For those interested, I would suggest checking out Spillover by David Quammen. It goes into detail on why eradicating/eliminating zoonotic diseases isn't really feasible without also eradicating the host populations. I stumbled onto it and read it early on during SARS-CoV-2, it will give you a new perspective on the management of disease in general.
As for eradicating host populations/mosquitoes, it's not the greatest idea. Ecosystems are complicated and don't generally benefit from that sort of interference. Maybe if it's a recently invasive species, sure, as long as other species don't get inadvertently by-caught. Drastically simplifying - birds need to eat too, and they tried to do this style of ecosystem management in the past and it has had brutally adverse effects for ecosystem stability.
I think that this is an incredible development, but also seems kind of destabilizing. It's hard to say without seeming or being callous, that it seems good now, but we need to try to predict outcomes far into the future. That is to say - people think they are smart to have done it, and yeah it's doable, but is it really such a great idea to throw such a series of proverbial monkey wrenches into our proverbial biological engines?
> As for eradicating host populations/mosquitoes, it's not the greatest idea...birds need to eat too
This is a false dichotomy. Malaria is transmitted by only specific and very small subset of mosquitoes. There would still be plenty of mosquitoes if you eliminate the ones that cause unimaginably massive population harm.
I've yet to hear a single ecologist equivocate on eliminating aedes aegypti, the primary vector for the worst vector borne diseases, and have heard many endorse the idea. Even so, things like Wolbachia give a means of effectively inoculating the vector.
The sheer amount of human and animal* suffering caused by mosquito-borne diseases speaks strongly in favor of mosquito eradication. Over half a million people died of malaria in 2022 alone, over three quarters of them children - even if there are ecological risks, they need to be weighed against allowing that suffering to continue.
It's a Verily project that causes population collapse in mosquitoes like aedes aegypti by rendering the males infertile.
> Aedes aegypti mosquitoes carry dengue, chikungunya, Zika and yellow fever diseases which have a large and growing impact on human health. They live almost exclusively in close association with humans, don’t fly very far compared to some mosquito species and are particularly difficult to attack using traditional methods, such as pesticides and source reduction of breeding sites.They’re also extensively studied in many labs around the world. We hope what we learn with the Aedes aegypti in the field will be helpful in developing new ways of tackling other mosquitoes and the diseases they transmit.
I bet those same ecologists that endorse eliminating Aedes aegypti have taken their fair share of mosquito bites, too. Not that it takes anything away from their credibility.
Wow, the Wikipedia article on Wolbachia is absolutely fascinating, thanks. I guess now they will push Wolbachia into Anopheles and use it as another control against malaria.
As I understand the situation with mosquito eradication, there are highly specific places where mosquitos are a critical source of biomass (I think the Arctic tundra was one example). In all other places they are completely and utterly worthless. Blood-eating (never mind species that are parasite vectors) are also a tiny percentage of the overall biodiversity, the nectar species could easily fill the gap.
Mosquitos are an extremely important food source for countless animals especially aquatic species. The gap won't be filled. The animals that rely on them for food will just die off
There's a big difference between eliminating all mosquitoes and eliminating just malaria-carrying mosquito species. IIRC studies show that if you eliminate malaria-carrying mosquito species that other mosquito species very quickly take over this ecological niche.
We have already thrown and will throw a lot of wrenches into the works. We have extensively reshaped the planet to the benefit of some species and the detriment of many others.
It's a risk, but it's not worse than the thousands of other risks we've already taken. Given the absolutely insane amount of death and suffering caused by mosquito-borne diseases, it's probably also a justifiable one.
I had this idea when I was 7. I would spend all day outside and get tons of mosquito bites, but also sometimes I would go to the doctor to get shots. They seemed to me to be not entirely different things, so I would wonder why they couldn't just put the shots into mosquitos, since they didn't hurt as much.
I could not read the whole article because It wanted me to create a account, but it seens very Unethical, inoculating people without their knowledge... .
You regularly get inject people with unknown DNA and mRNA without their consent, e.g. sneezing at work.
It's much more ethical to do this with something tested for safety than with the newest flues, colds, and covids spreading. That's not to mention RSV, HSV, HPV, and all the others, as well as unknown diseases.
Unless you continue to mask and take similar precautions, you have no basis for this assertion. The things you spread have had no safety testing, and in many cases, lead to specific impacts like long covid, increased age-related mental decline, increased odds of cancer, and others.
> Informed consent is an essential pre-condition to providing immunization
Why does the consent need to be collected individually? We don't even require collective sign off for the factory fumes we each breathe daily. It seems reasonable for a government to consent on behalf of its governed for something like public health.
You may want to look into the Doctor's Trial at Nuremberg for why governments cannot be trusted to make decisions for citizens in the name of "public health".
Man, the conspiracy theorists are going to have a field day with this news, but I think this is great! While I'd still prefer we just eradicate the disease carrying mosquito population entirely, this keeps our enemy in the ecosystem where they can be some other critter's breakfast while still helping to mitigate one of the worst harms they cause us.
> conspiracy theorists are going to have a field day with this news
From what I've been able to tell, conspiracy theorists are hosts unto themselves. If you have the chance to talk to one deep in the weeds in person, it's fascinating how you can throw out literally any assertion, back it up with negative evidence ("can't really go into that"), and see the pick up. (It's best to do this outside your own context. As an American, it's easier to see the nonsense abroad.)
How is it great? It's the equivalent of someone coming up to you with a needle full of something and stabbing you with it (that they already stabbed other people with) without your consent.
I just don't see how injecting people with genetically modified parasites without their consent is "great".
The entire problem is that we can't stop someone (namely Mr. Mosquito) from coming up to us with a needle full of something and stabbing us with it (that they already stabbed other people with) without our consent.
I'd much prefer we got rid of Mr. Mosquito, but if we won't (or can't) we can at least make sure that what's in that jerk's needle stops killing people every day.
Readit News
As for eradicating host populations/mosquitoes, it's not the greatest idea. Ecosystems are complicated and don't generally benefit from that sort of interference. Maybe if it's a recently invasive species, sure, as long as other species don't get inadvertently by-caught. Drastically simplifying - birds need to eat too, and they tried to do this style of ecosystem management in the past and it has had brutally adverse effects for ecosystem stability.
I think that this is an incredible development, but also seems kind of destabilizing. It's hard to say without seeming or being callous, that it seems good now, but we need to try to predict outcomes far into the future. That is to say - people think they are smart to have done it, and yeah it's doable, but is it really such a great idea to throw such a series of proverbial monkey wrenches into our proverbial biological engines?
This is a false dichotomy. Malaria is transmitted by only specific and very small subset of mosquitoes. There would still be plenty of mosquitoes if you eliminate the ones that cause unimaginably massive population harm.
*: e.g. heartworm in dogs
https://verily.com/solutions/public-health/debug
It's a Verily project that causes population collapse in mosquitoes like aedes aegypti by rendering the males infertile.
> Aedes aegypti mosquitoes carry dengue, chikungunya, Zika and yellow fever diseases which have a large and growing impact on human health. They live almost exclusively in close association with humans, don’t fly very far compared to some mosquito species and are particularly difficult to attack using traditional methods, such as pesticides and source reduction of breeding sites.They’re also extensively studied in many labs around the world. We hope what we learn with the Aedes aegypti in the field will be helpful in developing new ways of tackling other mosquitoes and the diseases they transmit.
Wow, the Wikipedia article on Wolbachia is absolutely fascinating, thanks. I guess now they will push Wolbachia into Anopheles and use it as another control against malaria.
There's a big difference between eliminating all mosquitoes and eliminating just malaria-carrying mosquito species. IIRC studies show that if you eliminate malaria-carrying mosquito species that other mosquito species very quickly take over this ecological niche.
It's a risk, but it's not worse than the thousands of other risks we've already taken. Given the absolutely insane amount of death and suffering caused by mosquito-borne diseases, it's probably also a justifiable one.
Dead Comment
And it turns out, you can!
Dead Comment
When you were 7, did you yearn for modified parasites?
His example was a cat and a slug. He would absolutely love modified parasites.
It's much more ethical to do this with something tested for safety than with the newest flues, colds, and covids spreading. That's not to mention RSV, HSV, HPV, and all the others, as well as unknown diseases.
Unless you continue to mask and take similar precautions, you have no basis for this assertion. The things you spread have had no safety testing, and in many cases, lead to specific impacts like long covid, increased age-related mental decline, increased odds of cancer, and others.
Why does the consent need to be collected individually? We don't even require collective sign off for the factory fumes we each breathe daily. It seems reasonable for a government to consent on behalf of its governed for something like public health.
Does it? How can you guarantee that your government's interpretation of "public health" matches yours?
It would likely turn into the status quo: a bastard disease spread by mosquitoes.
Dead Comment
From what I've been able to tell, conspiracy theorists are hosts unto themselves. If you have the chance to talk to one deep in the weeds in person, it's fascinating how you can throw out literally any assertion, back it up with negative evidence ("can't really go into that"), and see the pick up. (It's best to do this outside your own context. As an American, it's easier to see the nonsense abroad.)
I just don't see how injecting people with genetically modified parasites without their consent is "great".
I'd much prefer we got rid of Mr. Mosquito, but if we won't (or can't) we can at least make sure that what's in that jerk's needle stops killing people every day.