Poll

Do we have a right deliberately to cause the extinction of Anopheles gambiae?

Yes
30 (81.1%)
No
2 (5.4%)
Maybe?
5 (13.5%)

Total Members Voted: 37

Author Topic: Do we have a right deliberately to cause the extinction of Anopheles gambiae?  (Read 6545 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline haudace

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
  • Reality under scrutiny
How would you eradicate fleas?

Genetically engineer a virus that kills all blood-sucking arthropods and only blood-sucking arthropods.


My issue with genetics means of extermination see below in italic bold.

They are pollinators. IIRC the analysis I heard on TWiS was that they are not specialized pollinators though, so loss of the hundreds of AG variants would not cause significant disruptions.

I don't know about that. Specialized pollinators appear to be extremely vulnerable to environmental factors - case in point bee colonies collapse. As we all know, loss of bees does not bode well for anyone in the food chain. I hate to say it but mosquitoes could be engineered to become viable replacements and continue the work of bees. Should be kept around as a backup plan?

But we're not talking about killing all mosquito species, just A. gambiae.  If I remember what I've read correctly, A. gambiae does not fill any particular ecological niche that other mosquito species do not, and it is likely that other species would quickly fill its place in the food and pollination realms.  The only real ecological niche it fills is that of malaria vector.

A. Gambiae is not the only specie to carry genetic code that expresses their much disliked traits though. Targeting them for extermination may cause collateral damage to closely related species that could even affect insects beyond the genus.

I am assuming here the means of extermination would probably be genetic.

Huh?

First time I am engaging in conversation discussing the extermination of a specie - so I may stumble a few times (english is also not my first language). The most efficient means of extermination would probably require hijacking of some kind of a biological component unique to the specie. DNA is about the only thing that is unique enough. The genetic component to be exploited cannot be too unique though. This hijacking has to take into account natural biodiversity within the specie itself. An effective eradicating agent has to achieve a rate of extermination over 99% to ensure extinction (disclaimer: this is a manufactured statistic). Now, there may be closely related species to A. Gambiae. We are talking about the possibility of the targeting agent propagating and eradicating other mosquito like organisms. There is risk of cross-species transmission causing collateral damage. Heck, who knows, even zoonosis can occur.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2018, 12:31:08 PM by haudace »

Offline Captain Video

  • Superhero of the Silver Screen
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3737
We started off with the extinction of anopheles gambiae by our hands but we are now talking about bedbugs and frogs. Even though the latter was a joke, it's still interesting to me that it was brought up.

So what is the line we cannot cross?

Any parasite that serves no purpose other than to feed on us can go. It would be like stamping out a germ or virus. The frog thing was silly, I was serious about the bedbugs, its my understanding that they are getting worse and that they can spread disease.
Yes! Kill the bankers Socialists!
I love how on the same page we are! ;)

are we still on the same page? 

Offline Captain Video

  • Superhero of the Silver Screen
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3737
We started off with the extinction of anopheles gambiae by our hands but we are now talking about bedbugs and frogs. Even though the latter was a joke, it's still interesting to me that it was brought up.

So what is the line we cannot cross?

Any parasite that serves no purpose other than to feed on us can go. It would be like stamping out a germ or virus.

How would you eradicate fleas? Would you consider getting rid of their vector hosts (cats, dogs etc...)?

Why would you even suggest that?  No I would not but you can add fleas to the list.

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9596
  • I'd rather be paddling
How would you eradicate fleas?

Genetically engineer a virus that kills all blood-sucking arthropods and only blood-sucking arthropods.


My issue with genetics means of extermination see below in italic bold.

They are pollinators. IIRC the analysis I heard on TWiS was that they are not specialized pollinators though, so loss of the hundreds of AG variants would not cause significant disruptions.

I don't know about that. Specialized pollinators appear to be extremely vulnerable to environmental factors - case in point bee colonies collapse. As we all know, loss of bees does not bode well for anyone in the food chain. I hate to say it but mosquitoes could be engineered to become viable replacements and continue the work of bees. Should be kept around as a backup plan?

But we're not talking about killing all mosquito species, just A. gambiae.  If I remember what I've read correctly, A. gambiae does not fill any particular ecological niche that other mosquito species do not, and it is likely that other species would quickly fill its place in the food and pollination realms.  The only real ecological niche it fills is that of malaria vector.

A. Gambiae is not the only specie to carry genetic code that expresses their much disliked traits though. Targeting them for extermination may cause collateral damage to closely related species that could even affect insects beyond the genus.

I am assuming here the means of extermination would probably be genetic.

Huh?

First time I am engaging in conversation discussing the extermination of a specie - so I may stumble a few times (english is also not my first language). The most efficient means of extermination would probably require hijacking of some kind of a biological component unique to the specie. DNA is about the only thing that is unique enough. The genetic component to be exploited cannot be too unique though. This hijacking has to take into account natural biodiversity within the specie itself. An effective eradicating agent has to achieve a rate of extermination over 99% to ensure extinction (disclaimer: this is a manufactured statistic). Now, there may be closely related species to A. Gambiae. We are talking about the possibility of the targeting agent propagating and eradicating other mosquito like organisms. There is risk of cross-species transmission causing collateral damage. Heck, who knows, even zoonosis can occur.

It’s not necessary to cause the extinction of all blood-suckers. I would not mind if we did. But eliminating even 90% of the individuals would be an improvement. And in the case of Anopheles gambiae, where the object is to eliminate malaria, if we got the number of mosquitoes low enough, transmission of the disease would drop so low that it would virtually disappear. Reducing the incidence of malaria to 1% of its present rate would be a very desirable outcome, even though complete elimination would be even better.
Daniel
----------------
“You say you love your children above all else, and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes.”
-- Greta Thunberg

Offline Captain Video

  • Superhero of the Silver Screen
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3737
I'm mostly agree with Daniel. I don't think all of them need to go but the ones that spread disease in both humans and animals should go for sure, Anopheles gambiae is a great place to start.

Ticks which cause lyme disease is another one.










Offline haudace

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
  • Reality under scrutiny
We started off with the extinction of anopheles gambiae by our hands but we are now talking about bedbugs and frogs. Even though the latter was a joke, it's still interesting to me that it was brought up.

So what is the line we cannot cross?

Any parasite that serves no purpose other than to feed on us can go. It would be like stamping out a germ or virus.

How would you eradicate fleas? Would you consider getting rid of their vector hosts (cats, dogs etc...)?

Why would you even suggest that?  No I would not but you can add fleas to the list.

I am trying to figure out where the line stops. For you, I guess it's mammals, most likely domesticated ones.

How would you eradicate fleas?

Genetically engineer a virus that kills all blood-sucking arthropods and only blood-sucking arthropods.


My issue with genetics means of extermination see below in italic bold.

They are pollinators. IIRC the analysis I heard on TWiS was that they are not specialized pollinators though, so loss of the hundreds of AG variants would not cause significant disruptions.

I don't know about that. Specialized pollinators appear to be extremely vulnerable to environmental factors - case in point bee colonies collapse. As we all know, loss of bees does not bode well for anyone in the food chain. I hate to say it but mosquitoes could be engineered to become viable replacements and continue the work of bees. Should be kept around as a backup plan?

But we're not talking about killing all mosquito species, just A. gambiae.  If I remember what I've read correctly, A. gambiae does not fill any particular ecological niche that other mosquito species do not, and it is likely that other species would quickly fill its place in the food and pollination realms.  The only real ecological niche it fills is that of malaria vector.

A. Gambiae is not the only specie to carry genetic code that expresses their much disliked traits though. Targeting them for extermination may cause collateral damage to closely related species that could even affect insects beyond the genus.

I am assuming here the means of extermination would probably be genetic.

Huh?

First time I am engaging in conversation discussing the extermination of a specie - so I may stumble a few times (english is also not my first language). The most efficient means of extermination would probably require hijacking of some kind of a biological component unique to the specie. DNA is about the only thing that is unique enough. The genetic component to be exploited cannot be too unique though. This hijacking has to take into account natural biodiversity within the specie itself. An effective eradicating agent has to achieve a rate of extermination over 99% to ensure extinction (disclaimer: this is a manufactured statistic). Now, there may be closely related species to A. Gambiae. We are talking about the possibility of the targeting agent propagating and eradicating other mosquito like organisms. There is risk of cross-species transmission causing collateral damage. Heck, who knows, even zoonosis can occur.

It’s not necessary to cause the extinction of all blood-suckers. I would not mind if we did. But eliminating even 90% of the individuals would be an improvement. And in the case of Anopheles gambiae, where the object is to eliminate malaria, if we got the number of mosquitoes low enough, transmission of the disease would drop so low that it would virtually disappear. Reducing the incidence of malaria to 1% of its present rate would be a very desirable outcome, even though complete elimination would be even better.

Now the issue becomes the risk of creating resistant Anopheles gambiae... The remaining individuals will reproduce quickly and now we have insects that require an even more powerful genetic agent to exterminate. The rate of disease transmission also risks returning back to normal levels after some time. If we are to maintain a 10% of the population over time, at some point these creatures will acquire a mutation where the virus targeting anopheles will have zero effect. That's a worst case scenario in my opinion.







Offline Captain Video

  • Superhero of the Silver Screen
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3737
We started off with the extinction of anopheles gambiae by our hands but we are now talking about bedbugs and frogs. Even though the latter was a joke, it's still interesting to me that it was brought up.

So what is the line we cannot cross?

Any parasite that serves no purpose other than to feed on us can go. It would be like stamping out a germ or virus.

How would you eradicate fleas? Would you consider getting rid of their vector hosts (cats, dogs etc...)?

Why would you even suggest that?  No I would not but you can add fleas to the list.

I am trying to figure out where the line stops. For you, I guess it's mammals, most likely domesticated ones.

It could be the insects as well, in the OP Lat said

Assume for the purposes of this poll that we can be sure that there will be no unintended environmental impact from the loss of the species.

And I stick by that to go along with my comments, If eliminating the bedbug population somehow has a negative environmental impact I would not want to do it.  We almost eliminated them once already so I doubt that is the case.

I hate cockroaches too but an extinction would have a negative impact. 

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9596
  • I'd rather be paddling
We started off with the extinction of anopheles gambiae by our hands but we are now talking about bedbugs and frogs. Even though the latter was a joke, it's still interesting to me that it was brought up.

So what is the line we cannot cross?

Any parasite that serves no purpose other than to feed on us can go. It would be like stamping out a germ or virus.

How would you eradicate fleas? Would you consider getting rid of their vector hosts (cats, dogs etc...)?

Why would you even suggest that?  No I would not but you can add fleas to the list.

I am trying to figure out where the line stops. For you, I guess it's mammals, most likely domesticated ones.

How would you eradicate fleas?

Genetically engineer a virus that kills all blood-sucking arthropods and only blood-sucking arthropods.


My issue with genetics means of extermination see below in italic bold.

They are pollinators. IIRC the analysis I heard on TWiS was that they are not specialized pollinators though, so loss of the hundreds of AG variants would not cause significant disruptions.

I don't know about that. Specialized pollinators appear to be extremely vulnerable to environmental factors - case in point bee colonies collapse. As we all know, loss of bees does not bode well for anyone in the food chain. I hate to say it but mosquitoes could be engineered to become viable replacements and continue the work of bees. Should be kept around as a backup plan?

But we're not talking about killing all mosquito species, just A. gambiae.  If I remember what I've read correctly, A. gambiae does not fill any particular ecological niche that other mosquito species do not, and it is likely that other species would quickly fill its place in the food and pollination realms.  The only real ecological niche it fills is that of malaria vector.

A. Gambiae is not the only specie to carry genetic code that expresses their much disliked traits though. Targeting them for extermination may cause collateral damage to closely related species that could even affect insects beyond the genus.

I am assuming here the means of extermination would probably be genetic.

Huh?

First time I am engaging in conversation discussing the extermination of a specie - so I may stumble a few times (english is also not my first language). The most efficient means of extermination would probably require hijacking of some kind of a biological component unique to the specie. DNA is about the only thing that is unique enough. The genetic component to be exploited cannot be too unique though. This hijacking has to take into account natural biodiversity within the specie itself. An effective eradicating agent has to achieve a rate of extermination over 99% to ensure extinction (disclaimer: this is a manufactured statistic). Now, there may be closely related species to A. Gambiae. We are talking about the possibility of the targeting agent propagating and eradicating other mosquito like organisms. There is risk of cross-species transmission causing collateral damage. Heck, who knows, even zoonosis can occur.

It’s not necessary to cause the extinction of all blood-suckers. I would not mind if we did. But eliminating even 90% of the individuals would be an improvement. And in the case of Anopheles gambiae, where the object is to eliminate malaria, if we got the number of mosquitoes low enough, transmission of the disease would drop so low that it would virtually disappear. Reducing the incidence of malaria to 1% of its present rate would be a very desirable outcome, even though complete elimination would be even better.

Now the issue becomes the risk of creating resistant Anopheles gambiae... The remaining individuals will reproduce quickly and now we have insects that require an even more powerful genetic agent to exterminate. The rate of disease transmission also risks returning back to normal levels after some time. If we are to maintain a 10% of the population over time, at some point these creatures will acquire a mutation where the virus targeting anopheles will have zero effect. That's a worst case scenario in my opinion.

We just need to keep engineering new viruses. Not wait for the old one to lose efficacy, but hit them with a constant string of them.
Daniel
----------------
“You say you love your children above all else, and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes.”
-- Greta Thunberg

Offline arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9449
  • Observer of Phenomena
They are pollinators. IIRC the analysis I heard on TWiS was that they are not specialized pollinators though, so loss of the hundreds of AG variants would not cause significant disruptions.

I don't know about that. Specialized pollinators appear to be extremely vulnerable to environmental factors - case in point bee colonies collapse. As we all know, loss of bees does not bode well for anyone in the food chain. I hate to say it but mosquitoes could be engineered to become viable replacements and continue the work of bees. Should be kept around as a backup plan?

But we're not talking about killing all mosquito species, just A. gambiae.  If I remember what I've read correctly, A. gambiae does not fill any particular ecological niche that other mosquito species do not, and it is likely that other species would quickly fill its place in the food and pollination realms.  The only real ecological niche it fills is that of malaria vector.

In our Holocene era characterized by mass extinctions at the hands of humans, I am not so confident other species are able to quickly fill the void and take over new niches.

Given how life on this planet enthusiastically colonises every conceivable biome - and not a few inconceivable ones - I think it would be inevitable.
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him.

Offline DevoutCatalyst

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
An antimalarial treatment program for the mosquito?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-0973-1
« Last Edit: February 28, 2019, 02:55:52 PM by DevoutCatalyst »

Offline John Albert

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7175
Re: Do we have a right deliberately to cause the extinction of Anopheles gambiae?
« Reply #100 on: September 19, 2019, 05:32:06 PM »
A similar plan to sterilize a single mosquito species in Brazil just failed spectacularly.


Quote
Plan to Crush Native Mosquito Population With Gene-edited Strain Fails—may Have Made Them Stronger Instead

By Rosie McCall | 9/17/19 AT 7:39 AM EDT

Even the best laid plans can go awry—and one public health initiative in Brazil is a case in point. The project in question involved releasing an army of gene-edited mosquitoes into the wild in order to stop the spread of vector-borne diseases, from yellow fever and dengue to the Zika virus. But instead of depleting the population, the experiment may have made the mosquitoes even stronger.

It was thought that by short-circuiting certain parts of the insect's DNA, researchers could squash the target population's size withoutaffecting its genetics. This is a plan being put to the test in various regions plagued by the disease-riddled bugs—apparently with varying levels of success.

In the case in Brazil, researchers edited strains of Aedes aegypti with a defective gene to limit their fertility—or at the very least ensure any offspring produced would be too weak to progress into adulthood and reproduce themselves. According to researchers writing in Scientific Reports, this particular strain (OX513A) has previously resulted in declines of native Ae. aegypti by 85 percent.

And so, in the largest project of its kind to date, approximately 450,000 male Ae. aegypti OX513A were released every week, starting from June 2013 and ending in September 2015. This weekly event took place at sites across the city of Jacobina in the Brazilian state of Bahia. Theoretically—and if things had gone to plan—levels of disease-carrying mosquitoes in the area should have plummeted afterwards. This was not the case.

The effectiveness of the project appears to have broken down at around the 18-month mark. Having initially been suppressed by the arrival of the gene-edited mosquitoes, the local population bounced back to nearly pre-release levels. Some suggest this can be explained by mating discrimination against the mutated males, but this is still just speculation.

Indeed, genetic sampling at successive intervals (six, 12, and 27 to 20 months) post-release reveal Ae. aegypti OX513A were mating with resident populations to produce rare but viable hybrid offspring, who could go on to reproduce. Even more problematically, these crossbreeds may be more resistant to other forms of mosquito-control, such as insecticide. This is because they comprise of three populations—the native population (from Brazil) and the laboratory strain (originally from Cuba but outcrossed to a Mexican population.) An expanded gene pool can mean more robust mosquitoes.

The researchers conclude that it is uncertain how exactly this will affect disease transmission and what implications it has for other projects utilizing similar gene-hacking techniques to limit the spread of infectious disease carried by vectors like mosquitoes.

Rodney E. Rohde, the program chair of the Clinical Laboratory Science Program at Texas State University, who was not involved in the study, commented on the findings: "The study is well done although I do encourage the investigators and future studies to always include as much laboratory 'control' as possible prior to conducting 'live' in the field experiments," he told Newsweek.

"Of course, at some point, one has to go live. But we need to be very careful that when using GM, we consider as much safety and consideration around controlled studies first, and work very hard to try and understand all of the implications that may occur in nature."

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), vector-borne diseases account for over 17 percent of infectious diseases and result in more than 700,000 deaths worldwide each year. Malaria alone accounts for some 400,000 of those deaths, predominantly affecting children under five.

https://www.newsweek.com/plan-crush-native-mosquito-population-gene-edited-strain-fails-1459619

 

personate-rain