GM mosquito 'could fight malaria'

[muriel_volestrangler]

Source: BBC

A genetically-modified (GM) strain of malaria-resistant mosquito has been created that is better able to survive than disease-carrying insects.

It gives new impetus to one strategy for controlling the disease: introduce the GM insects into wild populations in the hope that they will take over.

The insect carries a gene that prevents infection by the malaria parasite.

Details of the work by a US team appear in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6468381.stm

[Lone_Star_Dem]

1. Hopefully it is still as vulnerable to Bacillus Thuringiensis

What a nightmare it would be if I couldn't use BT to control them.

[Whoa_Nelly]

2. And at some point in the future

what problems will the GM mosquito have with the wildlife and human populations....?





It's not nice to fool Mother Nature!

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Problems with wildlife and humans?

What kind of problems are you thinking of? An immunity to malaria is quite different to having bigger mouth-parts so the bite hurts more, or something like that.

"It's not nice to fool Mother Nature!" - So, we better forget about vaccinations and anti-biotics too, then?

[Whoa_Nelly]

4. am thinking a new strain of malaria may develop...or even something not commonly known

at this point.

and as for the point of vaccinations and antibiotics: My sarcastic statement was just that--sarcasm
...as well as remembering those '70s commercials about Chiffon margarine and Mother Nature. :eyes:

[AngryAmish]

23. Of course a new strain of malaria will develop

We kill, they evolve, we learn to kill again, they evole again....

In the meantime millions of lives could be saved.

[ends_dont_justify]

10. Where was that emphasized?

"So, we better forget about vaccinations and anti-biotics too, then?"

I don't see where that was emphasized anywhere. I think it is however dangerous to genetically enhance one creature to outlive others. Especially if a defect in their systems causes them to start to die out...people may cheer at no more mosquitos at first, but it would have a dire effect on the environment. Those who don't know the whole truth shouldn't try to reassert it...so geneticists should not try to play god when they cannot even agree on one's existance ;)

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. That was a reply to the sarcasm about "fooling with Mother Nature"

which I didn't realise was sarcasm, at the time.

This would be "no more mosquitoes", it would be "mosquitoes don't carry the malarial parasite". It might be that whatever the genetic change is that produces this will be out-evolved by the parasite, and in the long term we won't have gained anything. But that doesn't mean a "dire effect on the environment" - it means we would be back to where we are now.

[PaulaFarrell]

15. As far as I know, mosquitoes don't compete with each other

Releasing a new strain of mosquito will be just that - introducing a new pest. The fact that it doesn't carry malaria is irrelevant. The only way it could affect malaria trsnmission is by breeding with other mosquitoes and then producing malaria-resistant offspring, which eventually overtook the whole population. This is just a wild hope really, as it is something which cannot be proven until it happens, and is about as pie in the sky as the 'golden rice' which will cure vitamin A deficiency, and the Bt cotton which will mean cotton doesn't have to be sprayed for pests. This seems to last about 10 years before resistence kicks in, and so we could expect something similar in malaria.

Yet another instance of scientists wanting to release a new organism into the environment with no idea what the long-term effects will be.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. From the article:

In the laboratory, equal numbers of genetically modified and ordinary "wild-type" mosquitoes were allowed to feed on malaria-infected mice.

As they reproduced, more of the GM, or transgenic, mosquitoes survived. After nine generations, 70% of the insects belonged to the malaria-resistant strain.

So, no, it's not a wild hope. The test has shown it does outcompete the malaria-prone mosquitoes.

[PaulaFarrell]

19. From a 50% base

so from 50 to 70% in nine generations, but starting with 50%, a net increase of 20% or around 2% per generation. I would like to see some tests starting with 1 or 2%, (or .001 or .002 % - how many mosquitoes would they plan to release?) which would give a much more accurate reflection of whether this persistance spreads throughout a population. This article does NOT show that the resistant mosquitoes out-compete each other - the article really gives very little info into how the research was conducted. I am presuming in thuis experimentthat the mosquitoes interbred at an equal rate (otherwise what is the point?) in which I wouild have expected a higher rate of malria resitance but again no details on the actual experiment. The only way that the resistance would spread in the wild is if the the resistance gene was dominant over a long term after interbreeding with the wil population of mosquito. The research, as described in this articlle, does not show that it is. What is just as possible is that the malaria virus evolves to get around this new resistance - as has happened with boll weevils and bt cotton. And nine generations of mosquito is nothing.

I think that this is just one more story which they feed us to condition us to believe that GM is 'the answer'. It's not. I wonder how many mosquito nets this research money could have bought?

[yellowcanine]

28. You make it sound as if there is a GM scientific mafia out there pushing GM in all areas.

It is kind of silly to lump GM used in medical entomology in with GM used in crops. The goals are very different. Different economic interests are involved. GM is a scientific technique. It can be abused as can all scientific techniques. It is not inherently bad. Nor is it actually inherently different from conventional animal or plant breeding. Does it allow some things to be done that conventional techniques do not? Of course. But mostly it is used to simply speed up the process and make the process more precise. Actually in many cases it eliminates the "unintended consequences" of conventioal breeding because it allows desirable genes to be split off from undesirable ones that may be carried on the same chromosome and thus be segregating together. GM also allows a more agile response to the resistance problems you are concerned about. In the past we ofen had a 10 to 12 year lag time in crop breeding for introducing a new resistance gene into a variety; now we can do it in one to two years using GM technology - with no undesirable genes attached.

[yellowcanine]

20. Actually no - there is good biology behind this. Check out the "sterile insect technique"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_insect_technique

Not just a wild hope - it has been proven to work. Besides, your point about resistance is not a reason for not doing it. Resistance happens, yes, but it can be managed and in the meantime there is some level of control we would otherwise not have. Vaccine technology faces the same challenges - new vaccines must constantly be developed to keep up with the diseases - but we don't just give up because resistance will occur.

Risks must be weighed. The high risk of getting ill from malaria justifies taking some risk that an antimalarial mosquito might have some downsides. Every decision, including the decision to not employ a certain technology, carries risk. The point is to balance the risks. That is why we need to do the research to understand the biology. Simply not addressing the problem is not an option.

On edit: I failed to address the competition question. Of course mosquitoes compete with each other. Particularly for mates. Flood the population with insects carrying a certain gene and you are going to influence the population. This is basic biology and population genetics.

[PaulaFarrell]

26. I'm not saying we shouldn't address the problem of malaria

Far from it. Far too little is spent fighting this disease, compared to diseases that affect the western world. Did I ever say that we should stop developing vaccines? I would love to see a malaria vaccine. Comparing vaccines to GMOs is comparing apples and orange trees. Vaccines, generally, only affect the target population at risk of developing the disease. Creating a new GMO and releasing it into the population will target an entire species of insect with the hope of controlling a disease it carries. And we have no idea what the long-term effects will be. Resistance is entirely relevant, becase, unlike with a vaccine, which we can stop administering if it fails to work, this insect will be out there and we will not be able to retrieve it back into the lab. For examples of this lovely policy of releasing biological agnets into new environements at work, see rabbits in Australia, African bees in South AMerica, kudzu in the south east, harlequin ladybirds in Europe, and on and on and on. Of course, these were all postulated as nothing but beneficial originally.

"Of course mosquitoes compete with each other. Particularly for mates. Flood the population with insects carrying a certain gene and you are going to influence the population. This is basic biology and population genetics."

Firstly, how on earth do you plan to flood the population of mosquitoes? Really? The actuality is that the number released could only be minute in comparison with the number of native mosquitoes. WHile the released organism will influence the target population, the target population will also influence the released organisms. It depends on which characteritsic is dominant.

[yellowcanine]

27. All I can tell you is it has been done ( modified insect releases) It has been done with

screwworms in cattle.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/mar07/worm0307.htm

Mosquitoes are actually quite easy to rear. We have tons of experience doing it. This is not out of the realm of possibility.

Of course one must take precautions in introducing new organisms. But your examples are flawed. The proposal is not to introduce a whole new species. It is to introduce a modified strain of the same species. Besides you are mixing up accidental releases and poorly planned intentional releases years ago with carefully planned experimental releases today. African bees were an accidental release in 1957. Kudzu was introduced into the U.S. in 1876. Rabbits were introduced into Australia by a private citizen for hunting purposes in 1859. And no one is really sure how Asian lady bird beetles got into Europe or North America for that matter but one thing is clear: it was not an authorized release in either place resulting from a scientific study. So none of your examples actually are very similar to what is proposed with the anti-malarial mosquito. On the other hand, there have been many successful campaigns using sterile insect releases - and this proposal bears more resemblence to those efforts than to your examples. And with the possible exception of kudzu, none of your examples "were postulatated as being anything but beneficial" by scientists and that happened well over 100 years ago, when the science of ecology, population genetics, and introduced species was nowhere near what it is today. Give scientists some credit for learning something about invasive species over the last 100 years or so.

[Tommy_J]

29. I understand your skepticism

But as a whole I think this is a workable and very worthwhile pursuit. Of the dozens and dozens of strains of mosquito there is only one strain, Anopheles, that transmits the malaria parasite. If this unique ability could be bread out then malaria transmission would become impossible.

This is not a new idea by the way. It has been worked on since the late 80's.

[gravity]

30. Mosquito's do compete for each other

All species compete with each other within the species. The mosquito's are suppose to have a evolutionary advantage over the mosquito's that carry the malaria disease, but are equally likely to survive when they aren't exposed to the disease.

The article says that scientists will perform decades of testing before they will ever release them in the wild too, so they are taking every precaution reasonably possible.

"I think it will be 10 to 20 years before transgenic mosquitoes are released into nature. It's very difficult to predict what will happen when we release these things," he added.

"There is quite a lot of research that needs to be done, both in terms of genetics and the ecology of the mosquitoes; and also research to address all the social, ethical and legal issues associated with releasing transgenic organisms into the environment."

[0rganism]

5. hmm, this could be a two-edged sword

ultimately, when all is said and done, what we have is a more resiliant mosquito. what happens if it becomes the carrier for an equally-potent disease?

the idea is intriguing, tho. Maybe someday we'll figure out how to use mosquitos to transport vaccines...

[depakid]

8. Exactly

I'm always VERY wary of these sorts of schemes. They have the potential for amazing results- and also for catastrophes.

[kestrel91316]

6. Playing with fire..................aka "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

[Robb]

7. Hell, what could go wrong?

[gravity]

9. What can go wrong not using it?

Oh yeah, millions of deaths.

[Pastiche423]

11. What millions of death?

[gravity]

12. From malaria

http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/

[Pastiche423]

13. You actually believe

GM would do something to help people?

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. Yes.

These people are doing the research now. They're trying to help people. The evidence is literally in front of your eyes.

There have been a few interesting blog entries recently by 'Slactivist', which some on DU could do with comtemplating:

I'm talking about a much more fundamental rejection of the foundations of civil conversation, as measured by this survey by Right Wing News, "Rightosphere Temperature Check: Polling Right-of-Center Bloggers on Key Issues." Here is the dismaying response to the survey's second question:

2) Do you think that a majority of Democrats in Congress would like to see us lose in Iraq for political reasons?

Yes (53) -- 84%
No (10) -- 16%

So the overwhelming majority -- 84 percent -- of right-wing bloggers are operating from a presumption of bad faith. And they're proud of this.

This is staggering. Here is a group of people defiantly, enthusiastically rejecting the most basic and necessary starting point for civil discourse, for honest debate, for democracy.

Civility requires -- that is, is impossible without -- a presumption of charity. This is as fundamental to honest and meaningful conversation as the similar principle, the presumption of innocence, is to the legal system. Yet here are 84 percent of right-wing bloggers surveyed cheerily admitting that they view anyone who disagrees with them as guilty until proven innocent. Not just guilty, but treasonous, reprobate, evil.

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2007/03/84_reject_civil.html

[truthisfreedom]

14. Naw, what we need is a GM mosquito that only sucks blood from other mosquitos.

Now THAT would solve the problem, right there.

[hedgehog]

21. It'd be wonderful if everything goes properly, but I fear the law of

unintended consequences. For example, someone figured out that ladybugs ate pest, so they released Asian lady bugs in the US. Now, it's a rare thing when I spot a native lady bug and hundreds of people each year deal with the problems of the Aisian lady bugs hibernating in their houses by the thousands.

[yellowcanine]

22. Not a good example of that law. Most of the consequences of the Asian lady beetles

are good - they help a great deal in controlling aphids on crops and in gardens. As for their "nuisance factor", they can be quite easily vacuumed up in a clean disposable vacuum bag, tossed into a fridge, and released outside in the garden in the Spring to do what they do best. Furthermore, it is not clear that they were deliberately introduced.

[hedgehog]

24. DU always teaches me something!

I had always heard that they were introduced deliberately. As consequences go, (I think this one is relatively benign, but I've never had more than 20 or 30 all winter. Some people find the entire south wall of the house covered in them!

I miss the native species because I think it is prettier. It was a bright red whereas the Asian bugs I see are kind of a drab orange-sepia tone. They do their job though and munch on pests. I'm glad to find them in my roses!

[yellowcanine]

25. They may have been introduced deliberately but no one is admitting to it. It was not an

officially sanctioned release by scientists under UDSA-APHIS guidelines. My guess is that some well meaning but misguided gardener introduced them.
I have not actually seen any scientific studies to suggest that Asian lady bird beetles are out competing natives. It makes sense, as they are large and aggressive and lady bird beetles have been known to cannabilize each other. However, it could just be a case of the sheer abundance of the Asian variety making it seem as if the natives are not around anymore. Futhermore, the Asian lady bird beetles have so much variation that many of them may indeed resemble native varieties and vice versa. So there is likely a lot of mistaken identity going on, making it difficult to verify reports of a decline in the native populations.