I for one welcome our science-based pest-eliminating overlords.
2
Our understanding of the earth and the environment and the interactions there is at an early stage. DDT is a good example of unanticipated effects on the environment. While DDT was excellent at killing insects like mosquitoes it had the unanticipated side effect of reducing bird populations. Similarly, we don't know what the side effects of introducing this gene or the removal of mosquitoes will do and whether this gene can propagate to other organisms. We need to learn more.
7
But then what will the swallows (or whatever mosquito predators) eat? Unintended consequences might be bad.
12
Something else, and critical, to consider---these animals form a type of population control. It will be a balloon effect...save people not, for them to starve later. Without an effective plan (including all requisite financing) to feed and provide habitat for the burgeoning population, then this should not be done.
5
What species rely on mosquitos for food?
13
Um, do you really think this is a good idea? What are you going to feed all of the birds that eat mosquitoes? We are poking a hole in an important, global food web without considering the consequences.
8
By one estimate human activity has caused the extinction of nearly 500 species since the turn of the last century https://www.techtimes.com/articles/64542/20150630/humans-cause-of-extinc...
There are an estimated 3500 species of mosquito worldwide (divided into 41 genera) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mosquito_genera and only a relatively small number of those species transmit diseases between humans. We won't miss them if they are made extinct.
9
This technological approach to solving Malaria is typical of the “magic bullet” mentality of Western science and medicine. Another approach could solve the problem of disease, poverty, and abusive politics, all at the same time, with much less danger to the ecology. And that, obviously, is improving the living conditions in the areas where Malaria, Ebola, H.I.V. etc. have thrived at the expense of those impoverished populations.
Unsanitary, crowded living conditions, as in Africa and India, have long been places for de facto population control. All of those millions of people in “third world” countries have remained in poverty and ignorance and served as the world’s escape valve for overpopulation. Suddenly ridding them of devastating diseases might not suit the plans of those who keep them in subjugation.
1
I suspect that this would indeed work, and that the chances of something going horribly wrong are indeed very low. However, anytime I hear an "expert" say "That's not possible" or "It can't happen," my first thought is "You fool." I remember reading this kind of language in testimony to the Florida legislature, discussing the possibility of oil spills about 6 months before the 2010 blowout in the Gulf. I'd feel much better hearing that people are thinking about how this could go badly wrong and what could be done to reduce the risk and correct any problems that might arise. Also, this all focuses on the mosquito carrier. I suspect that there is variation within the parasite's genome. Could this enable the parasite to accommodate to a different mosquito species once it's primary carrier becomes scarce? In which case, would we then manage or eradicate this additional carrier?
16
I wonder how long it will take the world governments and military establishments to weaponize insects? The time to the release killer mosquitos, bees and ants won't be long.
1
Don’t do it. Eradicating one species to benefit another is never without devastating,unintended consequences.
8
Some ideas are best left for science fiction. I wonder what tests have been done? Have we tested the “bite” on humans from gene drive induced mosquitos? We know that many diseases and viruses (like HIV) are not transferred from mosquito bites but that is because nature has created barriers that have been filtered and fine tuned over billions of years of evolution. What will prevent males to mutate and develop biting capabilities and transmit something way more lethal than malaria?
The whole idea of genetic manipulation to eliminate a whole sub species is alarming and makes me cringe.
1
I'm a big fan of malaria control, but nature abhors a vacuum. Which species of mosquito will fill that niche vacated by Plasmodium-transmitting Anopheles?
4
Surely, the place to start the first trials is on islands instead of continental Africa. One good place to start would be São Tomé and Príncipe islands, where Anopheles and malaria is prevalent, and which are sufficiently far off the West African coast to represent a reasonable barrier if something goes wrong. Another good place to start, with a chance of containment, would be one of the Hawaiian islands where mosquitoes (though not Anopheles) have devastated the native bird population.
28
Though I hate mosquitoes, lots of things eat mosquitoes. What will happen to those organism once their abundant food is gone? Would other types of mosquitoes just take over the biological niche in the food web?
7
I hope the authorities considering deploying this technology will also consider carefully the ecological impact. Mosquitoes are ecologically very important. Perhaps a different mosquito species that does not carry malaria will fill Anopheles' niche, and the impact of its loss will be minimal. The article mentions the possibility that the mosquito density could fall too low to support the disease. If that is so, perhaps it is not necessary to drive Anopheles completely to extinction.
Another consequence will be the survival of near an additional half-million humans annually. That is a cause for genuine celebration, but again there are consequences. Much of the world subject to high malaria pressure is also subject to high human fertility rates and high pressure by humans on the environment. Providing access to family planning is already important, and its importance will only grow with the success of this project. Making sure families have the means to control their fertility when they perceive that the threat of malaria mortality has diminished could be very important in some jurisdictions.
Ecologists and other scientists are equipped to consider all these knock-on effects and more. Let us hope their expertise is solicited and heeded as preparations are made for this irreversible experiment.
27
When in Tanzania recently I was appalled at the level of mosquito infestation and the potholes in the roads. Instead of going after new esoteric solutions it may be time to look at how ineffectively some current simple remedial actions have been implemented. While looking for a total solution, let us not discard the simple actions that at least go some way toward mitigating the problem.
7
But, mosquitoes are in the food chain. What about other species that feed on mosquitos? What about birds, and bats, and dragonflies? Upsetting the balance is very very risky.
10
@memosyne There are 3,500 described mosquito species. 30-40 are significant malaria vectors. Only one species is being targeted here. At most, the other seven members of the Anopheles gambiae species complex might be eliminated.
12
@memosyne One species is being targeted here, that will leave 3,499 other described species.
3
Would this same approach work for controlling populations of ticks? If so. then it might be effective in eliminating a large number of tick borne infectious diseases.
10
@Phillip J. Baker Dr. Esvelt is already working on a solution to Lyme's disease, but not by going after ticks. he has made some white-footed mice immune to the bacteria by removing the protein they bind to to enter mouse cells. This will stop the mice from getting infected and spreading the disease to ticks.
2
@Phillip J. Baker Sadly at least some of the common tick species in North America utilize asexual reproduction, with females able to leave thousands of fertile eggs without any trace of a male, but I hope they go after ticks next and find some way to solve that puzzle!
2
@Phillip J. Baker Dr. Esvelt is working on a project to potentially eliminate Lyme's disease. Not by attacking ticks, but by removing the protein Lyme's uses to invade the deer mice cells. The Undiscovered podcast (by Science Friday) did a show about it called Mouse's Vineyard.
5
Those expressing concerns about the possible spread of a gene to non-target insects (while living in the relative comfort of the USA) should imagine explaining their position to the parents of children suffering from this debilitating disease. You are seriously going to suggest that we can't stop half million people from dying because you are worried about the fate of non-target mosquitoes? l live in Tanzania and I can assure you, your attitudes would change if you spent five minutes in a critical health clinic.
13
@Al B Yeah, I lived in rural Zambia for two years. The harm caused by Malaria there is enormous too, a girl died two weeks after I arrived in the village. There is a very good chance that the death toll will double in near future too. Climate Change is going to change the distribution of the disease and the main reason the death toll has gone from a million a year to half that is because of artimisinin therapy. There are already strains of malaria resistant to it in South-East Asia. I am recording a podcast about Malaria if you would be interested in hearing it.
9
@Al B
The problem here is that what is being proposed is the wholesale elimination of a species because it does not fit into our view of the perfect world. We will be crossing a line and setting a very bad precedent. We've got to find another way to fight malaria. Take this idea off the table.
7
Post the link, please.
2
The degree to which genes can jump from one species to another, even a very distantly related one (such as from mosquitoes to mammals), is currently astonishing researchers. It would have been laughed out of the room even more recently than 3 or 4 decades ago. The assurances from the scientists quoted in this article are not enough for me to have confidence that an extinction-level gene modification is safe for release in the wild.
16
Numerous comments decry how the elimination of mosquitoes would upset the balance of ecosystems. The concern is a misreading of the research which points out that only one species of mosquito would be affected; the one that carries the malaria parasite. Thousands of species of other mosquitoes would remain unaffected and thus remain for mosquito-eating animals to feed on.
As for the Mosquito Head island that was "almost untouched" by humans but lost its birds and its mosquitoes, seems to me that an annual, endless stream of school children would pretty much touch the island a lot. Aside from that: is malaria a problem in German river islands?
8
I hope they have better luck with this than they did I with Myxomatosis...
1
What about the place of mosquitoes in the food chain? Will any animals starve if mosquitoes are eliminated?
9
@Joyce Boles No. One species complex is being targeted, no other species relies on them for food. There are 3,500 species of mosquitoes, 450 species of Anopheles, 70 which can spread malaria, and 30-40 that spread enough to be medically important.
3
Thanks for the helpful info. Another question: will this decimate mosquito species that live primarily in one area, eliminating them as a food source in particular areas? Or, is it common for there to be multiple species of them in each area that they occur? The mosquitoes I encountered in Uganda in the late 90’s were so bad*** compared with those in the USA but I don’t know if there were multiple species around.
@Ben--But are there many species in every area? That would be the question to ask about the food chain. And others--does every mosquito have the same natural history? Are any mosquito predators specialists in one or two species? How easy would it be for a predator to target another species instead?
My God, these reeks of hubris and outright stupidity. There’s no mention of what other animal species use mosquitoes as a food source. No responsible scientist would even pretend to understand the exact architecture of any ecosystem in the history of the world. Without that understanding, you’d have to be insane to introduce irrevocable changes that will have to feed up into an incompletely understood food chain.
24
@Sagar Not mentioned in the article. There was a study done on the effects of removing Anopheles gambiae from the environment. There are lots of other species of Anopheles so the effect would be minor.
The only significant effect would be the elimination of malaria.
3
Tell that to the millions of parents whose children die from malaria. It’s easy to ponder about the ecological consequences when we live in a nation largely free of the disease.
4
@Ben--Is this so in every environment where mosquitoes are an important food source?
We have been spraying, trapping, eradicating standing water sources, swatting mosquitos for centuries trying to eradicate these things. They kill nearly half a million people - every single year! That's basically genocide level death on an annual basis. But because it has been happening for so long and is a "natural" disease, somehow people shrug it off. If it were a newer disease like Ebola or West Nile causing a half million deaths, people would be screaming for something like this. Yet when scientists come up with a pinpoint and incredibly elegant way to eradicate these pests without pesticides or direct effects on any other life, they can somehow look past a genocide every year and warn of unintended unknown consequences? I think you need to come up with something more solid than these bogeyman warnings to justify standing in the way of this kind of breakthrough progress. I would not want the death of half a million people that could have been prevented on my conscience.
37
Exactly! Genocide is the killing of billions and billions of mosquitoes without any regard to their existence!
1
@Nasty Curmudgeon fr.
Correction - it isn't the killing of mosquitoes. It is the extinction through attrition of mosquitoes.
There are two sides to the question of whether or not this kind of technology is a good thing or a bad thing. Many of the comments reflect only one of them: Genetically modified mosquitos, if released into nature, might somehow wreak genetic havoc on non-targeted insect populations. This argument is not without merit, despite the low (but non-zero) probability of collateral damage. But this argument ignores a separate, but inseparable, reality.
Something will be done to fight malaria — that fight continues to be a moral and political imperative. So it comes down to this: A vote against the new gene-drive technology (or other, similar population-genetic technologies) is a vote FOR continuing pesticide use. Lots of pesticide, year after year after year… Here the (almost certainly far more extensive) collateral damage is already extensively documented, understood, and it’s absolutely CERTAIN.
You gotta compare. And then try to decide.
22
I grew up in Frankfurt, Germany. In school, we took an annual trip to an area called "Kuehlkopf," a beautiful small island in the river Rhein. It is a protected nature area, almost untouched by humans. Although beautiful, many of us were not too keen on this trip because of the mosquitoes. We actually renamed the island "Mosquito Head" (it's shaped like a head).
Then scientists developed sterile male mosquitoes and "drowned" the island with them. Within a couple of years the mosquitoes were gone, as were most birds. The whole ecosystem was negatively affected, and it was decided to re-introduce mosquitoes.
37
I think this is a huge mistake. Yes, malaria is an unfortunate disease but we cannot convert the earth into one big benign park, just perfect for humans to flourish in. Killing off species that humans dislike is the height of hubris - the world is not ours, it belongs to all living creatures. If it were only mosquitoes, maybe it would be OK, but we all know it won't stop there. I am sure that ticks will be next, then perhaps lice, and how about rattlesnakes, and oh yeah, grizzly bears are dangerous to people. And then we'll think about Kudzu and other noxious weeds. Pretty soon the earth is just one big park, well sanitized, just perfect for humans. And what is really scary is we are going to take this attitude to other worlds with us as we engage in space travel - we will sanitize those too.
6
For those of you concerned about the unintended consequences and ethics of eradication of this one type of mosquitoe - would you advocate for the re-introduction of smallpox and polio into the human population? Has anyone suffered by not having these diseases on the planet? We (almost) eradicated those - wouldn't you call those major successes? We should continue to save human lives by eradicating diseases and their carriers.
4
@davidm--Smallpox and polio don't feed many bird species, and never did.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Causing a species to collapse will always be a terrible idea. Ecosystems are equilibriums and this will be a huge misstep. Do NOT do this and don’t propagate it as a holy war
8
@Mike
Humans have caused the extinction of hundreds of species. Not saying that's a good thing but it hasn't exactly led to Armageddon. Getting rid of a handful of disease-spreading mosquito species out of the estimated 3,500 that exist isn't going to lead to Armageddon either.
2
If they could do the same to ticks that carry Lyme disease and mosquitoes that carry EEE and Nile viruses that would a great start. It will be a lot safer than DDT to wildlife. When people start putting the well being of insects ahead of human beings, our ancient ancestors must grumble, "what the heck has happened?" I am sure there are other insects that living things can eat instead of the vermin that has plagued mankind since the dawn of time.
15
@George
With regard to Lyme disease, an effective vaccine for humans was introduced in the late 1990's - but unfortunately anti-vaccine hysteria led to it being pulled from the market https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/7/17314716/lyme-disease-va...
I fear the anti genetic engineering NGOs may end up torpedoing gene drive technology as well. If you examine their finances (from the form 990 they're required to submit to the IRS and available from sites like Charity Navigator) you'll learn that many of them rake in millions in contributions and pay their top people six figure salaries. They have too much self interest at stake not to fearmonger this technology.
As long as you are willing to go out and explain to all the necessary species that they will need to eat a different diet. Also it would be a big help if you could research which species each of the other species is supposed to switch over to. Oh, and also if you could make sure those new choices you’ve made for the menus are available when they will be needed. It’s a bit complicated all this, but I’m sure you can take care of it.
1
@George Not just other insects, other Anopheles mosquitoes that do not spread malaria.
Remember the comment from Jurassic Park "nature finds a way" as a cautionary reminder.
7
@Mike
One of the stupidest quotes in the history of fiction, if you ask any actual scientist or biologist. Of which I am one.
More often than not, nature doesn't find a way and species simply die out. Extinction is a part of nature, and has always been a part of nature.
Judging by some of the ridiculous Luddite comments here, people would've been afraid to eliminate smallpox or any other disease - also a precious part of our ecosystem - because of a precious plea from ignorance fallacy. There are thousands of species of mosquito, of which only a small number are disease carriers and general irritants. Even before humans evolved, species like that died out literally every day. They're not special. They're inherently and intrinsically replaceable.
4
D.D.T is safe and effective. Large scale spraying needs to make a major comeback. Environment degradation is used as an excuse to prevent large scale spraying of mosquito killing chemicals. This is getting beyond belief.
@notme
DDT is effective, but is far from "safe". Bird populations were decimated by its use.
16
Actually it's not so effective. Mosquitoes have built up resistance to the chemical. But it is effective in weakening the shells of bird's eggs. This has been know for roughly 60 years.
5
"biologists want to avoid any unintended consequences."
Every time we try to play God, something unintended happens, often with disastrous consequences. Eradicating malaria would be great. But do we really want to render all mosquitoes in the world extinct? You are aware that mosquitoes are one of the main sources of food for thousands of species, including birds, reptiles, amphibians and other insects? I'm not sure the computer models they have run have taken all the consequences into account. The possibilities for unmitigated disaster here are enormous.
10
@Marcus That isn't the plan. The plan is to eliminate one species of mosquito now. Out of 3,500 total, 450 Anopheles species and 30-40 which are significant malaria vectors. And Anopheles gambiae only evolved in the first place because of changes to the environment caused by Bantu agriculture.
2
@Marcus
Only a tiny number of mosquito species would be targeted, because only a tiny number carry human diseases.
You know what I thank God for? That science isn't done by public committee, or else we'd all still be debating the merits of fire and whether it is "playing God."
3
Can the gene drive spread to other insect species? The article tells us Crisanti says it's not possible, while Esvelt "acknowledges" it is possible.
When the scientists disagree on such a fundamental question, substantial work remains to be done.
24
@John I suspect what is going on is that Anopheles gambiae is part of a complex of 8 species that are almost impossible to tell apart without genetic tests. Different members of the complex can sometimes interbreed, but they can't pass it on to species outside the complex. The main reason they have diverged from each other is because they breed in different bodies of water.
2
When I had problems with termites at a property I used to own, I asked why are there termites anyway. It turns out that having insects that eat dead wood is really important to the ecosystem of a forest. It's just that termites can't tell the difference between a dead tree and your garage.
So I now understand that trying to eradicate termites (as opposed to just deterring them from attacking structures) actually would be a bad idea. I'm thinking the same is true for mosquitoes.
13
@FJP
There are more than 3,500 species of mosquitoes, and 430 species of Anopheles and only about 40 of these transmit malaria. Even if all malaria transmitting Anopheles mosquitoes were made extinct, there would be plenty of other mosquitoes in the ecosystem.
22
@James--In which ecosystem? In every ecosystem?
I'm generally a somewhat ambivalent supporter of genetic modification, but this sounds really dangerous. As others have noted, mosquitoes are really important in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. “The known harm of malaria greatly outweighs every possible ecological side-effect that has been posited to date, even if all of them occurred at once,” sounds like a line from an early scene in an environmental horror movie.
11
The Plasmodium Falciparum parasite is carried by about 70 species of Anopheles mosquito and can kill a human within 24 hours. I know this because it almost killed me. More than a million people (some estimates are as high as 5 million) die from this protozoan every year. It has killed more humans than HIV/AIDS. Though it emerged only 10,000 years ago, it is already a known group 1 carcinogen (unlike the “probable” carcinogen DDT, used 1947-1951, to exterminate the mosquito population and end endemic malaria in 13 southeast U.S. states). Genetically rendering this female infertile is the holy grail of malaria prevention—saving lives, money and leaving about 2,930 species to carry on as usual.
20
It's fabulous news that malaria could be eradicated. But does this mean that once all female mosquitoes become infertile, mosquitoes themselves will eventually become extinct? The thousands of species of birds in Africa depend and feast, in part, on a large mosquito population. Unless birds get their food from other sources, it seems as if this new technology could seriously alter the ecosystem there.
10
@Kate Yes - there will be local extinction at the beginning. A broader extinction may come - but it will take years. Mosquitoes are not known to be long distance fliers.
@Kate No. Only Anopheles gabiae. That will leave about 3,492 other mosquito species.
2
“The known harm of malaria greatly outweighs every possible ecological side-effect that has been posited to date, even if all of them occurred at once,” says Dr. Esvelt. Are you sure, sir?
13
The article says in 2016, 194 million persons were infected with malaria and 445,000 died. If malaria is eradicated, what will be the effect on population, or rather overpopulation, in Africa? Will this gene drive program be coupled with a birth control program that will reduce Africa’s birthrate by 445,000 births a year. Or will religious zealots and African nationalists block more birth control in Africa as “racism”?
5
@Irving Franklin -- the idea that we need to keep infectious diseases around as a population control measure is truly chilling. On that basis, let's bring back smallpox. (And, if the response is that smallpox would decimate European and North American populations, then I would say that the race and class assumptions behind a pro-malaria, but anti-smallpox, position do need to be examined).
13
The idea we need to keep diseases around as birth control is your misreading of my post. I asked if the mosquito gene drive project would be matched by an equal birth control project that would offset the increase in population from eliminating malaria.
4
@Irving Franklin Having lived in Africa, I think eliminating malaria might make people more willing to use birth control. People feel the need to have a lot of kids so that even if some die, there will be others to take care of them when they get old. Since malaria mainly kills children, it reinforces this idea. Also, malaria causes permanent brain damage and lowered intelligence. I'm pretty sure that makes people more susceptible to the messages of religious zealots. I don't know of any way to measure the effect, but I wouldn't be surprised if part of the control that religious zealots hold over African societies is because a significant portion of the population falls in because they cannot think for themselves.
3
As I understand it, thousands of animal species derive a large part of their nourishment from mosquitoes. And their larvae play a huge and varied role in the freshwater sources they inhabit both as predators and prey. So Dr. Esvelt's apparent confinement of ecological effects to the possible spread of the gene seems remarkably blinkered.
8
@Andrew Zimmerman
Oh? I'm very interested in your research, Professor Zimmerman. I assume you've done some mathematical population modeling on the hypothetical extinction of the handful of disease carrying mosquito species and the knock-on effects on other species. Can you please post a link to your research papers, and the journals that host them?
Hm. Wait... You can't? Because you haven't done the research or crunched the numbers? Probably don't even know what a population model looks like? But you spoke so authoritatively in debunking Dr Esvelt's analysis!
I see the problem. What you meant to type is:
"My poor understanding of science and ecology tells me that..." And then the rest of your post. Or "My layman's 'common sense' interpretation of complex phenomena leads me to declare that..." Or "The Wind has whispered to me, and revealed to me these truths, verily..."
1
@Andrew Zimmerman 3,500 species of mosquito in the world, only one is targeted here, at most 40 will ever be targeted to eliminate malaria.
2
Every time a successful lethal modification of the mosquito genome has been attempted to be used in the field the Luddites in the area have jumped up and down screaming about Franken bugs.
The depth of ignorance of scientific knowledge in the poulation at large particularly in the more 'educated' segment cannot be ignored.
What will be their response when this new and very promising attack on the most lethal insect is put in use?
I am not hopeful.
14