A second concern is that the engineered lethality gene could somehow be transferred to other environmentally-important insects, such as those vital for pollination.
Really? And they still released them into the wild? What about the consequences for other species that consume those mosquitoes as part of their diet?
I'm still amazed at how we humans consider ourselves so wise to keep messing around with nature in this way, just to keep one disease under control.
Nature has been messing with itself for billions of years. It's called evolution.
The whole point of human intelligence is control over our environment. Yes, there are risks, and always will be risks. But that does not mean we should not act.
Easy for you to be all high and mighty on your horse since you and your loved ones aren't the one dying from disease.
We should never disregard the risk of any of our actions, but the fears you are putting forward are exagurated and unwarranted. Other species that consume mosquitoes might be at risk? You make it sound like they radioactive mutants. You do realize that you don't assimilate the DNA of things you eat right? It doesn't matter how the DNA of a mosquito is structured when it goes into the belly of a bird, it's all ripped apart into the basic building blocks.
Let's not forget, mankind has been genetically engineering various species for many thousands of years. We're just better at it now.
We've cross-bred dogs to get the desirable traits. We've domesticated animals through breeding. We've cross-bred plants to get pretty flowers or tasty (or hearty) fruits and vegetables.
I don't think this is a real concern, for two reasons: first, how should such a "transfer of genes" to another species proceed? This is not how it works.
Secondly, these genes are pretty much self-regulating; they disappear from the population in one generation. They almost certainly won't be in the ecosystem long enough in order to play a role in any improbable scenario.
> first, how should such a "transfer of genes" to another species proceed? This is not how it works.
Couldn't a viral infection do this? Some virus that existed inside the mosquito could be modified by (or modify itself in response to) this generic engineering and then transfered to an unintended host.
> They almost certainly won't be in the ecosystem long enough
Your use of absolutes here (with respect to the unknown) makes me want to turn on the news and wait for the big announcement that this new breed of mosquitos has unknowingly caused an undead plague in Africa ;)
NOTE: I am not saying this should have never been tested. I am just surprised how little is known before a public trial was executed.
I still don't see how exactly. E.g., even if it "modified itself in response to this genetic engineering" then it wouldn't really transfer the lethal gene into another species, would it?
> Your use of absolutes here (...)
Which absolutes exactly are you talking about? :) Nothing absolute in the "almost certainly" statement, in my opinion.
> I am just surprised how little is known before a public trial was executed.
> Which absolutes exactly are you talking about? :) Nothing absolute in the "almost certainly" statement, in my opinion.
heh, very true. I was just having some fun and wanted to work zombie-apocalypse into my reply somewhere :)
> What do you mean by "is known"?
NPR covered this on science friday I think 2 or 3 weeks ago with folks close to the project (not from the project, but familiar with it) and all these same questions about how this will spread in the wild, what could go wrong and if it had been tested in any large-scale deployments all seemed to be questions that were up-in-the-air.
There wasn't any concrete comments like: "The team did a test deployment in a quarantined marsh and published the results".
I had the impression from that show (and this story) that the path from conception to design to deployment was really fast.
I am not a geneticist though. It is very possible that this type of work is not something to lose sleep over and I have too many Hollywood premises running through my head.
Monsanto said the same thing about their genetically enhanced crop. Now those genes that rendered those crops resistant to roundup, have been transfered to other plants such as amaranto.
I think this severely understates this "one disease". Malaria is estimated to have been the cause of death of 50% of all humans who have ever lived. While it's obviously much less deadly than that today, it's still a severe disease and merits heavy countermeasures.
Sickle-cell anemia is my favorite illustration of just how awful malaria is. This disease is caused by having two copies of a particular gene. Without modern medical care, the sufferer dies quickly. A single copy of the gene, however, confers resistance to malaria. In parts of the world where the sickle-cell gene is found, malaria was so devastating that a gene which had a 25% mortality rate in children where both parents have it was evolutionarily selected for, because the disease it helped protect against was even worse.
Really? And they still released them into the wild? What about the consequences for other species that consume those mosquitoes as part of their diet?
I'm still amazed at how we humans consider ourselves so wise to keep messing around with nature in this way, just to keep one disease under control.