This kind of experiment is called a gene drive, and there's a huge debate in scientific communities right now around whether it's responsible or not to use them, particularly around the mosquito problem. A professor of mine who works in the field was discussing this with us last week.

The idea with mosquitoes specifically is that we can wipe out specifically the mosquito populations that carry most diseases. The debate is around whether or not this will upset balance in ecosystems (many feel it will not).

This is just my interpretation, but it seems like there is a sensible portion of detractors who simply want to derisk the experiment as much as possible by collecting more and more data. Then there are others who are in general opposed to this sort of interference in an animal population on ethical grounds.

Related article: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/lab-tests-gene-drive-wip...

> This is just my interpretation, but it seems like there is a sensible portion of detractors who simply want to derisk the experiment as much as possible by collecting more and more data.

This is so infuriating. Many people will die during this extended hemming and hawing.

Humans have driven countless important species to extinction with no thought, but we have to vacillate over a species that is responsible for more deaths than all the wars in human history combined?

My only reservation about driving the mosquitoes to extinction with a gene drive is that we can't guarantee that the mosquitoes will suffer.

When we drove species to extinction before, it was accidental, and it's usually viewed as a huge mistake.

I wouldn't want to be one of the people who advocates for it, and then it turns out to be a giant disaster. The potential risk seems huge and could affect generations. Although I it would be pretty easy to hedge against that risk by keeping some mosquitos/eggs alive in a lab, and if the experiment goes wrong, re-populate the mosquitos.

From an economic perspective, how does the cost of all this research compare to mass producing malaria medicine?

> and then it turns out to be a giant disaster

The purpose of this is to stop the current giant disaster of 1000+ people a day dying from malaria.

I can't help thinking that if this was affecting American middle class neighborhoods where environmentalists live, the mosquitos would be wiped out quicker than plastic straws.

Dont be so sure, I personally believe that alligators and crocodiles should be wiped out but the majority believes that the risk of being eaten alive during a swim in a pond nextdoor is an acceptable risk and the natural right of nature over humans. People have a weird disposition to protect nature beyond what is due. We effectively wiped out wolves from Europe and I personally couldnt be happier that I dont have to worry about a wolf attack or bear attack when I'm out in the forest, cycling.

Wolves wouldn't attack you, I guess you read one too many children's stories. The only possibility would be desperate, starving big pack of wolves and a lone traveler in the middle of nowhere. I've experienced it a bit, alone in winter mountains ski touring and camping, but even then they just carefully observe from distance and then move on.

As for bears, we have them back home in eastern europe, in fact vastly overpopulated given the area available and their territoriality. Practically no attacks on cyclists, hikers etc (yes like 1 every year or two something minor, more people die from ticks and tripping over stones and roots). If you make any noise while in the forest, they will notice you from far and avoid you.

That said, we don't have grizzly or polar bears, those are a bit different and majestic beasts.

As for general discussion, your point doesn't make much sense. We could wipe out just types of mosquitoes responsible for super-deadly diseases like malaria and dengue (and few others) and keep the annoying but otherwise harmless suckers still around. In my subjective opinion we wouldn't even notice the transition (at least not in the bad sense).

Still a threat in some parts of Europe... Including urban centers like Moscow.

I'm not suggesting that we don't address the giant disaster of millions dying from malaria. There is another solution right now: mass produce malaria drugs. How far down would that drive the death toll I wonder.

I actually wonder that too.

My impression is that malaria was wiped out in the rich world by methods that we now deny to Africa, like DDT.

I also believe malaria is a human only disease, so if you cure all sick humans fast enough, the disease dies out, and you're left with mosquitos that only suck blood and are annoying.

I suspect the problem with malaria drugs is not producing them at a factory, but getting them reliably into all sick patients in places where there aren't even doctors or roads.

Anyway, you claim this is a real solution: Is anyone actually ready to do this for real? If not, it's not a real alternative to the gene drive.

"There are over 200 species of malaria. Humans are infected by five. But birds, bats, lizards and antelopes are also hosts for malaria parasites." [1]

So no, unfortunately, curing all the humans will not wipe out malaria. The only real solution is to drive the mosquito vector to extinction, everything else is a temporary half-measure.

[1] https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/ma...

In 1958 China wanted to eradicate 4 pests: the mosquitos responsible for malaria; the rodents that spread the plague; the pervasive airborne flies; and the sparrows which ate grain seed and fruit.

Guess what the result was: it exacerbated the Great Chinese Famine, in which 15–45 million people died of starvation. Because with no sparrows to eat the insects, locust populations ballooned, swarming the country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign

Don't eradicate a species, before you're really sure it's not going to cause much larger problems.

> "Scientists say research conducted so far indicates that the targeted mosquito, Anopheles gambiae, is not a "keystone" species – meaning its disappearance would not have a significant negative ecological effect." [1]

[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/03/01/6987087...

What makes you think they won't come back as bad or worse then before? That's what we did with antibiotics and we ended up with superbugs.

There cannot be any doubt that the world is in a better place because of the presence of antibiotics.

Why not? It’s not as if you have an omniscient point of view and the ability to see the future of both branches. There will always be doubt about complex, unsolvable scenarios.

I think we can safely say the trade off of having antibiotics and a few superbugs, as opposed to no antibiotics where all bugs are superbugs was a good trade off.

yep, the mosquitoes serve no discernible value in the population, I saw go ahead and eradicate them.

Wanting any creature to suffer seems ... problematic.

That goes for wanting humans to suffer too: even the most "evil" among us are doing the best they know how, for some value of "best" that their brains arrive at as a result of the genetic lottery and the "programming" that they've had as a result of their lifetime of experiences. That certainly doesn't mean that we shouldn't vigorously oppose some of the things that such folks try to do. But at least an effort at compassion should be the default response. (As a certain Middle Eastern sage is reputed to have said circa 2,000 years ago: Love your enemies.)

I was being facetious, just wanted to emphasize how little I care about the well-being of the mosquitoes given the horrific suffering and death they have caused.

>As a certain Middle Eastern sage is reputed to have said circa 2,000 years ago: Love your enemies.

That Middle Eastern sage also reputed to have talked about those who would not listen to him being cast into outer darkness where there was weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and the worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched.

>Then there are others who are in general opposed to this sort of interference in an animal population on ethical grounds.

There are over 250,000 children under the age of 5 that die every year from malaria. In my ethical system, there is very little that can possibly justify trying to prevent something that will save the lives of 250,000 children a year. Anyone who actively tries to delay wiping out malaria causing mosquitoes is classified with climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers.

There are legitimate concerns about efficacy (there’s research that suggests that evolution will help mosquitoes escape the gene drive effect, making it useful for only a short period of time) and about unknown ecological consequences (knocking out a primary food source in an ecosystem can have devastating health and economic consequences). That’s not to say it’s not worth it, but it is worth debating and figuring out how to do it correctly. I don’t think it’s fair to say there’s a silver bullet that is being held up by ignorant/uninformed/unethical skeptics.

Do you have any links to the research about evolving to resist the gene drive effect?

There are bio-ethicists arguing that it's wrong to eradicate an entire species. There are also biologists expressing concern about damaging the food chain.

Regarding the former concern, it's only a tiny segment of our world that actually cares whether mosquitoes exist or not as part of some abstract idealism or wishing to preserve biodiversity. Most of us would be beyond happy to see this miserable creature eradicated.

Regarding the food chain, there are some 5,000 species of mosquitoes, of which only about 100 feed on mammalian blood. Out of those 100, nine species carry disease such as malaria and zika. If we only targeted those 9, we'd have a huge win while scarcely affecting the pollination and prey species role of the rest of the family of mosquitoes.

If we targeted the 100, we'd greatly increase the quality of life for not only 7 billion humans but also for tens of millions of mammals made miserable by blood sucking swarms. The great herds of reindeer of northern Canada, for example, deliberately run in single file, to reduce exposure to mosquitoes that swarm around them in the spring. Mosquitoes are a serious parasite up there; one herd animal can lose a pint or more of blood in a single day.

Which ecosystem are human-biting mosquitoes a primary food source in?

The unknown ecosystem changes are concerning.

A few years ago someone might say kill all bees kids are dying. We know better now.

In most places, honeybees are introduced livestock, not a 'natural' part of the ecosystem.

Its not even human-biting... it is the handful of species capable of transmitting certain diseases and parasites, out of thousands of other mosquito species waiting to fill the empty ecological niches.

Long-term, irreversible damages to entire species and ecosystems when perhaps a non-destructive solution is close?

I don't feel like reductive arguments are useful for incredibly complex systems.

Indeed. There is a vaccine being tested right now [0] and still a lot of potential for better coverage with insecticide treated bed nets [1][2] (which are pretty effective) and the number of Malaria cases is actually steadily decreasing [3].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTS,S

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_net#Insecticide-treat...

[2] https://ourworldindata.org/malaria#bed-nets

[3] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/malaria-deaths-by-age

Letting 1000+ people a day die is a non-destructive solution?

You could be killing 100,000 people a day if things go differently than you expect.

Caution is in order.

I am not sure why this is downvoted, this is a legit point. If we eradicate mosquitos and they evolve to survive while creating another problem other than malaria, you literally can end up killing 100000 people every day instead of 1000.

Nobody has a way of eradicating mosquitoes. Particular species of mosquitoes are what is being targeted.

It is inconceivable to me how eradicating the malaria parasite by eradicating a few of the thousands of species of mosquitoes could end up killing hundreds of thousands of people every day. The much more likely scenario is that doing nothing allows the malaria parasite to evolve into something much more deadly (and that is pretty unlikely, given how long malaria has been around).

Clearly no one you know is in the malaria danger zone.

Care to spell out the "100,000 people a day dying" scenario?

Nobody is exactly crying for the guineaworm, and by interrupting its life cycle it may end up being eradicated.

Things that appear black/white seldom are.

Do you believe in evolution? The children who live are more likely to have anti-malaria related genes and so will there kids.

Would you save 250,000 children today just to condemned millions in the future as populations increase and more children as exposed and side effects are discovered.

I would probably save 250,000 kids today but tomorrow when millions more are at risk I will wish I thought longterm.

This was rather insightful.

But seriously I cannot believe that this technology exists, has proven successful in lab test but the reason they're holding it back is because they are afraid of tampering with the eco-system. I'm glad they didn't feel that when eradicating polio and smallpox and other things.

Anyway after reading some more I feel that part of it may be because it is modification to the gene. People are just afraid of some words like "nuclear", "gene", etc.

It seems whenever such technology is part of the solution the progress takes a lot time to happen because we cannot be too catious using it.

It is not because of gene manipulations per se but because by design it is proliferating by itself. Contrast that to a vaccine that turns out to be not safe: administering the vaccine would then just be stopped. If these gene-drive mosquitoes, on the other hand, turn out to be a problem, then there is no easy way to stop that. So better get it right the first time and - as much as you do not seem to like that - that requires time for due diligence.

There is some chance that a modified live vaccine can mutate into a superpathogen that becomes immediately widespread and deadly. There is a theory that this happened with the feline panleukopenia vaccine and that this became canine parvovirus, with rapid, worldwide distribution of the new pathogen. Something to think about when we put 250,000 human lives on one side of the balance and a big question mark on the other, and telling people that there's no good reason to be cautious.

If the actual full-strength virus hasn't managed it why would a live vaccine be any more likely to? It's not going to be replicating very much- it was designed to be bad at actually infecting people but good at provoking an immune response.

Both are possible at any point.

>Contrast that to a vaccine that turns out to be not safe: administering the vaccine would then just be stopped.

The smallpox vaccine which was responsible for the eradication of smallpox was a live virus and could spread from person to person. And through the course of time, it did mutate/become contaminated. It was originally cowpox, but at an unknown time sometime in the 1800's actually became vaccinia virus.

https://www.cdc.gov/smallpox/history/history.html https://virus.stanford.edu/pox/2000/vaccinia_virus.html

So, the great achievements of the past, such as smallpox eradication were not as risk-free as we perceive them with our 20-20 hindsight.

That's not what those links say:

> It is not known whether vaccinia virus is the product of genetic recombination, or if it is a species derived from cowpox virus or variola virus by prolonged serial passage, or if it is the living representative of a now extinct virus.

A problem is the discussion almost immediately derails into the eradication of all mosquitos, such as almost immediately happened right here. My understanding of these experiments is it is the eradication of particular subspecies of mosquitos, the ones able to transmit malaria, dengue fever, zika etc. And the difference is huge; wipe out a dozen subspecies and their ecological niches will be filled by other subspecies of mosquito.

Correct, there are thousands of species of mosquito that do not feed on human blood. The question is whether a genetic weapon could be made specific enough to target only the blood suckers while sparing the pollinators.

The techniques being looked at only target a single species. To spread, it requires interbreeding between species which is rare, and for the the new species to out compete and spread, which is unlikely since the condition is fatal to the carriers of the genetic modification's next generation.