Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

Should Zambia Allow The Testing of Genetically-Modified Mosquitoes? (nhregister.com) 133

Posted by EditorDavid from the mobilizing-against-malaria dept.
More than 400,000 lives are lost every year to malaria, reports the New York Post. But Thursday Science published two new studies on promisings ways to fight malaria -- with genetic engineering. The first study focused on whether mosquitoes that have been genetically modified to be more resistant to the malaria-causing parasite would become weaker and less able to mate and breed... The study, led by mosquito vector biologist George Dimopoulos, found that one type of genetically modified mosquito not only bred well, but became more attractive to normal mosquitoes... Within one generation, the mosquito population was becoming 90 percent genetically modified... The results suggest the genetically modified mosquitoes would not just thrive but could possibly drive their genetic immunity to the malaria parasite into mosquito populations to which they are introduced.

The second study published Thursday uses genetic modification of bacteria found inside mosquitoes to fight malaria. Researchers genetically modified a type of bacteria, which caused it to secrete a substance inside the mosquitoes' gut that kills off the malaria-causing parasite before it can develop properly... the genetically modified versions of the bacteria automatically spread to offspring in generation after generation, the researchers found. The next step for both approaches -- the genetically modified mosquitoes and bacteria -- is to test if they work outside the lab in conditions simulating nature. Johns Hopkins has built a "mosquito house" research facility in Zambia designed specifically for such experiments... But the researchers must first convince the Zambian government to allow their genetically modified subjects into its borders.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Should Zambia Allow The Testing of Genetically-Modified Mosquitoes? More

Should Zambia Allow The Testing of Genetically-Modified Mosquitoes?

Comments Filter:

  • Pandora's box (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward

    This is exactly what the world is worried about and already seeing in some ways from GE crops.

    The problem is not opening the box but closing it.

    • The biggest issue with GMO is the business model that turns farmers into slaves of the owner of the GMO organism. GMO mosquitoes that do not propagate malaria are a completely different question. Having said that, given that most plants and animals carry the same genes from the genetic past I would be less worried about GMO than the Chicken Little sky is falling brigade.

      Also you have to realize that GMO is the future of technology and commerce now given that Moores law has reached its end. The coming centur

      • This isn't a factor of the GMO or the science, it is a factor of the Laws and Culture.
        Similar things have happened to farmers when ever a new technology for farming gets released. The large mechanical tractor allowed farmers to farm larger areas with less staff. However they will need to pay for a tractor that is a years salary. If they don't they will not be able to be competitive on the prices they sell their product.

        • Similar things have happened to farmers when ever a new technology for farming gets released. The large mechanical tractor allowed farmers to farm larger areas with less staff.

          I don't know which country you're in, but in this country the widespread adoption of tractors and mechanised farming was nothing to do with the choices of farmers and everything to do with conscription of much of the agricultural workforce into the armed forces and the sinking of food convoys by U-boats. If the government hadn't force

    • The Pandora box of plentiful food, and reduced diseases. What horrors of genetic engineering. No... No.. I am being too optimistic, life needs to follow the path of the diplopia world that Science fiction portraits. Where such technology must and will be used to a point where it has to be dangerous, because how else do you keep the story interesting.

      • Name one single thing that humans have ever done that has benefited the planet for anything except humans. Time to wake up and realize that we're not as smart as you think. We have absolutely no idea how to calculate the outcomes of these types of things. We can't even solve Klondike Solitaire, and you think we can predict the outcome of releasing hordes of genetically modified organisms into the global ecosystem which is populated by at least 5 million individual species?
        • Gosh darn, I guess those Mexican farmers who genetically modified the corn plant with a gene-doubling event or three shouldn't have been mucking around trying to make more food to eat. In the several thousand years since, what horrors could they have wrought?

          Next time you have sex, you're potentially indulging in production of a genetically modified organism. It's what all your ancestors have done. Of course, you could plan it out rationally in a test tube, or you could just try random selection and kill o

  • There's nothing in TFS or TFA to suggest they shouldn't or that they won't. Just that they've never decided on something like this before.

  • Depends (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Sunday October 01, 2017 @03:33AM (#55286627) Homepage

    As always it depends very tightly on the genetic modification. In this case mosquitoes resistant to the malaria bugs so it can not longer live them and hence be spread via those mosquitoes, sounds pretty safe. Obviously the mosquitoes are happier as they are thriving and out breeding unprotected people, people might not be as happy because still noisy irritating mosquitoes, healthier ones but at least no malaria. Well, you can't have everything.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      or we will just breed a more resilient malaria ...

  • Stop the GMO scare (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Sunday October 01, 2017 @03:52AM (#55286659)

    Folks, we have been playing god for a few millennia by now. Earlier with selective breeding, now more directly. The difference is negligible. And when it comes to the "unnatural" argument... well, look at a Chihuahua and then talk again.

    And introducing "foreign" genes doesn't make it any different. These genes are just like everything else built by the four standard amino acids. With a different sequence than most of what you found in the original organism, granted, but in the end, what exactly is that supposed to mean?

    What we need to watch out for is how genes interact with each other. But that's something we can identify pretty quickly. Aside of that, what exactly is the big scare?

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Ask New Zealand how introducing mammals worked for them. Or rabbits in Australia. Then dogs.

      These genes are just like everything else built by the four standard amino acids. What we need to watch out for is how genes interact with each other. But that's something we can identify pretty quickly.

      Doubly quickly when enveloped with super-breeding mono-genetic mosquitos not affected by common diseases but tabula rasa for new ones.

      Soon we'll develop an even better and more aggressive breeder to replace the an

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I think a lot of anti-GMO people (myself included) are not against the science of GMOs, but are against the behaviors of the few very large players in this industry (Monsanto, Pioneer, etc.).

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I think a lot of anti-GMO people (myself included) are not against the science of GMOs, but are against the behaviors of the few very large players in this industry (Monsanto, Pioneer, etc.).

        The very large players in this industry are about to get larger. Monsanto is about to merge with Bayer which is a large producer of agricultural chemicals. Pioneer is a division of DuPont. Dow and Dupont are in the process of merging. After the merger the plan is to split into three companies one of which will be the seed and agricultural divisions of the previous companies. If these deals go through there will be greater concentration of ownership in this area.

      • That's pretty much it. As usual, the problem is not technology per se, it's how it's used.

      • but are against the behaviors of the few very large players in this industry (Monsanto, Pioneer, etc.).

        Who are not involved in this, because there's no profit to be made from poor, mostly black people - the people that die of malaria.

        Rich white people buy prophylactic drugs and only rarely (unless they're really fucking stupid) get malaria, and that will continue with minor contributions to the advertising budget. Malaria is a nasty enough disease to suffer from (I had a family friend with recurrent malari

    • Re:Stop the GMO scare (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Freischutz ( 4776131 ) on Sunday October 01, 2017 @04:56AM (#55286799)

      Folks, we have been playing god for a few millennia by now. Earlier with selective breeding, now more directly. The difference is negligible. And when it comes to the "unnatural" argument... well, look at a Chihuahua and then talk again.

      Every time somebody comes out with that argument I'm reminded of to paraphrase them:

      Stop the Nuclear Weapons scare! We have been using firearms for centuries now. Earlier with black powder, now with more powerful explosives. The difference between them and nukes is negligible. And when it comes to the "Nukes are more dangerous and radiation will kill you" argument, look at a firecracker.

      There is a massive difference between being able to breed dogs into tiny pampered petting toys through decades of selective breeding and being able to edit the blueprint of life and create brand new lifeforms in a lab. Introducing feral species into any ecosystem has pretty much always turned out to be a huge mistake and I don't expect that introducing feral species created from scratch by humans in a laboratory will be any different. Scientists always confidently claim they can do something like introduce cane toad into the ecosystem of Australia to solve grey-backed cane beetle problem. Anybody who expresses doubt is always met with the familiar: 'don't worry we have this completely under control'. The next thing you know the critters have bred into the billions, spread over a continent, devastated ecosystems and anybody who goes: 'I thought you were in control of this shit?' is met with the assertion,: 'NOBODY could have predicted this.' ... uhhh.... you think so do you? So in conclusion excuse me for arguing in favour of scepticism and caution when somebody wants to release a genetically modified variation of a species that is famous for its prolific breeding and that is the staple diet of large swaths of the African fauna. If there is an unfortunate side effect of the GM you have billions of such mosquito all over Africa, Europe and Asia in no time flat. Collapse the mosquito population and you cause a cascade effect in the local fauna. It's a delicate balance that is easy to screw up.

      • And we have been doing this for ages. The only difference is that before, we had no idea what we were doing. We looked for random changes caused by cosmic rays etc. in living things; we even put seeds under an X-Ray (or beta, or gamma-rays) to make random changes in the genetics; or we cross-bread two different plants, producing a random mix of genes that often was not viable of itself,but we could harvest the germ and make it grow outside the seed.

        All this we do, and they even get to call the results of th

        • And we have been doing this for ages. The only difference is that before, we had no idea what we were doing. We looked for random changes caused by cosmic rays etc. in living things; we even put seeds under an X-Ray (or beta, or gamma-rays) to make random changes in the genetics; or we cross-bread two different plants, producing a random mix of genes that often was not viable of itself,but we could harvest the germ and make it grow outside the seed.

          All this we do, and they even get to call the results of this random, uncontrolled gene editing 'organic'.

          The difference is that now, we are making single changes that we have an ability to know and predict the results of. This is a much, much safer form of genetic modification than what we have been doing for centures.

          For one thing I'm pretty sure that people breeding domestic animals had a pretty clear idea of what they were doing and what goals they wanted to achieve even if they did not understand the underlying mechanism. Portraying them as stupid bumbling barbarians making random modifications with no logic or method is incorrect. As for:

          This is a much, much safer form of genetic modification than what we have been doing for centures.

          They said something similar about every single time they messed with an ecosystem and completely fucked up. They also said this when they wanted to use nuclear weapons as demolition

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by robbak ( 775424 )

            People breeding domestic animals had a pretty clear idea of what they were doing and what goals they wanted to achieve even if they did not understand the underlying mechanism. Portraying them as stupid bumbling barbarians making random modifications with no logic or method is incorrect.

            They had aims, and the set about them with what knowledge they had. But like it or not, they were making random modifications, and being pretty clueless about the underlying mechanism means they didn't know what they were doing. In so doing they made mistakes, but we are still here despite it.

            Now we are making specific, carefully controlled modifications, with a solid understanding of the mechanisms, having a very good idea of what we are doing. Portraying modern geneticists as 'bumbling barbarians' (which

      • You ARE aware that for your analogy to work, weapons need to have any kind of use except killing stuff? Oh, right, we can use them for fun.

        That's basically ALL you can sensibly do with them. There is no "productive" purpose these things have. Recreation and killing stuff is basically all that's there when you ask "what is that good for?"

        Come back when you manage to find an example with more sensible applications.

      • Collapse the mosquito population and you cause a cascade effect in the local fauna.

        No, you don't. Mosquito species are some of the easiest to replace without adverse consequences. [slashdot.org]

      • Stop the Nuclear Weapons scare! We have been using firearms for centuries now. Earlier with black powder, now with more powerful explosives. The difference between them and nukes is negligible. And when it comes to the "Nukes are more dangerous and radiation will kill you" argument, look at a firecracker.

        You've got it backwards.

        Selective breeding, especially with the assistance of radiation and mutagenic chemicals to increase the mutation rate, is more analogous to a nuclear weapon, with it's massive and hard-to-predict effects. Genetic engineering is like a sniper rifle, making just the required change and nothing more.

        • Genetic engineering is like a sniper rifle, making just the required change and nothing more.

          From your attachment to the gun analogy, I'm going to guess that you're an American. Good side effects in Las Vegas last night. Perhaps a better analogy would be from my background in cobbling - shoe making - bring together materials from several sources, snip out a bit here, tuck a bit there, stitch it together and you've got a jack boot to waterproof the feet of a Confederate Stormtrooper. Or a posing pouch - prob

          • You should really learn how to say what you mean directly, and to support your position, rather than making snide comments by inference -- and with absolutely nothing to substantiate your position. This sort of post is just the big boy pants version of "Nyah nyah you're a dumbhead!".

      • Introducing feral species into any ecosystem has pretty much always turned out to be a huge mistake and I don't expect that introducing feral species created from scratch by humans in a laboratory will be any different. Scientists always confidently claim they can do something like introduce cane toad into the ecosystem of Australia to solve grey-backed cane beetle problem.

        We've had some amazing success stories (salmons in the great lakes). We've had successful eradication programs (sterile screwworm releases). We have non-native species that are highly desirable (chinese ringneck pheasant). There are plenty of cases where we have had successes but you need to use common sense. Releasing a poisonous cane toad to control a bug problem was never a good idea. At the very least, they should have modified the cane toad to not be poisonous before releasing it. We've had plen

      • There is a massive difference between being able to breed dogs into tiny pampered petting toys through decades of selective breeding and being able to edit the blueprint of life and create brand new lifeforms in a lab.

        Which no-one apart from Craig Venter does - and he's careful to keep his synthetic life forms utterly dependent on several nutrients they can't make for themselves (think "vitamins", but they need considerably higher doses).

        If there is an unfortunate side effect of the GM you have billions of

    • The difference is negligible.

      Source?

      Mehinks that selective breeding goes a lot slower, allowing more time to discover "unwanted" side effects.

      • Time to discover side effects is pretty much the same for either method. The organisms grow (likely, unless that was modified as well) at the same rate, reproduce at the same rate, so what would you discover faster in breeding vs. GM? What you potentially leave out is intermediate stages, other than that I fail to see the difference.

  • Yes - no risk to the ecosystem because (Score:5, Interesting)

    by blind biker ( 1066130 ) on Sunday October 01, 2017 @04:52AM (#55286789) Journal

    any mosquito species is the easiest species to replace - there are so many of them, and we could even eradicate all the blood-sucking mosquitoes and just leave those that don't.

    In fact, a mosquito species can even be replaced by entirely different families (i.e. not from Culicidae):

    Yet in many cases, scientists acknowledge that the ecological scar left by a missing mosquito would heal quickly as the niche was filled by other organisms. Life would continue as before — or even better. When it comes to the major disease vectors, "it's difficult to see what the downside would be to removal, except for collateral damage", says insect ecologist Steven Juliano, of Illinois State University in Normal. A world without mosquitoes would be "more secure for us", says medical entomologist Carlos Brisola Marcondes from the Federal University of Santa Catarina in Brazil. "The elimination of Anopheles would be very significant for mankind."

    From: Ecology: A world without mosquitoes [nature.com]

  • Mosquitos are just the vector.

    Maybe we should release a GMO Home Sapiens that's more resistant and less able to mate and breed instead.

    • Maybe we should release a GMO Home Sapiens that's more resistant and less able to mate and breed instead.

      We could call them Bioroids.

  • WRT mosquitos in the food chain, wouldn't it be possible to simply break the Malaria cycle?

    Once there's no Malaria to spread Anopheles populations could be allowed to recover. There's no reason (other than hating mosquitos) to eradicate the whole species. Or even try.

    Malaria has been eliminated in Europe and North America – by draining swamps and spraying. Are there really no more Anopheles left in those parts of the world? There are certainly plenty of other mosquitos left.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hord ( 5016115 )

      I was thinking about this the other day. The Gates' foundation has a ton of money for things like mosquito nets and medicines but why aren't they just building clean infrastructure? We eliminated most of our pest disease problems (even plague) by just living cleaner.

      If I had to guess, I think you'd find two problems: 1) industrialized people want a technological solution, and 2) the people affected may not be culturally aware or even care about disease vectors. Sometimes you get culture clash and no one

    • If a disease is limited to humans, yes, we've demonstrated the ability to inoculate pretty much the entire human race so that smallpox and polio are no more. However, if a disease has the ability to mutate to avoid inoculations (like influenza) or has animal vectors, those techniques won't work.

  • Do it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AndyKron ( 937105 ) on Sunday October 01, 2017 @06:14AM (#55286899)
    400,000 people a year say do it!

  • Life Finds A Way.

    So what happens when malaria evolves in to something worse because of this?

    • Polio and smallpox weren't able to evolve into something worse when we attacked their propagation model with vaccines. They didn't find a way (well, except I suppose you could consider the anti-vac'cers a start on that).

      • Polio isn't eradicated - yet.

        It may manage to slip out from the noose, in large part thanks to religious fundamentalists and their cock-eyed fear of science.

  • like maybe Isla Nublar?
  • First of all, all you folks who said they need to test it in a controlled environment, that's been done out in the open, on North America. Second, obviously they should only do it if the individuals making the decisions get bribed well enough. This is some really dangerous shit. A mere $10k bale of US Benjamin's is not enough to turn a blind eye or say nothing to the press. You need a million. Maybe ten.

    • nah, not over there, you can bribe with mere thousands, or less. I know this, because....reasons.

  • How I read the title (Score:3)

    by ChrisMaple ( 607946 ) on Sunday October 01, 2017 @12:16PM (#55288003)
    Should Zombies Allow The Testing of Genetically-Modified Mosquitoes?
  • It sounds like a zombie apocalypse movie's opening scene.

  • My first thought was that such tests should be done on an island....but then an early post said that Florida was already testing GM mosquitoes. If that's correct, then, unless this is a different modification, I guess they might as well go ahead.

    One proposal I heard was to modify mosquitoes so that they were immune to malaria, but I doubt that's far enough along to be practical.

  • Long Answer: Nooooooooooooooooo, because: Letting big companies test genetically altered stuff in a third world country is just wrong.

Slashdot Top Deals

Dennis Ritchie is twice as bright as Steve Jobs, and only half wrong. -- Jim Gettys

Close