News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:HIV Is Reported Cured in a Second Patient by Pristina on Monday March 04, 2019 @10:34PM (#19307894)
meanwhile a mosquito net will save 10x live as /10 the cost.
Re:HIV Is Reported Cured in a Second Patient by chr1 on Monday March 04, 2019 @10:52PM (#19307959)
Very soon gene drive eliminating all the mosquitos will save many more lives than a mosquito net can save at the fraction of cost and effort.

But we would not be able to find it if we were only spending resources on things that save the maximal number of lives in the short term.

Re:HIV Is Reported Cured in a Second Patient by gnu8 on Tuesday March 05, 2019 @10:33AM (#19311143)
I’m still really alarmed by the idea of the gene drive. Suppose eliminating mosquitos has unintended consequences, such as the loss of species that feed on them, or other species that rely on their existence in some way we don’t understand yet?

But also, gene drive itself is really spooky? What happens when someone truly evil decides to use it to get rid of all the people of the ethnicity they dislike? How are we going to deal with that?

Re:HIV Is Reported Cured in a Second Patient by ben_w on Tuesday March 05, 2019 @10:52AM (#19311297)
If I understand correctly, gene drives maximise individual reproductive genetic success in a way which eventually makes a species unviable. I think the specific proposal for mosquitoes is to have a female-chromosome-specific gene which forces all offspring to be female and to carry that same gene.

This takes many generations to wipe out a species; only a genocidal maniac who believes The Other are literally another species would consider it; and the capacity to create it is also the capacity to reverse it.

Re:HIV Is Reported Cured in a Second Patient by isostatic on Tuesday March 05, 2019 @05:19AM (#19309547)
Is eliminating an entire species a good thing?
Re:HIV Is Reported Cured in a Second Patient by jfk13 on Tuesday March 05, 2019 @10:20AM (#19311036)
Much depends on your definition of "good", I expect.

Even setting aside the possibility of unforeseen negative side-effects of the change to ecosystems, etc., it's not clear to me that minimising human sickness is an absolute "good" that outweighs any other effects, and it's not clear how we should evaluate the deliberate extinction of another species.

How many human lives must be saved to justify an extinction? (Of course, those human lives aren't really "saved" in a long-term sense; they're still going to die, just from some other cause. Meanwhile, the extinct species remains permanently extinct.)

How many species can we justify eliminating in order to stop a given disease? One? Tens? Hundreds? Thousands? Does the answer depend on whether they're cute and furry?

Re:HIV Is Reported Cured in a Second Patient by jdhawk on Tuesday March 05, 2019 @09:28AM (#19310700)
Lots of conflicting information here, but the TL;DR - probably, but maybe not.
Re:HIV Is Reported Cured in a Second Patient by adrianN on Tuesday March 05, 2019 @12:42AM (#19308370)
Perhaps you should compare mosquito nets to condoms.
Re:HIV Is Reported Cured in a Second Patient by Cthulhu_ on Tuesday March 05, 2019 @03:33AM (#19309084)
There's no religious institution prohibiting the use of mosquito nets though.
Re:HIV Is Reported Cured in a Second Patient by nilskidoo on Tuesday March 05, 2019 @03:49AM (#19309150)
I've worked in kitchens where hairnets over beards was mandatory though.