
Edit: I think the greatest ecological change would be as a consequence of the increase in human impact that followed the increase in wellbeing in the worst affected areas. I'm not going to begrudge that.
There are reasonable worries about something like this but I'm in favour because malaria really does kill an awful lot of people. We have already massively changed insect populations around the world with land use changes, species introductions and pesticides (including the continuously needed mosquito control). Also, I would think that a gene drive that eliminates populations is self-limiting, to the extent that it works, whereas other genetic interventions would stay around indefinitely and be subject to mutation at any point.
Edit: I think the greatest ecological change would be as a consequence of the increase in human impact that followed the increase in wellbeing in the worst affected areas. I'm not going to begrudge that.
> The plan is to target those sub-species only.
How does the saying go?
The best laid plans of mice and men always work out exactly as predicted and never suffer from unintended consequences.
Just like cane toads and prickly pear.
How does the saying go?
The best laid plans of mice and men always work out exactly as predicted and never suffer from unintended consequences.
Just like cane toads and prickly pear.
> Just like cane toads and prickly pear.
Happily we're (I'm speaking on behalf of people way smarter than myself) getting much, much better at this.
An article on Vox, discussed here 4 months ago, is just one poignant example of the level of introspection and caution being exercised by everyone involved in these trials:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17214676
"Kevin Esvelt wants me to know that if I fuck up this article, 25,000 children could end up dead."
The whole article is a tremendously compelling read.
I'm usually pretty wary of the whole 'we've come a long way since ...', but in this realm we really do appear to have done exactly that. The 1920/1930's attitudes could best be described as incautious (more accurately as brazen, cowboy, insouciant, etc).
Cane toads and prickly pear (and tiger pear and heliotrope and rabbits and hudsons pear and ...) are pests whose impact are nearly impossible to describe to people outside the ecosystems impacted by them, but the people dealing with these things are so much better informed than the lab techs of a hundred years ago and know that if they fuck it up, there'll be a wiki page about them that'll last another hundred years.
Happily we're (I'm speaking on behalf of people way smarter than myself) getting much, much better at this.
An article on Vox, discussed here 4 months ago, is just one poignant example of the level of introspection and caution being exercised by everyone involved in these trials:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17214676
"Kevin Esvelt wants me to know that if I fuck up this article, 25,000 children could end up dead."
The whole article is a tremendously compelling read.
I'm usually pretty wary of the whole 'we've come a long way since ...', but in this realm we really do appear to have done exactly that. The 1920/1930's attitudes could best be described as incautious (more accurately as brazen, cowboy, insouciant, etc).
Cane toads and prickly pear (and tiger pear and heliotrope and rabbits and hudsons pear and ...) are pests whose impact are nearly impossible to describe to people outside the ecosystems impacted by them, but the people dealing with these things are so much better informed than the lab techs of a hundred years ago and know that if they fuck it up, there'll be a wiki page about them that'll last another hundred years.
Smartest guy in the room right there. And all they needed was to genetically engineer some cicak for shitty weather.
A recent study has shown that removal of malaria carrying mosquitoes is unlikely to affect our ecosystem [0].
> Lead author Dr Tilly Collins, from the Centre for Environmental Policy at Imperial, said: “As adults, An. gambiae mosquitoes are small, hard to catch, most mobile at night and not very juicy, so they are not a rewarding prey for both insect and vertebrate predators. Many do eat them -- sometimes accidentally -- but there is no evidence that they are a big or vital part of the diet of any other animal.
> “There is one curious jumping spider known as ‘the vampire spider’ that lives in homes around the shores of Lake Victoria and does have a fondness for female blood-fed mosquitoes. Resting blood-fed females are easy and more nutritious prey as they digest their blood meal, but this spider will readily eat other available mosquito species as opportunity arises.”
[0] https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/187427/removing-malariacarry...
> Lead author Dr Tilly Collins, from the Centre for Environmental Policy at Imperial, said: “As adults, An. gambiae mosquitoes are small, hard to catch, most mobile at night and not very juicy, so they are not a rewarding prey for both insect and vertebrate predators. Many do eat them -- sometimes accidentally -- but there is no evidence that they are a big or vital part of the diet of any other animal.
> “There is one curious jumping spider known as ‘the vampire spider’ that lives in homes around the shores of Lake Victoria and does have a fondness for female blood-fed mosquitoes. Resting blood-fed females are easy and more nutritious prey as they digest their blood meal, but this spider will readily eat other available mosquito species as opportunity arises.”
[0] https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/187427/removing-malariacarry...
Has anyone seen the movie "Children of Men"? I realize mosquitoes hardly, if at all, share dna with people but my imagination immediately jumped to wondering what if modified mosquitoes managed to spread their sterility to humans? Mosquitos are nature's ideal assassin of mankind. Arming them with the seeds of our despair would be a great misfortune.
Agreed, if we make all females of their species sterile, who is to say that the males won't cuck us and start mating with the females of our species? Any female born from a mosquito/human coupling would likely be sterile as well.
Then human reproduction will only be possible through IVF or gene therapy, which might make some people happy
I hope we’re right about mosquitoes. I recall that humans culled thousands of elephants in the past because we were convinced it would solve desertification in parts of Africa. Of course we were wrong.
There are currently too many elephants in certain parts of Africa:
https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/17793/20151027/elep...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-southern-afric...
http://www.krugerpark.co.za/krugerpark-times-2-1-elephants-1...
https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/17793/20151027/elep...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-southern-afric...
http://www.krugerpark.co.za/krugerpark-times-2-1-elephants-1...
[deleted]
It's only malaria-transmitting mosquitoes, lots of other types of mosquito will fill the void very quickly.
Honest question, won't the microorganisms that actually cause the disease adapt as well, perhaps jumping to another species of mosquito that is even more in contact with humans?
Do they depend on a specific characteristic of certain species of mosquitoes to thrive?
Is there zero chance that we won't end up spreading more Malaria? Or end up with something worse than Malaria?
Do they depend on a specific characteristic of certain species of mosquitoes to thrive?
Is there zero chance that we won't end up spreading more Malaria? Or end up with something worse than Malaria?
Yes, could happen. The extermination of the host could put pressure on the parasite and favor mutations that give them the ability to live in other species of mosquitoes (which didn't happen in the past for whatever reason, for example because the mosquitoes transmitting Malaria were competitors to those other mosquitoes and displaced them).
We were not even able to predict the impact of some rabbits on the local fauna. Now we want to play with genes.
We were not even able to predict the impact of some rabbits on the local fauna. Now we want to play with genes.
I'd say though, that if the mosquitoes die off in approximately 10 generations then the parasites are likely to die with them rather than suddenly adapt where they never did before
That isn't how adaptation works. If Plasmodium could survive in other mosquitoes, it would do so already. It isn't limited to only one species, and scientists propose the extinction of all species that harbor this bacteria. Adapting to new environments is hard. Other mosquito species that feed on mammals have existed for millions of years. Whatever adaptations could have happened to allow the bacteria to survive in other vectors, have already happened. Bacteria don't have willpower; they're not going to tell themselves "Anopholes is dying out! Now we have to work really hard to colonize other mosquitoes!"
They need to adapt rather quickly if the mosquito population collapsed in 8 to 11 generations during the trials. They also could have adapted in places where malaria was erradicated but did not.
What if the mutation somehow jumps species? Maybe some sort of mosquito retrovirus which makes a transcription error and copies Gene drive into its RNA?
Maybe an irrational fear, but how can we be absolutely sure (as in total certainty) that this kind of manipulation cannot "jump" to another living thing? Through mosquito bites, or by the mosquitoes being eaten by other animals, or perhaps by another, more subtle way?
Have already commented elsewhere, but keep in mind that any gene mutation that we try to enforce is already likely to have happened billions of times (DNA changes at every instance of sexual reproduction, that's why we're not clones of our parents, that's step 1 of evolution as well). If DNA changes in parasites affect hosts, then this is already going to be happening for all kinds of weird changes.
As the article explains fairly well, this technique targets a gene that, if it mutates, causes that mosquito to be sterile. So when it happens de novo, you have a sterile mosquito that is simply not going to pass its genes along. Since this technique leaves the male mosquitos alone, it will spread as they mate with unaffected females (spread as in being transmitted to offspring — it’s not a virus, etc).
This is not a mutation. It's an engineered change equivalent to many many mutations - probably thousands at once. The probability that this would randomly occur in nature is essentially zero.
While I agree I feel compelled to mention survivor bias. If this had happened before to a species it is unlikely you'd know since they'd all be dead.
Doesn't it happen already? Half of human dna is old viral load. Perhaps a mosquito virus will take on this gene drive, arrive in humans through a mosquito bite, spread it from there.
It is not the case that because all possible mutations have and will continue to occur, all mutations are safe to be technologically propagated. There are many discovered and as yet undiscovered mechanics and ecologies involved in which mutations can propagate naturally.
Sulams reply has the real main reason for confidence in the safety of propagating this mutation.
Sulams reply has the real main reason for confidence in the safety of propagating this mutation.
This one couldn't jump outside insects, perhaps specifically flies, it targets a specific gene mosquitoes have in common with the well studied fly Drosophila.
Which would be bad enough. These gene drives are extinction weapons. If they get into something with a wide range and high importance to any given ecosystem, well, I hope you took wildlife documentaries of it while it was still there.
Which would be bad enough. These gene drives are extinction weapons. If they get into something with a wide range and high importance to any given ecosystem, well, I hope you took wildlife documentaries of it while it was still there.
How can we be certain that any chemical we put into the environment will not cause some catastrophe? We can’t. We can only study the solution until we get to some reasonable level of certainty.
Manipulating genes is different, if the genetic variation can be transmitted somehow (as occurrs in GMOs, I gather) then the influence is transmitted. It's viral (no pun intended) and subject to random mutations that may be more virulent.
With chemicals they tend to degrade.
It's like the influence of single chain letter that's physically passed from hand to hand (and eventually falls apart) vs a Facebook post that's effectively infinitely duplicable.
The diligence in handling genetic solutions to biological problems needs to be substantially greater.
With chemicals they tend to degrade.
It's like the influence of single chain letter that's physically passed from hand to hand (and eventually falls apart) vs a Facebook post that's effectively infinitely duplicable.
The diligence in handling genetic solutions to biological problems needs to be substantially greater.
There are plenty of chemicals that don't degrade or degrade extremely slowly (e.g., PCBs, radioactive chemicals), and which can influence a species or ecosystem over many generations. Introducing genes definitely pose risks, but I they aren't fundamentally different from any other dangerous chemicals. We have tools and frameworks to evaluate this risk.
It is not the case that all types of chemical are equally mysterious to the environment. Fundamentally if the chemical or thing is already in the environment then we can quite confidently deduce the environment is evolved to work with not dissimilar amounts of it.
Because porting genetic modifications between species is really hard even if you intentionally try.
You need it to be impossible if you want to ensure you only eliminate species you're targeting instead of that species and random selection of others.
Life finds a way :-P
Ugh. You joke, but I loathe that sentence. Absolutely loathe it. The version in Crichton's book wasn't as bad as the tripe Ian Malcom spouted in the movie, but it's had a toxic influence on pop culture understandings of science and genetics.
More detail would be helpful. What was Chrichton's version? Why has this movie line been bad for popular understanding?
Are you having sex with mosquitos? No? Then you'll be fine.
As for any kind of bizarre viral-mediated horizontal gene transfer scenario, there's no more risk of this happening than for any other harmful bit of another species' genome. This is the kind of thing that can, in particular circumstances quite unlike these, occur over evolutionary time.
But on the face of it, it's absurd; there's tons of potentially harmful genetic material out there, just oodles of all manner of virus even, that can't infect humans for the simple reason that .. it can't. This isn't unknowable magic.
In the infinitely more likely scenario that gene drive is used maliciously, it would still be quite easy to do genetic screening, and thus fairly easy to avoid having compromised offspring.
The 'doomsday' scenario for gene drive is malicious use for ecological destruction.
As for any kind of bizarre viral-mediated horizontal gene transfer scenario, there's no more risk of this happening than for any other harmful bit of another species' genome. This is the kind of thing that can, in particular circumstances quite unlike these, occur over evolutionary time.
But on the face of it, it's absurd; there's tons of potentially harmful genetic material out there, just oodles of all manner of virus even, that can't infect humans for the simple reason that .. it can't. This isn't unknowable magic.
In the infinitely more likely scenario that gene drive is used maliciously, it would still be quite easy to do genetic screening, and thus fairly easy to avoid having compromised offspring.
The 'doomsday' scenario for gene drive is malicious use for ecological destruction.
I don’t believe this could be transmitted by a bite. I understand this also requires that the target which is jumped to has the mosquito gene being targeted. I think non-mosquitoes don’t have this gene. I think this technology also works better on things that don’t have many cells.
In the utterly unlikely circumstances given what we know then we could reverse it because we stumbled upon a holy grail of genetic engineering completely by accident - being able to propagate lasting changes that easily. In which case break out the champagne because we figured out how to propagate the cure for myraid genetic diseases by complete accident.
This is an absolute no-brainer. Mosquitoes are flying disease vectors that deserve to be eliminated. In the Americas, they're an annoyance, but in many other parts of the world, they cause millions of deaths per year.
Many studies have shown that the extinction of mosquitoes would have little if any ecological impact. I think if we had to worry about malaria in the Americas, we'd have eliminated mosquitoes years ago, and this wouldn't even be a question of whether or not we should do this.
Many studies have shown that the extinction of mosquitoes would have little if any ecological impact. I think if we had to worry about malaria in the Americas, we'd have eliminated mosquitoes years ago, and this wouldn't even be a question of whether or not we should do this.
From TFA:
the gene drive isn't ready for use in the field. Doublesex is so central to insect sex determination that every species we have looked at has a version, and the ones in closely related species are similar enough that the gene-drive construct could potentially hop species. While targeting other mosquitos might not be a terrible thing, we probably want to have a clear idea of potential issues before releasing anything like this into the wild.
the gene drive isn't ready for use in the field. Doublesex is so central to insect sex determination that every species we have looked at has a version, and the ones in closely related species are similar enough that the gene-drive construct could potentially hop species. While targeting other mosquitos might not be a terrible thing, we probably want to have a clear idea of potential issues before releasing anything like this into the wild.
Yeah, but this has to be weighed against the fact that every year we wait a half a million African children die.
OK, but can you even guarantee an upper bound on the damage of this gene drive getting out of control? For all we know, it could result in even more lives lost. We would be so screwed if, for example, all insects became extinct.
How would this happen? Insects are very different genetically, and can't even come close to cross breeding, which is how the gene drive is spread.
For the most part in the Americas, we did eliminate them years ago, at least the nasty malarial varieties.
https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history/elimination_us.htm...
Huge amounts of DDT are maybe not the greatest way to accomplish this, but it was highly effective.
https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history/elimination_us.htm...
Huge amounts of DDT are maybe not the greatest way to accomplish this, but it was highly effective.
Malaria was eliminated in the US by DDTing mosquitos to death back in the '40s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Malaria_Eradication_P...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Malaria_Eradication_P...
I think there still is an ecological impact, albeit a gruesome one, that still needs to be considered.
Avoiding these millions of deaths per year will just increase populations in parts of the world where resources are already scarce. It could lead to ecological collapse, which very well could result in more human death all-at-once than the Mosquitos were causing over time.
Now, I hate to advocate for letting people die - that's obviously something we as a species aren't going to do - but I feel like we care about population control for every single species but ourselves.
I worry that all of our modern medicine and championing of mother nature could eventually be our demise in the long-term, even if all of these things provide incredible benefits in the short-term.
We are, after all, just really smart animals. In any environment where a single species eliminates all threats to itself, it becomes the biggest threat to itself in terms of competing for resources. We are better at managing resources than any other species, but to a fault. Eventually we'll bite off more than we can chew.
I'm sure plenty of you will think that what I have said here is evil (even I feel that way a little bit), but I think that this really could be a credible threat to humanity ~200 year down the line.
Avoiding these millions of deaths per year will just increase populations in parts of the world where resources are already scarce. It could lead to ecological collapse, which very well could result in more human death all-at-once than the Mosquitos were causing over time.
Now, I hate to advocate for letting people die - that's obviously something we as a species aren't going to do - but I feel like we care about population control for every single species but ourselves.
I worry that all of our modern medicine and championing of mother nature could eventually be our demise in the long-term, even if all of these things provide incredible benefits in the short-term.
We are, after all, just really smart animals. In any environment where a single species eliminates all threats to itself, it becomes the biggest threat to itself in terms of competing for resources. We are better at managing resources than any other species, but to a fault. Eventually we'll bite off more than we can chew.
I'm sure plenty of you will think that what I have said here is evil (even I feel that way a little bit), but I think that this really could be a credible threat to humanity ~200 year down the line.
What you're saying is horrific. If you think population control is important, birth control, sex education, economic opportunities, and women's rights are the answers. Letting other people die in misery (that you'll conveniently never have to witness) due to some half thought out idea about what might happen in hundreds of years is literally evil.
> I'm sure plenty of you will think that what I have said here is evil (even I feel that way a little bit)
Yes. It is. Because it relies on the premise of determining whether other fellow humans are worthy of life.
Yes. It is. Because it relies on the premise of determining whether other fellow humans are worthy of life.
Imagine applying this same logic to justify letting your neighbor's child get hit by a bus....
But there is also some pretty good evidence that as child mortality decreases, the number of children parents choose to have drops as well.
But there is also some pretty good evidence that as child mortality decreases, the number of children parents choose to have drops as well.
And this is where eugenics and Nazi ideology comes from. The American universities of the pre 1940s provided the intellectual foundation that Hitler built on. Most of them made arguments similar to yours and it led to some of the most horrifying events of the century.
As ecologist this scare me to death. Yesterday I was wondering where are the predators who didn't fill this "empty niche" on cities? Dragonflies are natural predators on environment but cannot stand urban micro climate. Thinking something will fill a empty niche is a theory. Even "niche" occupation is a theory which is show to not fit many places (amazon basin).
Some consequences are starting to be measured and we're turning our eyes because we don't like bites? I got Dengue in two occasions and I really hate these mosquitos but we must not be innocent to think there is no consequences and nature will solve this for us.
> They found that the birds produced on average two chicks per nest after spraying, compared with three for birds at control sites. > https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html
Old compilation of papers about the consequences.
Some consequences are starting to be measured and we're turning our eyes because we don't like bites? I got Dengue in two occasions and I really hate these mosquitos but we must not be innocent to think there is no consequences and nature will solve this for us.
> They found that the birds produced on average two chicks per nest after spraying, compared with three for birds at control sites. > https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html
Old compilation of papers about the consequences.
Here’s a good reply I saw in reddit in response to your type:
> Malaria is only carried by a tiny number of mosquito species. Of the thousands of species only something like a dozen actually matter to humans. We can target exactly the ones we want and even better : nothing stops us from maintaining a population in some labs somewhere.
If it turns out they matter in any significant way, contrary to various impact analysis... we just release them back into the environment.
The current cost of not wiping out those few mosquito species is about half a million dead children. Imagine that someone was nuking a mid sized American city every year and you could stop it right now but you'd prefer to wait for a slightly more athsteticly pleasing solution.
How much blood would you be willing to let stain your soul .
> Malaria is only carried by a tiny number of mosquito species. Of the thousands of species only something like a dozen actually matter to humans. We can target exactly the ones we want and even better : nothing stops us from maintaining a population in some labs somewhere.
If it turns out they matter in any significant way, contrary to various impact analysis... we just release them back into the environment.
The current cost of not wiping out those few mosquito species is about half a million dead children. Imagine that someone was nuking a mid sized American city every year and you could stop it right now but you'd prefer to wait for a slightly more athsteticly pleasing solution.
How much blood would you be willing to let stain your soul .
Mosquitoes are already under constant attack, and no wishing can change that. To attack mosquitoes we use chemicals that have widespread effects on other animals, and humans regularly destroy entire ecosystems to remove mosquito environments. The ecological damage of our war on mosquitoes is huge and as old as civil engineering. We can't stop the war, but we could win the war.
>Some consequences are starting to be measured and we're turning our eyes because we don't like bites?
Mosquitoes are the main transmission vector for malaria, which kills more than half a million people every year. This is literally one of the biggest problems in the world.
Mosquitoes are the main transmission vector for malaria, which kills more than half a million people every year. This is literally one of the biggest problems in the world.
I understand this very well but this happen only on low-income countries.
Here in Brazil zika, dengue and malaria are our everyday neighbors but most of problem are from lack of basic sanitation.
One of my first studies was estimating the effect of proximity/density of nearest forest at the neglected tropical diseases. Many people come with the same conclusion: no effect for dengue and yellow fever. Later Brazilian government started doing in-house visits trying to find small pounds of water on backyards. The result was astonishing, most backyards are like paradise for Aedes and similar mosquitos. Even water box are open and full of water for children to play on hot days. Now the campaign is to not create spaces where they can proliferate like: http://infodengue.ikiw.com.br/2015/03/como-evitar-dengue.htm...
Malaria is a special case because seems to not stand urban micro climate and people at these regions cannot afford to move. I understand the case of half million people losing their lives but realistic we will not stop using gene modification only on Anopheles. Here in Brazil will target minimum three genres of mosquito, any of them can cause diseases. Mosquitos also do not respect political borders.
Here in Brazil zika, dengue and malaria are our everyday neighbors but most of problem are from lack of basic sanitation.
One of my first studies was estimating the effect of proximity/density of nearest forest at the neglected tropical diseases. Many people come with the same conclusion: no effect for dengue and yellow fever. Later Brazilian government started doing in-house visits trying to find small pounds of water on backyards. The result was astonishing, most backyards are like paradise for Aedes and similar mosquitos. Even water box are open and full of water for children to play on hot days. Now the campaign is to not create spaces where they can proliferate like: http://infodengue.ikiw.com.br/2015/03/como-evitar-dengue.htm...
Malaria is a special case because seems to not stand urban micro climate and people at these regions cannot afford to move. I understand the case of half million people losing their lives but realistic we will not stop using gene modification only on Anopheles. Here in Brazil will target minimum three genres of mosquito, any of them can cause diseases. Mosquitos also do not respect political borders.
[deleted]
What could possibly go wrong?
Seriously there needs to be public oversight on this research. It has a non zero chance of significantly damaging the biosphere.
Seriously there needs to be public oversight on this research. It has a non zero chance of significantly damaging the biosphere.
So does chemical spraying.
Given that mosquitoes are also pollinators - this whole genocide approach is wrong IMHO. If they could make it so the females produced their own protein or at least had an immune system that prevented them from being carriers for various blood based parasites, then that would be great.
But sterilizing the females will inevitably lead to genocide of an entire range of pollinators that could have devastating impact in parts of the World that depend upon them more than we appreciate or understand today and we won't realise until it is too late.
But sterilizing the females will inevitably lead to genocide of an entire range of pollinators that could have devastating impact in parts of the World that depend upon them more than we appreciate or understand today and we won't realise until it is too late.
The Aedes genus of mosquitoes are an invasive species in most of the world that was introduced by human activity in the first place.
I am extremely wary of genetic engineering and think it should probably be illegal and all research on the subject destroyed (because of the threat it poses to humanity), but I will admit to some ambivalence when it comes to eradicating an invasive species that had sickened and killed millions of people.
I am extremely wary of genetic engineering and think it should probably be illegal and all research on the subject destroyed (because of the threat it poses to humanity), but I will admit to some ambivalence when it comes to eradicating an invasive species that had sickened and killed millions of people.
> The Aedes genus of mosquitoes are an invasive species in most of the world that was introduced by human activity in the first place.
Life, uh, finds a way. While it was an invasive species, it's now part of the respective ecosystems. Setting up a bunch of houses in the middle of a grassland is invasive, but you may not make life better by trying to burn it down during the dry season.
Life, uh, finds a way. While it was an invasive species, it's now part of the respective ecosystems. Setting up a bunch of houses in the middle of a grassland is invasive, but you may not make life better by trying to burn it down during the dry season.
The plan is not to eliminate all mosquitos, just certain species.
That's the plan.
Humanity's plans to eliminate specific animal populations through introduction of other species, disease, or similar means have always backfired.
Humanity's plans to eliminate specific animal populations through introduction of other species, disease, or similar means have always backfired.
All the comments advising caution are unpopular. I didnt expect hacker news people to be so gung ho. But then again maybe I should have expected hubris.
Do mosquitoes really serve any benign purpose in the biosphere with their existence?
They are a source of food for the next step in the food chain. You risk disturbing the entire ecosystem by eliminating mosquitos. Maybe some other insect will take their place, but the you risk eliminating the species as well because to many are eat.
It’s insanely complicated, and you can’t think in terms of benign or not. All animals are benign, they’re just animal filling out their niche in nature.
It’s insanely complicated, and you can’t think in terms of benign or not. All animals are benign, they’re just animal filling out their niche in nature.
I don't think we can know with absolutely certainty, and driving a species (or many) to extinction is irreversible with our current technology, so we should think real hard before choosing to wipe a species out.
You are missing the point. Gene drive can do this to any species.
Now the clouds part.
Mosquitoes are just the first guinea pigs to see if this Gene Drive works as desired or not, am I right?
We do not understand well enough to even believe we can properly assess that question, let alone express reputable confidence.
I always get nervous when science start tampering with these things. Before you know it, zombie apocalypse!
Things like this always make me think of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
I assume you are specifically referring to the Great Filter, yes? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter
Here is John Sotos paper "Biotechnology and the lifetime of technical civilizations" where he looks at the ramifications of a society where any resourceful person will have access to biotechnology capable of killing millions and setting back civilization.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.01149
https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.01149
Might help to remember that random DNA changes occur every single time sexual reproduction occurs, so trillions of times a day (across all animals). The gene drive is a way of selection and replication, don't think it causes something to occur that did not already have a non-zero chance of happening.
Gene drive is more risky than regular normal mutations because the allele will be inherited by all offspring.
But even the mutation that causes the allele to be inherited by all offspring is possible naturally, right? Isn’t that the same as the fragments that cause all human offspring to have two eyes?
Or does this drive have an anti-mutation mutation built in? The article seems to indicate that this is a particularly devious set of changes that will cause offspring to either have the changes wanted, or die.
Or does this drive have an anti-mutation mutation built in? The article seems to indicate that this is a particularly devious set of changes that will cause offspring to either have the changes wanted, or die.
You can read up on gene drive, but the short version is that it's a devious genetic-engineering trick so that if even one copy of the allele is present, all offspring will get it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_drive#/media/File:Gene_Dr...
The allele will replicate itself onto the homologous chromosome. Another way to think of it is that an allele from a gene-drive parent will wipe out and copy itself over the allele from the other parent.
It'd be like if instead of the only the phenotypic expression of brown eyes being dominant over blue eyes, rather the brown gene actually wiped out the blue gene so no blue-eyed children could be born from a pairing of one brown-eyed and one blue-eyed parent.
The allele will replicate itself onto the homologous chromosome. Another way to think of it is that an allele from a gene-drive parent will wipe out and copy itself over the allele from the other parent.
It'd be like if instead of the only the phenotypic expression of brown eyes being dominant over blue eyes, rather the brown gene actually wiped out the blue gene so no blue-eyed children could be born from a pairing of one brown-eyed and one blue-eyed parent.
We're already using massive spraying of insecticides. This has got to be less damaging? People are going to do something, hard to stop them, this might be the better alternative
If all the females are infertile there will be no offspring, how could a gene drive work if it cant spread the genes?
It’s worth reading the article, it’s actually not bad! The key quote is probably:
“This is precisely the area that the researchers, from Imperial College in the UK, targeted with their gene drive system. Males that carry one or two copies of the edited version of the doublesex gene develop perfectly normally and are fertile. Females with only one copy also develop normally. In all these cases, these animals will experience gene editing, and all their offspring will end up receiving a copy of the edited version of the gene from them. And females where both copies have been edited develop with a mix of male and female traits and can't reproduce.”
So the majority of offspring carrying the trait can reproduce. The gene drive mechanism ensures that while the change reduces fitness, it still spreads through the population.
It does this, because even if the gene drive modification only exists on one chromosome, it will copy itself to the other chromosome.
“This is precisely the area that the researchers, from Imperial College in the UK, targeted with their gene drive system. Males that carry one or two copies of the edited version of the doublesex gene develop perfectly normally and are fertile. Females with only one copy also develop normally. In all these cases, these animals will experience gene editing, and all their offspring will end up receiving a copy of the edited version of the gene from them. And females where both copies have been edited develop with a mix of male and female traits and can't reproduce.”
So the majority of offspring carrying the trait can reproduce. The gene drive mechanism ensures that while the change reduces fitness, it still spreads through the population.
It does this, because even if the gene drive modification only exists on one chromosome, it will copy itself to the other chromosome.
You make it a recessive trait. So only if both parents have it - it gets activated and the child is infertile.
I'm still wondering why we cannot do this to bugs like ticks or bed bugs? Especially bed bugs, they are really hard to kill and spread like crazy.
I'd guess that bedbugs exist in separate populations that don't inter-breed much. Once house or hotel may harbor a population that exists in isolation and can sometimes spread to new locations. Mosquitoes live outdoors, but still don't constitute one large population.
If we were to try to eradicate them I think using multiple techniques at once on a global scale would probably be necessary. You want to get them ALL. There will always be that one place with a bedbug population in isolation waiting to reintroduce them to the world.
If we were to try to eradicate them I think using multiple techniques at once on a global scale would probably be necessary. You want to get them ALL. There will always be that one place with a bedbug population in isolation waiting to reintroduce them to the world.
It would be nice If you could mail order a colony of genetically modified bed bugs just like you can order pesticide. If this option were to exist even if there was a resurgence you could easily fight them off with this new option.
Now that I think about it. This would make a great startup idea.
Now that I think about it. This would make a great startup idea.
The economic incentive of the startup would be to keep bedbugs alive. If they eradicated bedbugs, the company would go bankrupt.
Because of the points raised by phkahler I highly doubt that you could wipe them out from the entire planet. Even if you did, you would still make lots of money doing so.
Is this a plan to eliminate mosquitoes? Are there concerns about eliminating an entire tier of the food chain?
Surely this would be bad for the things that eat mosquitoes. And the things that eat those things etc.
Surely this would be bad for the things that eat mosquitoes. And the things that eat those things etc.
As a person living in mosquito-prone area, I would say that those concerns are secondary to the quality of life implications even before diseases are taken into account.
Those mosquitoes had it coming for a long, long time.
But I have only now thought out of a different reason. Basically we had the choice of either living with malaria mosquitoes or converting all of wetland into dry land, completely destroying ecosystem that was there. But now we have option of just eliminating mosquitoes while leaving the rest of wetland intact. To me it does sound like a plan.
Those mosquitoes had it coming for a long, long time.
But I have only now thought out of a different reason. Basically we had the choice of either living with malaria mosquitoes or converting all of wetland into dry land, completely destroying ecosystem that was there. But now we have option of just eliminating mosquitoes while leaving the rest of wetland intact. To me it does sound like a plan.
Supposedly ecologists who have researched this believe that there are other substitute insects (gnats, flies, etc) that will provide enough food that removing mosquitoes would not be catastrophic.
I'm a little dubious myself, but I do hate mosquito bites, and I don't even live in a malaria zone.
I'm a little dubious myself, but I do hate mosquito bites, and I don't even live in a malaria zone.
There are an estimated 100 billion brine flies in the Great Salt Lake ecosystem. I’m confident there will be insects to fill the void.
(I don’t mean to sound blasé, especially given the environmental pressures facing so many insects, but I won’t shed a tear for mosquitos.)
(I don’t mean to sound blasé, especially given the environmental pressures facing so many insects, but I won’t shed a tear for mosquitos.)
It's only malaria-transmitting mosquitoes, lots of other types of mosquito will fill the void very quickly.
Driving entire animal spicies into extinction is a wrong.
How likely is it this could turn into a children of men situation if the delivery method becomes trivial?