View Full Version : Genetically Modified Mosquitos
j4bberw0ck
20-Mar-07, 11:18
Some facts:
1. Malaria kills more than 1 million people a year
2. 90% of malaria deaths occur among young children in sub-Saharan Africa
3. The disease costs Africa $12bn (£6.2bn) in lost GDP and consumes 40% of public health spending
4. 60% of malaria deaths strike the poorest 20% of the global population
5. 71% of all deaths from malaria are in the under-fives
6. Children can die within 48 hours after the first symptoms appear.
So, given that malaria is a monstrous killer of children, a solution looks as though it might be available soon (http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,,2038169,00.html) - genetically modified mosquitos that cannot pass on the parasite which causes malaria in humans.
"This has tremendous potential. You can start with a few mosquitoes and in future generations, all of them are resistant to the disease. It should be much cheaper than the controls used now, because you have a strategy where the mosquito spreads the gene which confers resistance. You don't need insecticides any more""
What do you think? I've not included a "maybe" variant because that's too easy; pretend you're a politician and must act now.
"Yes" risks putting GM insects into the environment that might possibly pass their genetic heritage to other insects, without our having any knowledge of what it might do. It risks more deadly forms of malaria.
"No" condemns allows more than a million people a year to die - 7 in 10 are under 5 years old.
Whitewater
20-Mar-07, 11:34
My response has to be yes. I think it is perhaps a touch risky, these mosquitos sound great and if the can eradicate the disease we should go for it. If the GM mosquitos can block the disease and eventually wipe out the others I don't see too much risk, but because nature has been changed by man we often wonder in the long term just what the overal result might be, but I think it worth taking the chance.
Pretty loaded poll there jaberwock with the "no, let them die" answer.
I think it would be fairer if you had said something along the lines of, "no, let's find another way to combat malaria".
changilass
20-Mar-07, 11:43
Have to agree with you on this one darkman, had the wording of the poll been different, then I may just have voted, as it is I amint gonna bother[disgust]
Yes, sorry, it just ain't that simple because there are too many what'ifs. What's wrong with mass inoculation? If someone from this country is visiting a malarial country they have to take something - not sure what because I haven't done it but either pills or a jab. Much less dangerous to do this on a massive scale. The mosquito idea sounds good but I have a nasty feeling it could be another Pandora's box and once millions of these things were let loose, who knows what might happen?
j4bberw0ck
20-Mar-07, 12:18
Pretty loaded poll there jaberwock with the "no, let them die" answer.
I think it would be fairer if you had said something along the lines of, "no, let's find another way to combat malaria".
I know. I thought about putting in a "Third Way" as Our Blair might say but decided against it because here we have a way, apparently, of solving the problem. BUT, and it's a big but, it involves another highly emotive topic - GM. A third way would have more or less guaranteed 100% voting for the third way - it's a less stark way of voting "let them die" with a rider on it "for the time being". More politically correct, if you like.
I think your disinclination to vote is interesting, because it's the old "let's avoid a stark choice that someone could use to accuse me of not caring" gambit beloved of politicians everywhere. No one wants to abandon a million African children. No one wants to take the risk of unleashing a GM "incident". But someone , somewhere, has to choose, and here, you have the power to make the choice without anyone truly getting hurt.
So, you're a politician; you decide. And it's anonymous so no one will know the disgraceful depths of your political incorrectness!
j4bberw0ck
20-Mar-07, 12:22
What's wrong with mass inoculation? If someone from this country is visiting a malarial country they have to take something - not sure what because I haven't done it but either pills or a jab. Much less dangerous to do this on a massive scale
You can't. Your can't take the antimalarials prescribed to holidaymakers for an extended period. Plus African countries don't have the money, the distribution channels, the monitoring and control. They have corrupt leaders with a track record of taking aid money and aid goods and selling them to line their Swiss bank accounts (Mugabe is estimated to have £4,000,000,000 - £4 billion! - sitting in foreign bank accounts).
The mosquito idea sounds good but I have a nasty feeling it could be another Pandora's box and once millions of these things were let loose, who knows what might happen?
Exactly. So you have it in your power to save all these people. What do you decide?
Can't answer your poll due to the wording of the No option...
The whole GM thing is something we shouldn't be meddling with - we create a new strain of mossies and we have no idea what will happen 50 years down the road. It could make things a whole lot worse...
I voted yes, obviously I don't have to make the decision in reality, which is just as well as I'd be ill-qualified to do so! :confused
I would prefer a "middle way" of course.
But if I had to choose, I'd say yes. This is partly because I've only recently begun to grasp what a big problem malaria is in Africa and I've been quite shocked by the discovery.
Pretty loaded poll there jaberwock with the "no, let them die" answer.
I think it would be fairer if you had said something along the lines of, "no, let's find another way to combat malaria".
I agree - dodgy poll wording - nobody wants children or adults to die for any reason - stupid to word the poll that way.
Personally, I think it's too early days to say if this could work, but great if it does, seeing as all the medications in this country at least are becoming less effective as the disease is evolving to overcome them.
I hope it works...............................
Well...I agree that Jw0ck could have worded the "no" option differently (and perhaps in a less 'loaded' way)....
but I took it to mean "they are dying now and if we do nothing they will continue to die"...which seems to me to be the case, so the end result is the same: they die.
and that's why I voted yes!
crashbandicoot1979
20-Mar-07, 14:21
I voted yes but its a bit tentative to be honest as I'm against GM as a whole. Although if it can be shown to be for the greater good, then maybe its worth the risk.
And for what its worth, the wording of the poll didn't bother me. Its a simple yes or no as far as I was concerned.
Other more affluent countries have managed to control malaria, so it is possible with the financial will. Is the answer to embark on a GM experiment in a country already suffering from just about every deprivation imaginable? Do they not suffer enough? These people have no say in these matters and put their trust in those offering possible solutions.
Let's see initial trials in America - release the first batch in those areas in USA that still have a problem with malaria. If all goes well then Africa could benefit.
In the meantime, if we genuinely want to help, let's put our hands in our pockets and donate to all the alternatives available -
http://www.who.int/features/2005/malaria/en/
j4bberw0ck
20-Mar-07, 14:35
stupid to word the poll that way
Not at all; you're demonstrating why I did when you say "no one wants people to die". Of course they don't, but if GM mozzies are a way of stopping it happen, why don't you vote "yes"?. Or, if you think the risks are too great (greater than the deaths of a million, because you feel there's a real chance than GM insects could kill even more people), then have the courage of your convictions, and vote "No". The wording was deliberate to force a decision; any fudging, and "wait and see", any "there'll be something else along soon" is an implicit, if not explicit, "No" vote...... as Angela has immediately seen.
I hope it works...............................
What? The GM mozzies? Then why not vote "Yes"? Or would it be that you wouldn't take a decision but would be happy to let someone else take it? :lol:
j4bberw0ck
20-Mar-07, 14:39
Other more affluent countries have managed to control malaria, so it is possible with the financial will. Is the answer to embark on a GM experiment in a country already suffering from just about every deprivation imaginable? Do they not suffer enough? These people have no say in these matters and put their trust in those offering possible solutions.
That'd be "No, let them die", then?
It's not just about financial help. Financial help and aid help makes dictators richer. To make financial help work, you'd need a complete change in African politics and sociology - not to mention putting in some infrastructure like proper power generation and distribution and roads that'd have the climate change junkies yowling like banshees.
Perhaps the West should invade one African nation after another to solve their problems?
j4bberw0ck
20-Mar-07, 14:42
Its a simple yes or no as far as I was concerned.
Chalk up another for common sense! Well said. Within the definition of the question, that's exactly what it is.
j4bberw0ck
20-Mar-07, 14:46
Can't answer your poll due to the wording of the No option...
Sorry, MadPict - that's the bitter truth of it. Dressing it up doesn't change it. Just means people can be mealy-mouthed and rationalise away their guilt. How's yours, by the way? Rationalised away yet? :lol:
That'd be "No, let them die", then?
It's not just about financial help. Financial help and aid help makes dictators richer. To make financial help work, you'd need a complete change in African politics and sociology - not to mention putting in some infrastructure like proper power generation and distribution and roads that'd have the climate change junkies yowling like banshees.
Perhaps the West should invade one African nation after another to solve their problems?
No j4bberwock NOT 'No, let me them die' BUT 'No it's too much of a risk' - this could cause even more tradegy and death for these people. Neither you nor 'they, the scientists' know what they are playing with/unleashing.
As I said - run trials in America or some other country where the people/government are able to look after themselves/reverse the experiment if it all goes wrong.
I didn't suggest giving money to the government I've sent money to charities/organisations involved in working in these regions - providing chemicals and nets and educating these people on how best to protect themselves until a solution is found. Maybe that solution will involve GM mosquitoes but do not experiment with these people.
j4bberw0ck
20-Mar-07, 15:59
No j4bberwock NOT 'No, let me them die' BUT 'No it's too much of a risk' -
Sorry, misunderstood. But the outcome is the same.
As I said - run trials in America or some other country where the people/government are able to look after themselves/reverse the experiment if it all goes wrong.
Maybe that solution will involve GM mosquitoes but do not experiment with these people.Unrealistic, from a liability point of view. Another view would be that if you were terminally ill with cancer and someone came along and said they had a drug which would cure you of the cancer, but you'd only have a 50/50 chance of living, wouldn't you do it? It's not altogether an unreasonable comparison.
I didn't suggest giving money to the government I've sent money to charities/organisations involved in working in these regions - providing chemicals and nets and educating these people on how best to protect themselves until a solution is found.
Government aid is what I was talking about; given as cash it vanishes, when aid is given as goods or drugs, it disappears and is sold on the black market to those who have money. Donations to charities are fine but charities can only deal with a very few people because of political restrictions and lack of infrastructure (no power / no roads as previously remarked).
Here, there's a chance to solve the problem. Mosquitos don't need roads or power and don't give a hoot about corrupt officials (they probably all taste like chicken anyway, even to a mosquito). C'mon, Kitty May - can you decide?
I voted 'No, let them die' because in a warming world Mankind needs to be resilient to mosquito bites and by keeping third world 5 year old children alive to maturity then we are just weakening the human gene pool to perpeptual disease...it is a Darwinian thing sorry...mess with mother nature and she is sure to bite you back someday somehow.
Hmmm, kill the mossies or let the little squirmy things die.... can I ask the audience? I would have kinda liked some questions in the middle since I am not a great fan of let's irradiate the bugs and make them mutate. Nor would I sanction letting loads of nice kids die. Can I choose the invisible question in the middle?:eek:
j4bberw0ck
20-Mar-07, 20:03
Hmmm, kill the mossies or let the little squirmy things die.... can I ask the audience? I would have kinda liked some questions in the middle since I am not a great fan of let's irradiate the bugs and make them mutate. Nor would I sanction letting loads of nice kids die. Can I choose the invisible question in the middle?:eek:
Nope!
There is no question in the middle....... (http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=203389&postcount=14)
I couldn't vote Yes because the cure might well, in fact probably would, be worse than the disease. Would the new mosquitoes kill the old ones or would they mutate into something much worse? Suppose some countries agreed to have them and some didn't - how would you restrict them? If we worry about GM crops spreading where they're not wanted, how much worse mosquitoes?
I don't know what all this research cost but am sure the money would have been better spent finding a cure or some other means of preventing the disease spreading. Clean water would be a start. Corruption is rife and we know a lot of the money poured into Africa does more harm than good - it would be better spent going in there and doing the work to improve things.
Unrealistic, from a liability point of view. Another view would be that if you were terminally ill with cancer and someone came along and said they had a drug which would cure you of the cancer, but you'd only have a 50/50 chance of living, wouldn't you do it? It's not altogether an unreasonable comparison.
Fair enough, I might choose to experiment with the drug but that's not to say that the guy in the next bed will make a similar decision.
Who's going to ask all these people in Africa if they fancy having a crack at GM mosquitoes? Will they be told 'We don't have a clue what the long term repercussions might be'?
What if half the population want to take the chance and the other half don't? Or is it simply a case of we in the west know best and to hell with what they want?
Here, there's a chance to solve the problem. Mosquitos don't need roads or power and don't give a hoot about corrupt officials (they probably all taste like chicken anyway, even to a mosquito). C'mon, Kitty May - can you decide?
I cannot condone experimentation on these people. If there's a liability risk attached to this in the rest of the world, it applies to Africa as well.
The basic essentials of clean water, a plentiful supply of food and shelter are fundamental needs - and we can't even supply that.
I wonder how much genetically modifying a mosquito costs? And how many lives that same amount might have saved?
I simply don't have the stomach for it. So jabberwock, I'm afraid I can't/won't vote in your poll.
I voted 'No, let them die' because in a warming world Mankind needs to be resilient to mosquito bites and by keeping third world 5 year old children alive to maturity then we are just weakening the human gene pool to perpeptual disease...it is a Darwinian thing sorry...mess with mother nature and she is sure to bite you back someday somehow.Are they being weakened or is evolution going to make them more resilient in future an it's the so-called civillized west that are going to have to worry about malaria in the future?
danc1ngwitch
20-Mar-07, 22:02
Do we not have modified crops?
Lets us modify mozzies,
And then let us watch as man destroys himself,
but not before he modifys himself.
j4bberw0ck
20-Mar-07, 23:56
I don't know what all this research cost but am sure the money would have been better spent finding a cure or some other means of preventing the disease spreading. Clean water would be a start. Corruption is rife and we know a lot of the money poured into Africa does more harm than good - it would be better spent going in there and doing the work to improve things.
A very simple way of controlling mosquitos would be the reintroduction of DDT. Very cheap, very effective. As for clean water, providing clean drinking water would be a good start on preventing cholera and parasitic diseases, but mosquitos breed in stagnant puddles and ponds; cleaning all of them up isn't an option. As before; no infrastructure, no resources.
Cost per mosquito is surely so close to zero as to be indistinguishable from it.
Jeemag_USA
21-Mar-07, 00:49
Pretty loaded poll there jaberwock with the "no, let them die" answer.
I think it would be fairer if you had said something along the lines of, "no, let's find another way to combat malaria".
My thoughts exactly. terrible poll sorry to say. genetically modifying any creature is bad news. Scientists have no idea wether their GM'd creature may have side affects such as becoming succeptible to some other disease like aids as a result of their modification. Any time man interferes with nature in the field it hurts something else and its folly! Nature controls nature, not man!
If you introduce a flu vaccine, you make existing flu viruses stronger. If you introduce a new mosquito, it may have an adverse effect on normal mosquitos and cause them to mutate to something else more dangerous to counter whats happening to them, nature will always find a way. If mosquitos cause malaria and malaria causes death, then thats the way nature intended it unfortunately.
j4bberw0ck
21-Mar-07, 10:09
terrible poll sorry to say. genetically modifying any creature is bad news. Scientists have no idea wether their GM'd creature may have side affects such as becoming succeptible to some other disease like aids as a result of their modification. Any time man interferes with nature in the field it hurts something else and its folly! Nature controls nature, not man.
I'm sorry you think it's a terrible poll (I'm assuming you mean it's a terribly-worded poll rather than a terrible decision to have to take); the not-terrible way would presumably have been to put in a third option along the lines of "let's all work harder to find another way". Which as I said above is an implicit, if not explicit, vote for "let them die" (http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=203361&postcount=6). After all, if it takes 10 years to find another method which could be as effective as this one might be, well, it's only 10 million African children less, isn't it? Where's the problem?
So the questions are phrased so as to force a choice between greater good of greatest numbers, or to abdicate from the question altogether - which is another way of voting "let them die". Both are extremely emotive issues (interesting, Jeemag, that while sounding off against any genetic modification you didn't mention African children once!).
Perhaps philosophy should find its way back on to school agendas..... we have a world full of people afraid to express a decision because they think the question sounds awful. Turning it on its head, we only answer questions which are acceptable in form.
I don't want to get on to gorbal worming in this thread but can anyone see a similarity between this question and questions in an acceptable form about climate change? :lol::lol:
Is it certain that these gm mosquetos would eradicate the current population or wouldn't they just breed with them creating another stronger, more resilient carrier of the disease?
Some facts:
1. Malaria kills more than 1 million people a year
2. 90% of malaria deaths occur among young children in sub-Saharan Africa
3. The disease costs Africa $12bn (£6.2bn) in lost GDP and consumes 40% of public health spending
4. 60% of malaria deaths strike the poorest 20% of the global population
5. 71% of all deaths from malaria are in the under-fives
6. Children can die within 48 hours after the first symptoms appear.
.
J4bberw0ck, you forgot one fact: in a few years the malaria mosquito will start enroaching on european soil. The weather patterns are changing and sothern europe is already worried about malaria infested mosquitos starting to establish populations on the european continent. With changing weather patterns it is possible that it can spread to England (if not the whole UK....though I find it hard to believe that the North of Scotland will ever be balmy, I am not the mosquito or climate change scientist). This fact may even change their minds on their opinion of releasing GM Mosquito's into the wild....
As for my opinion: It's difficult to balance the human lives saved against maintaining the purity of the enviroment, down to the insects. When we mess around with genes, we do so hoping and thinking we know the consequences and that they are not as bad as believed. But genes are so complex and our science of their functioning still rudimentary (was it only 60 years ago that Crick et al deleved into the basics of what DNA was and how it worked?). If I was not confronted with the faces of the people affected by this disease I would say it would be safer and more important to develope vaccination against malaria ( people are working hard at it, but with insufficient sucess). If I had to make a decision looking at the people affected I would say release the GMmosquito
Yes, sorry, it just ain't that simple because there are too many what'ifs. What's wrong with mass inoculation? If someone from this country is visiting a malarial country they have to take something - not sure what because I haven't done it but either pills or a jab. Much less dangerous to do this on a massive scale. The mosquito idea sounds good but I have a nasty feeling it could be another Pandora's box and once millions of these things were let loose, who knows what might happen?
They have to take pills starting a day before leaving and carrying on for a week after leaving the malarial area. Pregnant women and children cannot take it. And it is not licensed for more than 1 month use. Even IF it could be taken continuosly, how on earth could third world countries afford to give their populations tablets for malaria when they get paracetamol (if they are lucky) and a prayer for gangrene?
j4bberw0ck
22-Mar-07, 14:30
Is it certain that these gm mosquetos would eradicate the current population or wouldn't they just breed with them creating another stronger, more resilient carrier of the disease?
I don't know, darkman. It says so in the article linked to. That's one of the risks, were GM mosquitos to be used.
J4bberw0ck, you forgot one fact: in a few years the malaria mosquito will start enroaching on european soil.
Fair point, _Ju_, but in reality it doesn't change anything because IF these mosquitos were to be released it follows inevitably that we'd lose control of them. The facts were about malaria itself; the spread of GM and GM hybrid mosquitos are part of the risk of using them.
As for my opinion: It's difficult to balance the human lives saved against maintaining the purity of the enviroment, down to the insects. When we mess around with genes, we do so hoping and thinking we know the consequences and that they are not as bad as believed. But genes are so complex and our science of their functioning still rudimentary (was it only 60 years ago that Crick et al deleved into the basics of what DNA was and how it worked?). If I was not confronted with the faces of the people affected by this disease I would say it would be safer and more important to develope vaccination against malaria ( people are working hard at it, but with insufficient sucess). If I had to make a decision looking at the people affected I would say release the GMmosquito
And there lies the crux of the problem. Is it better to risk a possibly huge unknown risk in the long term to offset a million deaths a year in the short term? Part of the issue with GM is that no one fully understands how genes are switched on or off - or why - and there's evidence suggesting that genes are switched on and off by the effects of environment. So if our mozzie finds itself in a different environment (say mid-Europe, or the Middle East, or even the Americas, Australasia or the Far East), who's to say that a genetic variant wouldn't arise with properties - possibly dangerous - we can't predict? It might not be immediate; it might be in the tenth, hundredth, thousandth, or ten thousandth generation.
The only logical answer, going back to the deliberate yes / no phrasing of the options, is "no - let them die", because you're balancing a known loss (which will happen anyway) against unknown consequences (which won't happen if the mosquitos aren't used). But like _Ju_, if I had to look the people affected in the eye and make the decision I think I'd be for letting the insects out and feeling as though I'd be damned forever if I didn't.
They have to take pills starting a day before leaving and carrying on for a week after leaving the malarial area. Pregnant women and children cannot take it. And it is not licensed for more than 1 month use. Even IF it could be taken continuosly, how on earth could third world countries afford to give their populations tablets for malaria when they get paracetamol (if they are lucky) and a prayer for gangrene?
Thanks, _Ju_. Exatamente.
I'm still slightly bemused by the reaction of those who said "I wont / can't vote" simply because they didn't like the options. Won't / can't vote is directly equivalent for a vote for "let them die", as is a vote for "wait while we develop a vaccine / treatment". Perhaps we've been pampered, as a society, into being able to avoid questions and answers with unpleasant consequences.
<edit>But don't you just feel uneasy pressing the "no" button?</edit>
A very simple way of controlling mosquitos would be the reintroduction of DDT. Very cheap, very effective. As for clean water, providing clean drinking water would be a good start on preventing cholera and parasitic diseases, but mosquitos breed in stagnant puddles and ponds; cleaning all of them up isn't an option. As before; no infrastructure, no resources.
Not much use if the water is going to be full of DDT...... history of the use of DDT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT . Considering that DDT was detected in top predators (whales and bears) in the artic (where it wasn't used extensively), showing it's ability to accumulate and spread all over the world, and it's affects not being known (is it carcinogenic?), I don't think it would be a good idea to use it.
I tend to look at companies who proclaim the benefits and benevolence of their work messing around with the genetic makeup of plants and animals with great scepticism. Only a few decades ago I remember a seed company claiming to have created bumper crop varieties resistant to drought and disease that would banish famine in Africa. All very nice, but the catch was that the company also altered the gene code making any seed grown from theirs sterile. How benevolent of them: force communities into having to buy from them again and again and again...... and what if cross polinization introduced the sterility gene into other plants, into the enviroment?
Still, looking at a child dying of hunger, with a packet of seed in my hand that could save his family this year...I wouldn't be able to refuse them that option, just as I would find it very difficult to do so with the malaria question.
j4bberw0ck
23-Mar-07, 15:55
Not much use if the water is going to be full of DDT...... history of the use of DDT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT . Considering that DDT was detected in top predators (whales and bears) in the artic (where it wasn't used extensively), showing it's ability to accumulate and spread all over the world, and it's affects not being known (is it carcinogenic?), I don't think it would be a good idea to use it.
Truthfully, neither do I; at the point where it was banned it was turning up in mothers' breast milk, babies livers and just about everywhere else.
Believe it or not, it was my misplaced sense of humour behind making the point. In my own warped little way I was trying to point out the irony of there being a highly effective, cheap-to-produce insecticide that's relatively easy to distribute by aerial spraying - but it's potentially too dangerous to use, even in a place where millions die a miserable death. And here we are playing with GM insects which is a hugely more complex and potentially dangerous cure for the problem. I'm not against genetic experimentation, or genetic modification per se because it adds to the body of knowledge about genes / genetics / inheritance and lots of other fields - and one day, we'll need that knowledge.
But I'm not sure that we know enough yet to go releasing GM anything into the wild.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.