It's horrible that people are dying because of malaria. I'm a bit divided on this approach though, I don't know enough about the topic at hand to suggest a different approach, but let me try.
Would it be feasible to suggest using CRISP to create another adaptation to the gene, one that preserves the mosquitoes but makes them unable to transfer the disease to humans?
Eliminating a species because we don't like it reminds me of speciesism as Peter Singer outlines in one of his books. (Animal Liberation I believe it was). Where humans assume another species to be inferior and have less of a right to live a decent life.
I do think it's a normal response to value human life more. And in fact, I also do think that in this case it makes more sense to safe the humans if no other approach is viable..
The article mentions they tried to engineer mosquitos to not carry malaria, but it made them weak and so natural selection favored the non-engineered mosquitoes.
As for the rest, yeah tricky business. By all accounts we have more value than a mosquito, but as you move up the food chain what are the unintended consequences?
It is indeed horrible, and it is fantastic that so many resources are dedicated to find a solution to this travesty!
Eliminating entire species deliberately, on the other hand, isn't really better. Yes, there is the us vs. them dilemma, and of course we should favour our own species if there's no other option, but this should be used as a last resort only.
I wonder if there's anyone looking into using similar methods to make humans malaria resistant instead.
My understanding is that out of 3,500 mosquito species, only about 40 transmit malaria. Most of what I've read from experts implies they're not sure that mosquitoes play any biologically important role at all, and it seems like if there is some role (other than killing humans), the other 99% of non-eradicated mosquito species could fill in that gap.
In my (decidedly non-expert) opinion, that's good enough to start making moves towards eradicating the mosquito-causing species.
> Eliminating a species because we don't like it reminds me of speciesism
How about eliminating them because they are killing us, literally by the millions? Viewed that way, it seems more like normal self-defense to me. Currently mosquito-borne diseases kill around 700,000 people each year; this figure does not include the cost to society of the people who become ill but later recover. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito
People are also dying of war and hunger and lack of clean water and medicine. I would even argue that those are the bigger problems and the deaths of malaria are more symptoms of the former problems. Usually, it ain't the rich people who die of malaria.
So I would focus in those problems instead of trying to inject suicide genes into the wild.
I like the saying: the opposite of well done, is well intented.
I like to paste this awesome response from reddit whenever someone doubts these approaches (since I couldn’t put it better myself)
> 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 .
We have to learn first how to de-extinct a species.
The cascade of known, expected and unexpected comsequences from wiping mosquitoes could be enough to distroy the economy of entire countries.
And is so easy to think in believable sceneries that is astonishing to see people repeating again the mantra that nothing is proved and nothing will happen.
Wiping mosquitoes in Africa could affect profoundly Europe, for example.
The same birds that save harvests in Europe each year, pass the winter in Africa. Finding some alternative food, here and there, is not the same as "finding enough fuel to not die in the return". Do we really want to start an experiment that could lead to Europe losing decens of insectivorous birds overnight and episodes of famine in many points of Europe?
Or... What if malaria strikes back being forced to jump to the next species of mosquito available, those able to stand cold temperatures that can be found in Scottland or Swedden?
I've seen very few countries of note (aside from the US) that use "race" as any kind of indicator. This has a very good reason: It's not a clear biological separation and it also otherwise has little bearing on reality. It's an old, obsolete carry-over that was kept from the days when racism was still an accepted practice and it needs to die the death that it deserves as soon as possible.
You may find interesting this presentation from John Sotos on DEF CON https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKQDSgBHPfY "Genetic Diseases to Guide Digital Hacks of the Human Genome".
It probably already can. I'm not an expert, but from what I understand CRISPR targets specific DNA sequences. Race can be determined by DNA testing, therefore I think (again, I'm not an expert) that there would be certain sequences that are specific to a race.
Now CRISPR alters the specific sequence that it targets. In fact, CRISPR only cuts the DNA at that sequence, other proteins must be employed to change and then fix the DNA. It may be well enough to simply cut up a specific race's DNA and leave it at that. Or if those cells die off too fast, splice in some garbage DNA that will at least let the cell reproduce.
Frightening why? The only way this system can "target" race is to make certain skin colors and such superdominant. That's a dumb effect but not really harmful to anyone.
I assume your worry is that it might selectively activate in some race to do a bad thing? But that's not how it works. It always activates, and the only thing keeping it within the mosquito species is that they physically can't breed with anything else. And obviously no such barrier exists with races.
So we could worry about a completely different and theoretical technology, but not so much this one.
Not that frightening for this specific case. A gene drive is distributed by reproduction, and the major effect is that it is passed down far more efficiently than any trait subject to the usual genetic rules.
Humans reproduce far slower than mosquitoes, and if someone managed to modify a few humans, there would likely be plenty of time to detect it and fix or contain it in some way.
They'd have to abduct hundreds of thousands of people (or clone a bunch), edit their genes, and release them back into their countries of origin. And then it would take a few generations.
I remember having a conversation with a friend a couple years ago, about a hypothetical scenario where a more intelligent species would someday threaten human existence. We'd then point to mosquitoes and say, look how we hate these little guys and they are still everywhere.
This is a good question. I don't have a full answer.
The proposed gene drive causes male mosquitoes to produce sperm that, when it fertilizes egg cells, will lead to only make offspring. After several generations of this spreading, eventually all offspring will be male, and that will be the last generation.
The gene drive does this by attacking the genes in the mosquito sex determination system called doublesex. I guess, no-one has discovered a similar vulnerable mechanism in the malaria plasmodium sex determination genes. The malaria plasmodium is a single-celled organism, and it goes through both asexual and sexual reproductive phases in its life cycle. But it does go through the sexual phase, too.
What will be the effect on humanity when we lose a constant source of stimulation for our immune systems? Perhaps it will actually set us up for a pandemic of apocalyptic proportions.
ITT: people who live in countries that aren’t ravaged by malaria share their vague feelings of doubt about whether or not getting rid of mosquitos is a good idea
In a world where total insect population collapse is a very real possibility, there exist people who think calling out people who want to not exterminate a cornerstone insect species is a good idea.
Before anybody says "well actually there was a study that said nothing bad would happen", the horribly flawed studies about wiping out mosquitoes being harmless acts under the assumption that animals that feed off mosquitoes will find other insects to live off of. With insect populations dropping to tiny fractions of what they were years ago, it's incredibly short-sighted to think that's feasible. It's the same as saying "all the rice in the world could vanish and humans would just eat something else." Technically, yes, but taking away a large portion of so many people's daily calories isn't a good idea. And looking at how fish, amphibian, bat, and bird populations are lower than ever, getting rid of a readily available food source that links entire ecosystems together is pretty selfish. Work on treating the diseases instead of taking the easy way and just destroying things.
If you've been personally affected by malaria your immediate impulse is do whatever it takes to stop it.
But we know nothing comes for free, no good human deed goes unpunished.
There's a lot of debate about whether destroying malaria-carrying mosquitoes would have any side effects whatsoever. Alternately, it may have some.
I don't think your characterization is fair, in other words. Those of us in areas not immediately affected are insulated against that emotional response, but we must be aware of the reality of malaria's toll. But destroying an entire species is a draconian approach that should require a great deal of thought.
The ongoing insect apocalypse is a problem, a potentially civilization-ending one. But wiping out malaria wouldn't be, and at this rate we'll probably do it by accident even if we don't implement this.
Classical ad hominem argument. Attack the people who make the immoral choice of thinking about the fact instead of blindly going forward and doing it, regardless of the cost. Perhaps it is worth to consider carefully before eradicating a species by any means?
And perhaps it is worth to consider using a domain of technology - biotechnology - we have yet to understand better? Every tool comes with it's price, and so does CRISPR/Cas9. Gene drives can override and change the hereditary mechanism which makes genes propagate in populations. There are possible second order effects in place, which would be very important to rule out before applying such a method in the wild.
<irony>Unless... unless, of course, we are happy with the import of rabbits et al to Australia.</irony>
Malaria and other diseases are one of the main reasons Europeans kept their African ambitions relatively contained. What is the geopolitical implication of eliminating malaria?
Plus we're already losing at least 200 species (of plant, insect and animal) every year. Might as well save half a million human lives while we're at it..
Not my area of expertise at all, but mosquitoes seem unique in nature in that they can pick up diseases from one animal and spread them to another by direct blood transfusion. I've long wondered if this might confer some kind of advantage to the animals being bit, perhaps along the lines of how vaccines work.
"many fish leeches directly transmit several blood parasites"
"Consequently, the leech is a potential vector of many pathogens, especially in regions with an endemic spread of human and/or animal pathogens."
[+] [-] Insanity|7 years ago|reply
Would it be feasible to suggest using CRISP to create another adaptation to the gene, one that preserves the mosquitoes but makes them unable to transfer the disease to humans?
Eliminating a species because we don't like it reminds me of speciesism as Peter Singer outlines in one of his books. (Animal Liberation I believe it was). Where humans assume another species to be inferior and have less of a right to live a decent life.
I do think it's a normal response to value human life more. And in fact, I also do think that in this case it makes more sense to safe the humans if no other approach is viable..
[+] [-] shireboy|7 years ago|reply
As for the rest, yeah tricky business. By all accounts we have more value than a mosquito, but as you move up the food chain what are the unintended consequences?
[+] [-] ahje|7 years ago|reply
Eliminating entire species deliberately, on the other hand, isn't really better. Yes, there is the us vs. them dilemma, and of course we should favour our own species if there's no other option, but this should be used as a last resort only.
I wonder if there's anyone looking into using similar methods to make humans malaria resistant instead.
[+] [-] acallahan|7 years ago|reply
My understanding is that out of 3,500 mosquito species, only about 40 transmit malaria. Most of what I've read from experts implies they're not sure that mosquitoes play any biologically important role at all, and it seems like if there is some role (other than killing humans), the other 99% of non-eradicated mosquito species could fill in that gap.
In my (decidedly non-expert) opinion, that's good enough to start making moves towards eradicating the mosquito-causing species.
[+] [-] arbuge|7 years ago|reply
How about eliminating them because they are killing us, literally by the millions? Viewed that way, it seems more like normal self-defense to me. Currently mosquito-borne diseases kill around 700,000 people each year; this figure does not include the cost to society of the people who become ill but later recover. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito
[+] [-] userbinator|7 years ago|reply
How about if you consider things like bacteria? The rabbit-hole of "speciesism" never ends...
[+] [-] hutzlibu|7 years ago|reply
So I would focus in those problems instead of trying to inject suicide genes into the wild.
I like the saying: the opposite of well done, is well intented.
[+] [-] vinniejames|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrfusion|7 years ago|reply
> 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 .
https://pay.reddit.com/r/biology/comments/9ivkka/genetic_mod...
[+] [-] pvaldes|7 years ago|reply
The cascade of known, expected and unexpected comsequences from wiping mosquitoes could be enough to distroy the economy of entire countries.
And is so easy to think in believable sceneries that is astonishing to see people repeating again the mantra that nothing is proved and nothing will happen.
Wiping mosquitoes in Africa could affect profoundly Europe, for example.
The same birds that save harvests in Europe each year, pass the winter in Africa. Finding some alternative food, here and there, is not the same as "finding enough fuel to not die in the return". Do we really want to start an experiment that could lead to Europe losing decens of insectivorous birds overnight and episodes of famine in many points of Europe?
Or... What if malaria strikes back being forced to jump to the next species of mosquito available, those able to stand cold temperatures that can be found in Scottland or Swedden?
[+] [-] ascotan|7 years ago|reply
No more roses with thorns (they cause thumb injuries), sweet smelling stink bugs, glow in the dark pets.
Can't imagine what could go wrong. Someone needs to be writing the movie plot right now.
[+] [-] Balgair|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amelius|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tade0|7 years ago|reply
AFAIK human "races" are largely superficial biologically - there are some correlations, but weaker than the variability between individuals.
[+] [-] krageon|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bgaluszka|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dotancohen|7 years ago|reply
Now CRISPR alters the specific sequence that it targets. In fact, CRISPR only cuts the DNA at that sequence, other proteins must be employed to change and then fix the DNA. It may be well enough to simply cut up a specific race's DNA and leave it at that. Or if those cells die off too fast, splice in some garbage DNA that will at least let the cell reproduce.
[+] [-] Phenomenit|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Dylan16807|7 years ago|reply
I assume your worry is that it might selectively activate in some race to do a bad thing? But that's not how it works. It always activates, and the only thing keeping it within the mosquito species is that they physically can't breed with anything else. And obviously no such barrier exists with races.
So we could worry about a completely different and theoretical technology, but not so much this one.
[+] [-] fabian2k|7 years ago|reply
Humans reproduce far slower than mosquitoes, and if someone managed to modify a few humans, there would likely be plenty of time to detect it and fix or contain it in some way.
[+] [-] greenhatman|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unlikelymordant|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vagab0nd|7 years ago|reply
Well, that was that.
[+] [-] tomatotomato37|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sampo|7 years ago|reply
The proposed gene drive causes male mosquitoes to produce sperm that, when it fertilizes egg cells, will lead to only make offspring. After several generations of this spreading, eventually all offspring will be male, and that will be the last generation.
The gene drive does this by attacking the genes in the mosquito sex determination system called doublesex. I guess, no-one has discovered a similar vulnerable mechanism in the malaria plasmodium sex determination genes. The malaria plasmodium is a single-celled organism, and it goes through both asexual and sexual reproductive phases in its life cycle. But it does go through the sexual phase, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublesex
[+] [-] davesque|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chdaniel|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peteretep|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fiblye|7 years ago|reply
Before anybody says "well actually there was a study that said nothing bad would happen", the horribly flawed studies about wiping out mosquitoes being harmless acts under the assumption that animals that feed off mosquitoes will find other insects to live off of. With insect populations dropping to tiny fractions of what they were years ago, it's incredibly short-sighted to think that's feasible. It's the same as saying "all the rice in the world could vanish and humans would just eat something else." Technically, yes, but taking away a large portion of so many people's daily calories isn't a good idea. And looking at how fish, amphibian, bat, and bird populations are lower than ever, getting rid of a readily available food source that links entire ecosystems together is pretty selfish. Work on treating the diseases instead of taking the easy way and just destroying things.
[+] [-] nkozyra|7 years ago|reply
But we know nothing comes for free, no good human deed goes unpunished.
There's a lot of debate about whether destroying malaria-carrying mosquitoes would have any side effects whatsoever. Alternately, it may have some.
I don't think your characterization is fair, in other words. Those of us in areas not immediately affected are insulated against that emotional response, but we must be aware of the reality of malaria's toll. But destroying an entire species is a draconian approach that should require a great deal of thought.
[+] [-] Filligree|7 years ago|reply
The ongoing insect apocalypse is a problem, a potentially civilization-ending one. But wiping out malaria wouldn't be, and at this rate we'll probably do it by accident even if we don't implement this.
[+] [-] chesterakos|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Angostura|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wuschel|7 years ago|reply
And perhaps it is worth to consider using a domain of technology - biotechnology - we have yet to understand better? Every tool comes with it's price, and so does CRISPR/Cas9. Gene drives can override and change the hereditary mechanism which makes genes propagate in populations. There are possible second order effects in place, which would be very important to rule out before applying such a method in the wild.
<irony>Unless... unless, of course, we are happy with the import of rabbits et al to Australia.</irony>
[+] [-] marcosdumay|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmh530|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] easshvsh|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vinniejames|7 years ago|reply
We ought to think twice before expediting this
[+] [-] vacant0|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slackfan|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] petters|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ataturk|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] avium|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zimpenfish|7 years ago|reply
"many fish leeches directly transmit several blood parasites" "Consequently, the leech is a potential vector of many pathogens, especially in regions with an endemic spread of human and/or animal pathogens."
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]