Genetically Modified Mosquitoes Could Be an Important Tool in the Fight against Disease
By Mark Q. Benedict
Readers of Scientific American will appreciate the high failure rate of what seem to be promising innovations. The much ballyhooed "Ginger" was going to change the world and the way our cities are built. Hadn't multitudes of celebrities gushed over Ginger and invested? I could not wait to find out what something given such a sexy code name could be. A new energy source? A new concept for a computing interface? A self-healing material? You may have shared my disappointment when the mysterious Ginger turned out to be a rather clunky, unattractive but easily operated scooter named the Segway. My initial response that Ginger was not going to change the world has thus far been correct. Segways have indeed created a niche populated by policemen and tourists, and it has stimulated the production of other cheaper vehicles that are used in much the same way. They were not the game-changer that was anticipated. I guess I'll wait for Mary Ann.
I was also among those who hopefully (and skeptically) followed cold fusion in 1989. Against the original claims, however, excess heat was not measured in subsequent experiments. The claims didn't hold up. Yes, there are still folks pursuing the idea, and I would be the last to discourage them. The world could use endless clean energy in such a concentrated form.
We can safely say that controlling mosquito populations by releasing genetically modified (GM) mosquitoes is not another cold fusion of innovation, but it may be a Ginger. For the sake of those who need help, I hope not.
Current technologies we use against mosquitoes simply are not adequate: existing measures are losing the war. None are easy and even fewer are affordable for vulnerable individuals and governments charged with mosquito control. They do not fully protect, and their use entails direct risks to human health and the environment. So the choice of implementing GM mosquitoes is not a choice of no risk versus risk, it is a matter of choosing the least risky among all existing choices in a war against very real continuing disease risk.
Genetically modified mosquitoes are not the only innovative solution being tested in this war: resistance-proof insecticides, anti-mosquito fungi, bioprospecting for drugs and repellents, biopesticides, better education programs and new traps are in play. There is room for all of these, but all of these entail risks, not least of which is diversion of limited resources to little effect.
In this context, we must consider whether releasing sexually sterile GM mosquitoes is safe. History says "yes." Sterile insects have been safely used for decades. Target pests have never become established due to failure of sterility, and sterile insects are often used to prevent the establishment of insects where they do not occur. The sterile mosquito technology is being tested specifically because it is the safest possible means to begin to explore their potential. It is difficult to argue that use of the most common measure—nonspecific insecticides—is a more desirable option.
Novel technologies are always in the midst of a withering process that subjects them to the brutal stresses of real-world trials, and implementation of genetically modified mosquitoes will fly or fail based quite simply on whether they work. And by "work," I include their effects on the environment and acceptability by those at risk. Picking winners among all the options is impossible. We simply know too little of their possibilities or the future to predict their success in myriad disease transmission settings.
Regulatory structures are important controls on the implementation of innovation. They guide safe use and fair testing. As the feature indicates, these are coalescing contemporaneously with the development of genetically modified mosquitoes, but they are not being developed in a vacuum. New guidelines largely reflect ethical and safe practices that are already widely acknowledged and codified. Any effort to release genetically modified mosquitoes without proper considerations for such existing law, ethics and safety imperils the entire field, so motivation among those conducting trials to stay above board is high. The community developing GM mosquito technology is always looking over its shoulder at the India experience (in 1974, scientists studying the genetic modification of insects for disease control were accused of conducting secret biowarfare research) and is in no mood to repeat it.
Just as the world is a beautiful mosaic of cultures, it is a mosaic of attitudes toward, and regulation of, genetically modified organisms. This is a natural outgrowth of perspectives toward the natural world, the role of science and even religious beliefs. Therefore, regulation will differ as determined by law and treaty of sovereign countries. Whereas many countries will adopt similar standards rather than developing them de novo, the variety of perspectives dictates that in respect for others we must accept a variety of regulatory solutions. Similarly, community engagement must fit the affected people. What may be sufficient engagement for my community (which is accustomed to eating GM foods and having GM crops planted in fields we see every day) may not fit yours. This is natural and should be welcomed.
GM mosquito technology must be evaluated as a complement to existing control measures. Will it entail the risks that some fear? This should be carefully determined in small trials. Will it be too expensive? That is for those considering it to assess based on experience, their economies and the effects of release. Will it cause environmental damage that can be avoided with other technologies? Let's find out, one cautious small step at a time and in comparison with all the alternatives. But there is no scientific basis for the assertion that sterile insect technology will get out of control and should not be tested.
Although I am among those with hopes that GM mosquitoes will improve human health with minimal environmental effects, it is simply too soon to tell. Because there is no well-financed advocacy machine to push them against demand, GM mosquitoes will have to stand on their own merits in the real world of human diseases. That is the battle which they deserve a chance to fight.
Mark Q. Benedict is currently a Marie Curie Fellow at the University of Perugia, Italy. His professional activities include developing technology for genetic control of mosquitoes, biosafety guidelines and mosquito mass production equipment and facilities. He obtained his PhD and BS at the University of Florida.
Up Next: The Danger of Genetically Modified Mosquitoes
By Helen Wallace
See what we're tweeting about
14 Comments
Add CommentSeeing as they have already been released I believe the question of the article is moot. But it does raise another important question, what regulations exist to prevent companies from releasing genetically modified organisms into the wild? Seems like none.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo! No! No! I saw that film with Jeff Goldblum...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMosquitoes are an important insect on our planet. In their larval stage they are food for fish. They also perform an enormously important function, they control populations of other large animals like humans. In the 18th century 95% of all children born to the poor died before attaining age 6. if you think things were better for the rich, well 75% died before age 6.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience has changed this, but religion insists we live by ancient ethics and maintain traditional birth rates. This is definitely going to lead to major catastrophes. The problems of the Moslem word is an indicator of things to come. Allowing 5 Million Bangladeshi into the modern world as requested by the Bangladesh representatives at the Copenhagen conference, exports the religious problem to other nation states, as well as increasing the proportion of people rejecting science because it is against their religion. People reject science but want all its benefits.
Our next release should be a modified bacterium that causes no ill effect, eliminates the need for birth control, and can be disabled for a short while to allow wanted children, limited to 1 per female till world population stabilises around 2G.
There was also the sterile blowfly program with the release of millions of sterile male blowflies. That got rid of the screwworm subspecies in the United States. There are over 10,000 types of blowflies. We have gotten rid of one type and that only in the United States.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe would have no problem eliminating one subspecies of mosquito. Since all the mosquitoes in an order can carry malaria or a disease particular to that order and all the mosquitoes in an order do not interbreed we would need to do more that to produce some infertile male mosquitoes. Leaving a breeding pair of the same order would defeat the entire program.
I do not think that Scientists should use genetically-modified anything; for ANY purpose; on anyone; for ANY reason. Do you GET me, Sweetheart? And, to release a living thing that has been genetically modified into the wild? No,no,no;never! What the heck are they thinking - have all the Powers That Be now gone completely mad? I shudder to think that the people who work up these insidious little schemes are at the helm and have control over calling shots like that. I was gonna say "are at the helm and IN control" but realized right away that they're definitely OUT of control to even entertain the thought of taking such an action. All their little experiments with geoengineering are all craps shots anyway ... and, after all; THEY'RE not the ones out there in the environment being exposed to the mosquitoes; so they figure, "WTF?! Let's go for it!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Experiment"; defined: "A test, trial, or tentative procedure carried out under controlled conditions in order to discover an unknown effect or law; or to determine the validity of a hypothesis or make a discovery. To try something new, especially in order to gain experience."
Key words here: "to discover an unknown effect..."
Other key words here: "carried out under controlled conditions..."
"The wild" can hardly be "controlled conditions."
But really - it seems like a fruitless endeavor to even ask for anyone's comment on this issue at this point in time since Ms. Wallace informs us that the artificial critters are already on the loose. The steps have been taken - it's too late - they've gone too far. Seems like you guys are quite a bit behind the eight ball in just now getting around to pondering the question. It's a done deal, dudes. It would behoove you to now spend your time figuring out how to get that lid snapped back tightly on that Pandora's Box so they don't let anything else out of it. Let's get serious, folks: none of us commoners ever get a chance to have a say about any of it anyway; they just always do whatever they wanna do. We common folk out here are unarguably part of their experiment - pick a name; any name: guinea pig, fall guy, dupe, patsy, victim, chump,uninformed subject, easy mark, the hoodwinked.
Whichever descriptor fits best, it all ultimately boils down to the public taking it in the a__, when the "Law of Unintended Consequences" rears it's nasty little head once again. Why else do you think they released 'em in a land; far, far, away?
Only if they get a buzz out of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm getting a 404 error when trying to read "more" - for both articles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article does not explain the process of mosquito bites. It seems to me the mosquito release a liquid to facilitate sucking the blood. The mosquito bites every being, comes down to dirty waters and so on. The Australian one time imported the rabbits but now it is a permanent danger for their agriculture. Even some nurses refused the vaccination against influenza. The method is important and not only the idea. If it comes as a vaccination when mosquito bites, it will save more lives may be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey released them where they would actually be useful. I notice that you are using a computer on the internet which are 2 unnatural inventions that were released into the wild and are well documented to have serious negative effects. Funny how you pick and choose what you get worked up about based on how convienient it is for you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy only concern is that many critters feed on mosquitos and if we devestate the mosquito population will it also ripple through the food web and cause a lot of collateral harm?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI for one would sure like to know that someone is closely monitoring this experiment. There are drastic consequences that could result from things like this. We have no way of knowing what effect reducing the mosquito population will have in other areas. What if it suddenly results in the rodent population increasing for instance? Or what about the mutated gene itself? Has it been tested on other species to ensure it won’t mix. You did happen to put this mutated gene in a creature that feeds on blood after all. So now you have 18000 creatures that are potentially infecting other species with a mutated gene that could have catastrophic consequences. Possibly the next west Nile virus for all you know. And who’s to say that this mutated gene won’t cause even the west Nile virus itself to break into a new, deadlier strain. Don’t get me wrong. I love science and I’m all for building a better tomorrow, but I feel sometimes we hold back too much in some areas we need to step forward, and yet step forward in some areas we need to hold back. I fear this was one that should’ve held back.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf NO genetically modified organisms are to be used ever, for any purpose, then life as we know it come to an end. No pets (dogs are genetically modified wolves), no food (wheat is genetically modified wild grass), no medicine (vaccines are genetically modified pathogens), etc. If anyone truly wants to live a life with no exposure to genetically modified organisms, then they should go to the wilds of New Guinea, take up the local life style, eat a diet consisting mainly of lizards and insects, and expect to have a very short life expectancy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisЯ тоже.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisВсе организмы состоят из бактерий,поэтому в начале происходит модифицирование бактерий из которых состоит живой организм.Модифицированный ген это мутант не существующий в биосфере Земли,начальная информация заложеная в таком геноме изменит развитие бактерий и всего организма.Все генетически модифицированные организмы можно признать не земными так как они на генном уровне не созданы природой Земли.Внедрение организмов не земного происхождения в земную биосферу это завоевание природы Земли организмами не земного происхождения.Вмешательство в структуру генома хуже армагедона.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this