Concerns Are Raised About Genetically Engineered Mosquitoes

[alp227]

Source: NY Times

These mosquitoes are genetically engineered to kill — their own children.

Researchers on Sunday reported initial signs of success from the first release into the environment of mosquitoes engineered to pass a lethal gene to their offspring, killing them before they reach adulthood.

The results, and other work elsewhere, could herald an age in which genetically modified insects will be used to help control agricultural pests and insect-borne diseases like dengue fever and malaria.

But the research is arousing concern about possible unintended effects on public health and the environment, because once genetically modified insects are released, they cannot be recalled.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/31/science/concerns-raised-about-genetically-engineered-mosquitoes.html?pagewanted=all

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheMadMonk]

2. Not much actually. The modification is very much self limiting.

It's not at all like an egineered immunity to toxins, which can become established in wild genomes.

[SpiralHawk]

5. Right. And of course scientists have EVERYTHING figured out

so it will all evolve, if you can excuse the phrase, exactly as they expect, and nothing could ever go wrong.
:tinfoilhat:

[TheMadMonk]

10. Sure you wouldn't be more comfortable over with Bachman et. al?

There is very little which can go wrong. And that little fails null. Only males can carry the mutation and live. If when they run out of females, they die too.

[uncle ray]

11. why don't you explain why instead of starting in with personal attacks?

[closeupready]

17. People do that when they are stumped by opponents.

:rofl:

[TheMadMonk]

24. No. This people does that when he sees knee jerk anti-science responses. /nt

[SkyDaddy7]

7. People do not trust scientist...

I can't speak as a scientist but I do follow science rather closely & whether it is vaccines to climate change scientist are ignored for the loudest voices on internet blogs, websites & cable news. Kinda sad.

[harun]

19. And for good reason. Science today is about funding and truth is

going to the highest bidder.

Of course there is a lot of good science being done out there, but the funded scientist's who have sold their opinions for propaganda purposes have ruined their reputation.

[SkyDaddy7]

23. No it is not!

Yes, there are those who have sold their souls to industry but that is not "Science"..."Science" is not sold to the highest bidder.

It is not hard to tell when the vast majority of scientist agree & a few don't that were paid for by Oil money, or vaccine loons looking to make money in lawsuits.

[boppers]

8. Kill all mosquitoes, and what happens to the species that prey on them?

Say, bats?

So, now there's a mosquito kill, and a bat die-off.

So, what happens then?

FWIW, I generally argue in *favor* of GM, but I think we *have* to think about cascading effects.

My favorite argument on this topic is about sickle cell anemia.

Here's what makes it interesting:
Sickle cell anemia provides resistance to malaria.

[TheMadMonk]

9. Not all. Specifically those species which carry the nastier pathogens.

Dengue, Ross River fever, malaria, etc.

My little fledermaus still spends the night buzzing my face as he eats.

[NickB79]

18. Bats eat very, very few mosquitoes

http://insects.about.com/b/2009/07/09/mosquito-problem-dont-bother-with-birds-and-bats.htm

In fact, there are very few species that consume mosquitoes in any significant quantities. The only species that might be affected would be small fish fry that eat the larvae.

[harun]

20. The swarms of mosquitoes at the community garden I use keep people

from wandering through and stealing my crops. I for one support their continued survival!

I'm actually being serious. I garden at two community gardens. The one with mosquito's is untouched, the one with no mosquito's is looted like crazy. They are my organic human defense system.

[unkachuck]

25. Wouldn't it be better to put up a fence?....n/t

[mistertrickster]

12. "Smoking is good for you." "The landfill will never leak." "Lead paint poses no hazard."

"Thalidomide has been thoroughly tested." "Nothing is better for you than a big glass of whole milk and a nice juicy steak."

Scientists have never been wrong in the past, so we should trust them now . . . (sarcasm)

[Angry Dragon]

13. +1000

[closeupready]

16. +1001.

nt

[TheMadMonk]

26. Scientists prooved/demonstrated most of those evils.

It was FUCKHEAD marketing/accounting/boss types who pointed at the error bars and claimed there was still room for their profits.

Scientists are oftimes wrong, but virtually all will correct themselves the moment they discover they are.

I would suggest you do so too, or be tarred with the teabagger brush too.

[mistertrickster]

28. Scientists are people who have the same foibles and weaknesses as everybody else.

How many researchers have FAKED their evidence?

Many hundreds, if not thousands.

How many have been influenced by funding? by conventional wisdom? by the desire for fame?

See for instance the inventors of the totally bogus "cold fusion" crap.

As far as calling me a Teabagger, that is a tactic I would expect from a Teabagger.

[TheMadMonk]

33. The nature of scientific endeavour does not support that sort of self deception.

That you repeat your own self-deceptions indicates very clearly that you are almost totally ignorant of what science is all about.

A relative HANDFUL of scientists (not even hundreds) have faked their evidence and not long after, their colleagues inevitably find out the trickery and call them on it. This is EXACTLY how 'the totally bogus "cold fusion" crap' was found out.

Yes, they can be influenced by money, but since their first desire is to know, it's not the same driving influence to them as it might be to a stockbroker. Conventional wisdom is far, far more likely to result in non-results than fraudulent ones. And fame only comes AFTER the bloody result, and is far more likely to be bestowed by peers (ONLY after proper confirmation of results) than the public. In fact the surest path to fame in science (particularly amongst other scientists) is to be found out as a fraud or dupe.

I did not call you a teabagger, I said you behaviour/antipathy towards science is comparable to a teabagger's, and this latest response by you does nothing whatsoever to disabuse me of the notion.

[mistertrickster]

35. Are insults "scientific"?

this latest response by you does nothing whatsoever to disabuse me of the notion . . . that you think like a Teabagger.

Not a very scientific conclusion. Wholly irrational, in fact.

The notion that science is eventually self-correcting in no way undoes the harm that a blind faith in "science" does before such correction takes place.

See for instance, social darwinism which was thought to be "scientific" at the time.

[LanternWaste]

36. I don't think that anyone is upset with science in and of itself

I don't think that anyone is upset with science in and of itself, merely the unintended and unforeseen consequences that may arise-- much like the dark side of nuclear fission (sans any hypothetical "fuckhead" marketing/accounting/boss types). :shrug:

However, I do realize the self-serving nature of the implication that those who disagree with you are themselves like a teabagger.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

3. Until they mutate into a mosquitoe with a bite that is fatal to humans.

[TheeHazelnut]

4. could this hurt the animals the eat mosquitoes -- food chain?!

http://www.mosquito-netting.com/predators.html

[Taverner]

14. My thoughts exactly

I would love to eradicate Wasps and Hornets from the planet, but there's that whole food chain thing

[quaker bill]

6. Since the offspring don't reach adult stage

the gene is not passed on to the next generation. It is a one shot deal that might suppress population for a second generation, but as mosquitos are rather fecund, not much longer than that.

[BadGimp]

15. This is some scarry shit

[a simple pattern]

21. So resistance to the engineered gene will automatically be selected for?

I like how they already released them before the concerns had a chance to be aroused.

[quakerboy]

27. No

The absence of the gene will be selected for.

Of course, if your surmise was correct, all it would mean is that this gene would become useless to anyone trying to genetically engineer mosquitos. Which is not exactly anything to become concerned about.


The main questions I would ask are 1) What else does this particular gene do/effect? 2)Is this a gene that might reasonably expected to naturally mutate to do something other than the intended purpose? 3) What will this do to other organisms that coexist with the mosquito?

[a simple pattern]

30. The possibility of resistance was mentioned in the article.

Alfred M. Handler, a geneticist at the Agriculture Department in Gainesville, Fla., said the mosquitoes, while being bred for generations in the lab, can evolve resistance to the lethal gene and might then be released inadvertently.

Todd Shelly, an entomologist for the Agriculture Department in Hawaii, said in a commentary published on Sunday by Nature Biotechnology that 3.5 percent of the insects in a lab test survived to adulthood despite presumably carrying the lethal gene.

I was just thinking that it would render itself useless pretty quickly.

[StarsInHerHair]

32. So resistance to the engineered gene will automatically be futile, is what I

think they're aiming towards. There are so many other ways to do this, & other ways of spending GM, I'd like to make a 2 foot long corn cob be the new normal, a very big ear of wheat would be great, & adding something in to let the family cat & dog live normally to 30 years old would really add to the quality of life. We'd have more food too.

[kestrel91316]

22. Unforseen consequences: the possibilities are endless.

With a major global disease vector, this is some serious "playing with fire".

And when you kill off so many mosquitos, what will fill its niche in the ecosystem? SOMETHING will - that much is certain.

And what about the bird and bat and other insect species which are dependent on the mosquito for food????

[TwilightGardener]

29. Terrific! These kind of things ALWAYS go exactly as planned!

[arikara]

31. Oh yes by all means do not consider ramifications of this insanity

and if a sane person has any concern with this mucking around with nature then they are of course "anti-science" and/or a tea bagger.

[Little Tich]

34. Wolbachia study reveals novel approaches to control insects transmitting deadly diseases

Source: Medical News

Researchers at Boston University have made discoveries that provide the foundation towards novel approaches to control insects that transmit deadly diseases such as dengue fever and malaria through their study of the Wolbachia bacteria. Their findings have been published in the current issue of Science Express <http://www.sciencexpress.org>, an online publication of selected papers in advance of the print edition of Science, the main journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

Read More: http://www.news-medical.net/news/20111021/Wolbachia-study-reveals-novel-approaches-to-control-insects-transmitting-deadly-diseases.aspx
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sorry Frankenstein, but there are other ways to stop dengue fever.

[AverageJoe90]

37. Stop this insanity! nt