SpeedRacer 1 #1 March 21, 2007 http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/52945/ Interesting stuff. They've cloned in a protein that prevents these transgenic mosquitos from being infected by the protozoa that causes malaria. If the article is correct, then these non-malaria carrying mosquitos will out-compete the other ones. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #2 March 21, 2007 WOOO HOOOOOO! Genetics is good! (I hate having to decide to take anti-malarial meds when I go on some of the medical mission... this would make that decision so much easier!!) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #3 March 21, 2007 The only drawback is their relative size to the old school mosies...Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisL 2 #4 March 21, 2007 Quotehttp://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/52945/ Interesting stuff. They've cloned in a protein that prevents these transgenic mosquitos from being infected by the protozoa that causes malaria. If the article is correct, then these non-malaria carrying mosquitos will out-compete the other ones. Remains to be seen what ill effects this may cause 60 generations down the road. Some things really shouldnt be fucked with. Introducing genetically altered insects into the wild could have unforseen consequenses.__ My mighty steed Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #5 March 21, 2007 QuoteQuotehttp://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/52945/ Interesting stuff. They've cloned in a protein that prevents these transgenic mosquitos from being infected by the protozoa that causes malaria. If the article is correct, then these non-malaria carrying mosquitos will out-compete the other ones. Remains to be seen what ill effects this may cause 60 generations down the road. Some things really shouldnt be fucked with. Introducing genetically altered insects into the wild could have unforseen consequenses. Possibly. But so could continuing to spray tons of pesticides into the environment in order to kill only this mosquito. And so could having lots of people take anti-malaria medicine, or risk catching of malaria. There's consquences either way. This is just another option, which may have better or worse consequences than the options we have now. But it looks like it might be better than what we have right now, because our current options suck. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 385 #6 March 21, 2007 I hear this a lot, since I work in this area. Could you offer some concrete, testable suggestions about what could plausably go wrong that would be worse than 1-5 million dead, and 600 million or more severely sick every year? Blue ones, Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,130 #7 March 21, 2007 >Could you offer some concrete, testable suggestions about what could >plausably go wrong that would be worse than 1-5 million dead, and 600 >million or more severely sick every year? Malarial parasite evolves to overcome new defenses of mosquito; new mutation also makes the parasite resistant to mefloquine, malarone, chloroquine or proguanil. Testing should be performed to make sure this is not a significant risk. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,130 #8 March 21, 2007 >If the article is correct, then these non-malaria carrying mosquitos >will out-compete the other ones. An interesting conundrum. Introduce a new, better pest because it becomes a less effective vector for a disease? What responsibility do the creators bear for the _other_ bad effects that this new organism poses? If the new, better mosquito is better at spreading West Nile or encephalitis, do the creators bear any of the blame for a potential increase in those diseases - even if the incidence of malaria is greatly reduced? As a whole, I'd say yes. But it's a tough call when you're the one who gets sick. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #9 March 21, 2007 Quote>Could you offer some concrete, testable suggestions about what could >plausably go wrong that would be worse than 1-5 million dead, and 600 >million or more severely sick every year? Malarial parasite evolves to overcome new defenses of mosquito; new mutation also makes the parasite resistant to mefloquine, malarone, chloroquine or proguanil. Testing should be performed to make sure this is not a significant risk. I was just thinking how you would go about such testing. The first step would be to make a transgenic Plasmodium that is overcomes the defenses of the transgenic mosquito. shit that doesn't sound like such a good idea, does it? How about if you could show that resistance to the medications involves an entirely seperate biological pathway than the ability of the Plasmodium to implant in the gut? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,130 #10 March 21, 2007 >How about if you could show that resistance to the medications involves >an entirely seperate biological pathway than the ability of the Plasmodium >to implant in the gut? I was thinking more along the lines of a trial. You can get a lot of generations in a year; mosquitos have about a 10-day life cycle in warm temps. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #11 March 22, 2007 i'm all in for it! and everyone should get an SUV! use depleted uranium ammo! eat only at mc'do! i dont know whats more fucked up, humans in general, or our planet..“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gene03 0 #12 March 23, 2007 Do you really need an answer to that question?“The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him. Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gene03 0 #13 March 23, 2007 You got something against Gin and Tonics?“The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him. Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
algboy 0 #14 March 23, 2007 Another great idea brought to you by the folks at The Good Intentions Paving Company Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gene03 0 #15 March 23, 2007 Heh, heh. It's not nice to fool with mother nature.“The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him. Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skiskyrock 0 #16 March 24, 2007 QuoteI hear this a lot, since I work in this area. Could you offer some concrete, testable suggestions about what could plausably go wrong that would be worse than 1-5 million dead, and 600 million or more severely sick every year? Blue ones, Don 1) no longer debilitated by harboring the malarial parasite, mosquitos live longer and expand their geographic range, dengue fever spreads to Boston 2) immunity to malaria also grants the mosquitos immunity to ubermalaria, a previously unknown disease of jungle voles which kills wild type mosquitos in 10 seconds, preventing its spread to humans where it has a similar effect. Transgenic mosquitos spread the new disease far and wide 3) transgenic technique works, but genes are not dominant leading to gradual dilution of the genes in the mosquito population. Malaria reappears after a 15 year hiatus, spreading like wildfire into a new poulation not previously exposed to it 4) transgenic technique works as advertised, human population increases by an additional 1.5M people per year 3 and 4 are testable, 1 and 2 are not. When we release a variable like this into the ecosystem, that is going to be the experiment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #17 March 24, 2007 Humans have often thrown caution to the wind ... Could we have done better, yes. Could we have done worse, yes. Is something better than nothing, usually. After all, humans do (in general) have a longer life expectancy today."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #18 March 24, 2007 QuoteHumans have often thrown caution to the wind ... Could we have done better, yes. Could we have done worse, yes. Is something better than nothing, usually. After all, humans do (in general) have a longer life expectancy today. I agree.... change is full of possibility and unintended consequens. [heavy sarcasm]Yeah... who needs to move forward with science. That penicillin stuff was dangerous!!! Look at where we are now, some bacteria are resistant to antibiotics - never should have even started with it. The lives saved aren't worth all the fears of MRSA. And some could include even coming down out of the tress as a bad decision....[/sarcasm] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
