Scientists Release Controversial Genetically Modified Mosquitoes In High-Security Lab (npr.org) 184
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: Scientists have launched a major new phase in the testing of a controversial genetically modified organism: a mosquito designed to quickly spread a genetic mutation lethal to its own species, NPR has learned. For the first time, researchers have begun large-scale releases of the engineered insects, into a high-security laboratory in Terni, Italy. The goal is to see if the mosquitoes could eventually provide a powerful new weapon to help eradicate malaria in Africa, where most cases occur. The lab was specially built to evaluate the modified insects in as close to a natural environment as possible without the risk of releasing them into the wild, about which there are deep concerns regarding unforeseen effects on the environment.
To prevent any unforeseen effects on the environment, scientists have always tried to keep genetically engineered organisms from spreading their mutations. But in this case, researchers want the modification to spread. So they engineered mosquitoes with a "gene drive." A gene drive is like a "selfish gene," says entomologist Ruth Mueller, because it doesn't follow the normal rules of genetics. Normally, traits are passed to only half of all offspring. With the gene drive, nearly all the progeny inherit the modification. Researchers created the mosquitoes by using the powerful new gene-editing technique known as CRISPR, which Mueller likens to a "molecular scissor which can cut at a specific site in the DNA." The cut altered a gene known as "doublesex," which is involved in the sexual development of the mosquitoes. While genetically female, the transformed insects have mouths that resemble male mosquito mouths. That means they can't bite and so can't spread the malaria parasite. In addition, the insects' reproductive organs are deformed, which means they can't lay eggs. As more and more female mosquitoes inherit two copies of the modification, more and more become sterile. Critics fear that these gene-drive mosquitoes could run amok and wreak havoc in the wild. Not only could the insects cause a negative effect on crops by eliminating important pollinators, but the insects' population crash could also lead to other mosquitos coming with other diseases.
Mueller assures NPR's Rob Stein that the lab the mosquitos are in is very secure, adding that even if the mosquitos did escape they would not be able to survive Italy's climate. "To enter the most secure part of the facility, Mueller punches a security code into a keypad to open a sliding glass door," reports NPR. "As the door seals, a powerful blower makes sure none of the genetically modified mosquitoes inside escape. Anyone entering must don white lab coats to make it easier to spot any mosquitoes that might try to hitch a ride out of the lab and must pass through a second sealed door and blower."
To prevent any unforeseen effects on the environment, scientists have always tried to keep genetically engineered organisms from spreading their mutations. But in this case, researchers want the modification to spread. So they engineered mosquitoes with a "gene drive." A gene drive is like a "selfish gene," says entomologist Ruth Mueller, because it doesn't follow the normal rules of genetics. Normally, traits are passed to only half of all offspring. With the gene drive, nearly all the progeny inherit the modification. Researchers created the mosquitoes by using the powerful new gene-editing technique known as CRISPR, which Mueller likens to a "molecular scissor which can cut at a specific site in the DNA." The cut altered a gene known as "doublesex," which is involved in the sexual development of the mosquitoes. While genetically female, the transformed insects have mouths that resemble male mosquito mouths. That means they can't bite and so can't spread the malaria parasite. In addition, the insects' reproductive organs are deformed, which means they can't lay eggs. As more and more female mosquitoes inherit two copies of the modification, more and more become sterile. Critics fear that these gene-drive mosquitoes could run amok and wreak havoc in the wild. Not only could the insects cause a negative effect on crops by eliminating important pollinators, but the insects' population crash could also lead to other mosquitos coming with other diseases.
Mueller assures NPR's Rob Stein that the lab the mosquitos are in is very secure, adding that even if the mosquitos did escape they would not be able to survive Italy's climate. "To enter the most secure part of the facility, Mueller punches a security code into a keypad to open a sliding glass door," reports NPR. "As the door seals, a powerful blower makes sure none of the genetically modified mosquitoes inside escape. Anyone entering must don white lab coats to make it easier to spot any mosquitoes that might try to hitch a ride out of the lab and must pass through a second sealed door and blower."
Re: A delicate balance (Score:1)
Itâ(TM)s almost like you didnâ(TM)t even bother to read the summary where they specifically identified such risks and hence have them in a secure controlled area
Re: (Score:2)
Corn doesn't contain any notable nutrients so how exactly is it supposed to end a famine?
Re: A delicate balance (Score:4, Informative)
Corn doesn't contain any notable nutrients so how exactly is it supposed to end a famine?
Corn/maize is a good source of many minerals and micronutrients, and even contains reasonable amounts of protein, although it is deficient in lysine. Famine victims can't survive indefinitely on a 100% corn diet, but it has plenty of calories, and when combined with pulses (beans and peas) or supplemented with meat, fish, eggs, or dairy, it is nutritious.
There is more than one type of famine. Kwashiorkor [wikipedia.org] is a type of starvation resulting from a lack of nutrients and protein deficiency, even if calories are adequate. Marasmus [wikipedia.org] is starvation caused by lack of calories. Corn/maize can relieve either.
Re: (Score:2)
Corn/maize is a good source of many minerals and micronutrients, and even contains reasonable amounts of protein, although it is deficient in lysine. Famine victims can't survive indefinitely on a 100% corn diet, but it has plenty of calories, and when combined with pulses (beans and peas) or supplemented with meat, fish, eggs, or dairy, it is nutritious.
And then there's masa [wikipedia.org], which is substantially more nutritious than unprocessed corn.
Re: (Score:2)
"and when combined with pulses (beans and peas) or supplemented with meat, fish, eggs, or dairy, it is nutritious."
Then again those things, not supplemented by corn are also nutritious.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure but there isn't much point to any of it if they don't intend to release them sooner or later. Then again, might be worth the risk. They should try Texas.
Re: A delicate balance (Score:5, Interesting)
They are tropical mosquitoes. They can't survive outdoors in Italy in February. They also can't interbreed with Italian mosquitoes.
Killing Anopheles (malaria) and Aedes aegypti (yellow fever, dengue, zika) will have little environmental repercussions because other non-vector mosquitoes can fill the same niche. Furthermore, these species are invasive species in many areas, displacing native mosquitoes. So exterminating them can help to restore the natural balance. Many islands, including Hawaii, have no native mosquito species.
Re: A delicate balance (Score:5, Interesting)
They are tropical mosquitoes. They can't survive outdoors in Italy in February.
Those of us who are older might remember similar claims being made about Africanized Honeybees - yes they were wreaking havoc in South America, but they’d never make it past Panama because they couldn’t survive the climate. And they’d never, EVER make it to the US...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Those of us who are older might remember similar claims being made about Africanized Honeybees
I am old enough to remember the "killer bee" hysteria. It was a media phenomena, that had little to do with "science".
And they’d never, EVER make it to the US...
That is not at all what I remember. The media reports were that killer bees were unstoppable and were going to destroy western civilization.
What the scientists were saying is that hybrid bees would likely reach the US around 1990 (accurate) and that it would be no big deal (also accurate).
How many of your friends and neighbors have been victims of "killer bees"?
About 100 Americans die annu
Re: (Score:2)
"and that it would be no big deal (also accurate)."
Actually that isn't accurate. Overhyped, sure. The damage is much slower but rates of Africanization grow and beekeepers are regularly having hives go African and also are regularly having issue with wild swarms which they could normally safely vacuum up and gain a free new colony being aggressive africanized bees. It may well be that africanized bees are slowly but surely replacing honeybees.
Re: (Score:2)
It may well be that africanized bees are slowly but surely replacing honeybees.
The "killer" bees are honeybees. African-European hybrid honeybees are replacing European honeybees. Neither is a native species in North America.
Since the new arrivals are more active, the biggest effect has been increased honey production.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Parts of Mexico and the US Southwest aren't so different from parts of Africa. I can't imagine why anybody would think those bees would have trouble.
DDT works too (Score:2)
but birds are apparently more important than people. I suspect any other animals this effects will end up more important than people as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The sentence that jumped out at me in the article was:
"quickly spread a genetic mutation lethal to its own species"
How long do you think it will be before one gets made with our number on it, intentionally, or not?
This is like twirling a loaded handgun by the trigger guard, and the ecoweenie response is basic gun safety. Terminator genes are not something to be fucking with.... especially on a creature that you are trying to kill BECAUSE it flies around and carries disease to humans.
JFC. Are we really tha
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, a terrorist could aim tech like this not at man directly but at species that are critical to us, like wheat. But our recusing from GMO technology does nothing to prevent bad guys from misusing it. All it would do is prevent us from defending ourselves.
Re: (Score:2)
CRISPR-Cas9 is not a human invention. It was a discovery of something that already exists in nature.
If it was going to wipe out humans, it would have done so long ago.
But just for laughs, let's hypothesize that it jumps to a human. Then that human has two kids. Those kids grow up, and each has two more. Then the grandchildren do the same. So assuming 30 years per generation, after a century we have 8 people infected. Maybe by 2119 we can deal with 8 semi-sterile people (able to have sons but not daugh
Re: (Score:2)
"If it was going to wipe out humans, it would have done so long ago."
It wasn't in the hands of humans with an interest in wiping out other humans long ago.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't in the hands of humans with an interest in wiping out other humans long ago.
Italians are not as evil as you think they are, and without a time machine they are not going to be able to wipe out other humans long ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't underestimate the danger of Otzi the Iceman cultists seeking revenge.
Re: (Score:2)
CRISPR is not just in the hands of Italians.
Re: DDT works too (Score:2)
"CRISPR-Cas9 is not a human invention."
More stupid semantic games.
Re: DDT works too (Score:2)
"How long do you think it will be before one gets made with our number on it, intentionally, or not?"
I have no doubt that as we speak fine mad scientists, at Monsanto and elsewhere, are hard at work on this pressing issue.
Re: DDT works too (Score:3)
How long do you think it will be before one gets made with our number on it, intentionally, or not?
Thatâ(TM)s not possible for humans. This works by releasing males with a special mutation (gene drive). Whenever they mate, they will produce offspring with the same mutation even if the mother doesnâ(TM)t carry it. If the offspring are male, they will pass it further down the line. If female, they will be unable to bite or reproduce.
So with each generation, the mutation spreads in the population - any mosquito descended from any of the released ones will have it. After enough generations, every m
Re: (Score:2)
"And if somehow something like this was created to affect humans, well we breed a lot slower than mosquitoes, which would give us lots of time to create a remedy."
In fairness, it would also take a hell of a lot longer to figure out it was happening.
How goddman pathetic you people are. (Score:1)
but birds are apparently more important than people. I suspect any other animals this effects will end up more important than people as well.
For many on the envirowhacko side, humans are the only non-natural animal on the planet.
The "envirowhacko" as you call them, understand that we humans are a part of nature. This is our environment. Damage it and you damage people's health and well being. We evolved in a very complex ecosystem and tampering with it can have horrible consequences. Just look how pesticides are destroying bees - you know the pollinators that our agriculture depends on.
The birds add beauty and music to the world. The mosquitoes are food to many birds, other insects, and bats.
And as we destroy more and more of o
Re: DDT works too (Score:2)
Many of us would argue that pumping almighty fucktons of little-understood exotic poisons into the environment is the "whacko" thing to do.
Real conservatives like to _conserve_ the environment. The religious folks call it "stewardship" and it's a damned good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
How is it that humans are not a natural animal on this planet?
If I type "define:natural" into Google, the first definition is "not made or caused by humankind".
We're subject to the same laws of nature that everything else on the planet does.
No we aren't. For instance, a gene drive would not work on humans, because we have the intellect to understand what is happening and counteract it. No other species can do that.
the natural world will impose a new balance on us. It may mean putting the world through another extinction event to kill us off
There is no evidence that the "natural world" has the will and directed purpose that you seem to be ascribing to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A delicate balance (Score:5, Informative)
Only about 200 of the 3,500 species of mosquitoes even bite man, and of those there are 5 species that spread disease. The ecosystem will do just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Species die out all the time due to our actions and without us it isn't like the ones which bother us are somehow the magical lynchpins of life and the thousands of random species wiped out every day are insignificant. If you eliminate the biting mosquitoes there probably will be effects we don't anticipate. Just because there is change doesn't mean its all going to end.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Mosquitoes are *not* a required part of the food web. If all mosquitoes went extinct today there would be no impact at all on the food web.
Re: A delicate balance (Score:2)
Yeah, totally. Here's a new slogan for you:
Anthropogenic mass extinction - what could possibly go wrong??!!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, less animals being infected with disease might actually effect some populations.
Anybody know offhand what percent of lion kills are infected with a disease transmissible by mosquito?
Hollywood Blockbuster in the making (Score:1)
Yes, I'm sure the lab is "very secure".
Re: (Score:2)
If Hollywood makes a movie about this, that will kill the research. No politician will allow something to continue once it has been "proven" to be recklessly dangerous by a movie.
Hollywood:
AGW: Listen to the scientists. They know best.
GMO: Scientists are arrogant liars. Don't trust them.
Re: (Score:2)
If Hollywood makes a movie about this, that will kill the research. No politician will allow something to continue once it has been "proven" to be recklessly dangerous by a movie.
Hollywood:
AGW: Listen to the scientists. They know best.
GMO: Scientists are arrogant liars. Don't trust them.
I'd mod you up if I had not already posted.
Re: (Score:1)
"Hollywood" doesn't care one way or the other. They simply do what they are paid to do. "Escaped lab animals" has already been done several times over.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure it's "secure" but Nature finds a way.
"quickly spread a genetic mutation... (Score:2)
...lethal to its own species"
This sentence scares the shit of me. We should not be going down that road AT ALL.
Re: (Score:1)
Going down the road isn't really a choice, it's simply the road that we find ourselves on. We are probably better off learning as we go, even if mistakes are made. Any mistake we make now will be small in comparison to what we'd cause down the road without the benefit of hindsight.
I'm not sure this is a great example, but nuclear weapons come to mind. We discovered the capability, for better or worse. That is the road we were on. They should have never been used, but we didn't *really* know that until
Re:"quickly spread a genetic mutation... (Score:4, Insightful)
We should not be going down that road AT ALL.
Are you willing to volunteer your child to help keep Plasmodium malariae from extinction?
Or are you only against extinction if the victims are black kids in Africa?
Re: (Score:2)
The thing I'm afraid of kills ALL the things.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing I'm afraid of kills ALL the things.
Do you understand that CRISPR already commonly exists in nature?
The only way for this gene to "kill everything" would be for it to spread asexually between species by a virus. But if that was a danger, it would have already happened, since the mechanism is already common in procaryotes, including trillions of the bacteria in your intestines.
Re: (Score:2)
My intestines aren't prone to religious or political nonsense that would motivate them to do such a thing.
Re: (Score:3)
My intestines aren't prone to religious or political nonsense that would motivate them to do such a thing.
I am not sure what you point is. Are you saying that if the Italian scientists refrain from completing their trails, religious and political terrorists will also agree to refrain from using GMO?
Do you really believe that a gene drive, which takes a generation (roughly 30 years for humans) to move from one person to another, is going to be an effective terrorist weapon?
Re: (Score:2)
If you could sterilize the terrorists with a biological weapon made from similar genetic mutations it might help.
Or something to create problems with their joints or connective tissue, severely limiting their ability to move. Bonus points if it can spread within a certain race. Double bonus if it is also passed to their future generations.
Nerve gas is so old school.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The only way for this gene to "kill everything" would be for it to spread asexually between species by a virus. But if that was a danger, it would have already happened, since the mechanism is already common in procaryotes, including trillions of the bacteria in your intestines."
Not in engineered forms with the sole purpose of eradicating hard to eradicate species. There are dangers in the form of unintended natural chain reactions and our very poor understanding of genetics on the whole.
Re: (Score:2)
Killing the species genetically is not killing anything at all, it is limited their reproduction so they become extinct over time. The problem is, if it is too effective it will limit spread, fifty fifty actually aids the spread of the genes, depending upon how wide spread the release.
The other option would be to make the mosquito no longer immune to malaria so that it kills them but I can not think why they would bother to specifically keep mosquitoes, I kill them without any remorse so, meh.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno - but can you address the point he actually made, instead of making up a stupid straw man to burn down?
Re: (Score:2)
can you address the point he actually made
To be honest, I am not sure what his point was. About 1000 species go extinct every year, or about 3 per day. Almost all of them are because of human activity. Should we be doing something about that? Yes. I agree we should be trying to reduce extinctions. I just disagree that the malaria protozoa is the best candidate for preservation. Perhaps a rainforest tree frog instead?
Re: (Score:3)
The food chain isn't a single rope, it is crosslinked and has loops all over the damn place. Anything which eats mosquitos will happily eat a fly and with less mosquitos around there will be more of the flies.
Re: (Score:2)
The food chain isn't a single rope, it is crosslinked and has loops all over the damn place. Anything which eats mosquitos will happily eat a fly and with less mosquitos around there will be more of the flies.
I'm curious. Do you actually know this or just suspect it? Some animals are really, really picky about what they eat (e.g. blue whales only eat krill). If you said there are spider species which only eat one of these species of mosquitoes, I would believe you. I'd then have to think about how this would affect the spiders and whether we care more about human health or some spiders. My guess is I'm for the humans because malaria is a horrible disease but I think we should make sure we look into potential con
Re: (Score:3)
"I'm curious. Do you actually know this or just suspect it? Some animals are really, really picky about what they eat (e.g. blue whales only eat krill)."
Look, I tend to be honest and technical to a fault. So that depends on the level of commitment you are looking for. I'm not a biologist and I'm not swearing there isn't a single species anywhere on earth like a particular spider species that only eats this particular mosquito. I don't think a biologist with my level of technical honesty would claim that eit
Re: (Score:2)
"but there are flowers which are pollinated entirely by mosquitoes. Then again, there are plenty of mosquitoes that don't bite people or don't spread disease."
Indeed, and if there is no other mosquito that will pollinate these particular flowers I'm sure there are other flowers too.
I'm all for preserving life but I do believe in self-defense. These mosquitoes threaten, endanger, and kill in large numbers a creature that is potentially capable of wiping them out (in theory, I suspect it would depopulate but
Welcome to the age of GMO (Score:4, Interesting)
The world is going to be transformed over the next few decades by work like this. Problems like malaria will be addressed. The bad news is that these early efforts carry unknown risks the good news is that the work is being done by experts in the field. This sort of work will be accessible to hackers in very few years so lets hope that regulated agencies beat them to it. If you thought the nuclear standoff of the cold war years was bad just wait for the biological equivalent. The genie is out of the bottle now, work like this is as much a part of national defense as hyper-sonic missiles.
Re: (Score:2)
The world is going to be transformed over the next few decades by work like this. Problems like malaria will be addressed.
I'm sort of with you on this. My guess is in the next 20 years, we will find a way to eradicate malaria using some form of genetic modification. This gene drive might not be the ultimate solution and there are other competing approaches. I'm quote confident this is a good thing. Malaria is a horribly debilitating and widespread disease. Good riddance being done with it.
The bad news is that these early efforts carry unknown risks the good news is that the work is being done by experts in the field. This sort of work will be accessible to hackers in very few years so lets hope that regulated agencies beat them to it. If you thought the nuclear standoff of the cold war years was bad just wait for the biological equivalent. The genie is out of the bottle now, work like this is as much a part of national defense as hyper-sonic missiles.
I'm not sure where you were going on this. Here's what concerns me, genii and bottle wise. CRISPR is pretty easy to use. My college-aged dau
Re: Welcome to the age of GMO (Score:2)
If gene editing technology in fact becomes sn widespread and accessible as you say, that's going to be a big problem. The one saving grace of nuclear weapons - the reason we're all still alive today - is that they are fiendishly difficult and expensive to manufacture.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with your concerns and note the availability of some of this technology already. Such has always been the way of technological progress, first in government institutions, then big business and then to many. All the more reason we should see considerable resources devoted to understanding it in places we have some transparency from. The academic world has already loudly disparaged the Chinese HIV human experiment and there will continue to be debates about what is acceptable use. The public appetite
Youre doing it wrong ! (Score:1)
In my opinion those insects should be modified so, that the bite would cause the target human unable to produce more humans. And then by all means release the mothafuckers...
I for one, assume that we can reverse engineer the ability to reproduce when the human population has shrunk to say 1Bil in numbers...
Win / Win don't You think?
But noooo, once again, They are doing just the opposite.
I mean aren't insects going to be extinct anyways in 100-200 hundred years? At least if we are allowed to continue The but
Re: (Score:2)
In my opinion those insects should be modified so, that the bite would cause the target human unable to produce more humans.
I'm wondering why they're modifying the mosquitoes rather than modifying the Plasmodia.
Re: (Score:1)
In my opinion those insects should be modified so, that the bite would cause the target human unable to produce more humans.
I'm wondering why they're modifying the mosquitoes rather than modifying the Plasmodia.
To quote Sunshine The movie:
Now that, is THE question ?
"Release"? No! (Score:4, Informative)
Using that word in the title implies released into the wild, which is a headline grabber.
Let's get real.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but saying "they made the cage bigger" doesn't get clicks for your article.
Re: (Score:2)
GMosquitos have been released before!
Even Google did it.
"assures:that the lab the mosquitos are in is very (Score:2)
Nothing could possibli go wrong (Score:1)
The Precautionary Principle(with Application to the Genetic Modification ofOrganisms)Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Rupert Read, Raphael Douady, Joseph Norman,Yaneer Bar-YamSchool of Engineering, New York UniversityNew England Complex Systems InstituteInstitute of Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, C.N.R.S., ParisSchool of Philosophy, University of East Anglia [fooledbyrandomness.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Invasive species of the past are a prime example of humans moving before understanding the ramification.
"Name one organism that has the concept called invasion..." [bit.ly]
The only good mosquitoes (Score:2)
are the ones made of wood
there are only 4 of them left flying, including one in NZ
"they can't bite and so can't spread malaria" (Score:1)
Oh, sweet. So we aren't going to try and get rid of mosquitos completely, just make it so they won't bite people anymore.
That seems like a much better approach than wiping them off the face of the planet.
Population (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
We certainly don't need more humans.
We do need more developed regions of course, so that the living standard of the existing humans improve. Actually, the development would also help with curbing the amount of humans: high development brings low pop growth.
Re: Population (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The elephant in the room is that we don't actually require more humans and more developed regions of the planet.
Malaria is a major cause of childhood mortality in Africa. High child mortality causes parents to have more children, and to invest fewer resources in each child. Reducing childhood mortality lowers population growth. This has happened repeatedly, over and over, all around the world. It is happening now even in Africa ... except where malaria (or war) is still endemic.
But Scully will get stung by one (Score:2)
And Mulder will have to schlep to Antarctica to rescue her.
Bad days for frogs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This question has been asked a lot, and it's been answered a lot. Google is up there ^. Go find out how many mosquito species are out there, and then find out how many bite humans.
Re: Bad days for frogs (Score:2)
#hubris
Safety first :| (Score:2)
Personally, I would build said lab in the center of Antarctica where the temps are -60.
If the mosquitoes made it out of the lab, it would become a mosquito shaped snowflake a few seconds later.
The wrong solution to the mosquito problem (Score:2)
Taking mosquitoes entirely out of the ecosystem by making them sterile? Very dangerous to the ecosystem.
On a recent Science Friday [sciencefriday.com] episode they discussed another solution which is actually viable, which is to make mosquitoes shy away from human blood. Humans don't get infected, mosquitoes can continue living, the ecosystem can continue functioning as is, everybody wins.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure it sounds good, but (Score:2)
Italy climate (Score:2)
"adding that even if the mosquitos did escape they would not be able to survive Italy's climate"
Northern Italy here, first outdoor mosquito sighting this year: February 22.
Why in Italy? (Score:2)
Do it in, say, North-Sweden, even IF they escape they freeze before they could do any harm.
Brazilian GM mosquitoes (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"yeah a failure could result in mosquitoes that are mostly sterile being released into an environment where there is nothing for them to mate with, and that they can't survive in...
The outcome here could be catastrophic..."
That is pretending this entire exercise isn't just intellectual masturbation and a waste of effort and funds if they don't release them in an environment with none of those limitations sooner or later. Since they obviously plan to do that anyway I say just get on with it. My back yard is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is that the gene passes on through male offspring and dooms only the female offspring.
The other part of the idea is that the gene copies itself into the matching diploid DNA, so it has twice the propagation rate of a normal gene.
Most likely there would be enclaves of surviving mosquitoes that would repopulate the species, so the mosquitoes with the gene drive would need to be periodically re-released. But we don't need to kill every one, we just need to reduce R0 [wikipedia.org] to well below one for the mosquito borne diseases.