The Danger of Genetically Modified Mosquitoes
By Helen Wallace
The release of genetically modified (GM) insects should follow a precautionary approach, because what appears well understood in the lab can have unintended consequences when released on a large scale into the environment. On release, GM mosquitoes become part of a complex system involving predators and prey, other mosquito species, four types of dengue virus, other tropical diseases transmitted by mosquitoes, and the humans—including children—who are being bitten and infected.
An expert report (pdf) to the European Food Safety Authority lists a wide variety of issues that should be addressed prior to the deliberate release of any GM insects. They include the adverse effects associated with the flow of genes into the wild population; the interactions of the GM insect with target and nontarget organisms; the impact on agricultural management practices and on management measures to control insects that are vectors for diseases; and a variety of potential effects on human health. The latter include allergies and irritation; the presence of live female mosquitoes; potential changes in the ability of mosquitoes to transmit disease; and accidental ingestion (including of larvae and eggs). Other issues that have been raised elsewhere include: the potential for viruses to evolve into more virulent forms; the impacts on human immunity and hence cases of disease; whether other species of mosquito (transmitting the same or different diseases) might occupy the ecological niche vacated by a falling population of the target species (pdf); and whether infection with dengue has a protective effect against yellow fever.
The first open releases of GM mosquitoes have now taken place in the Cayman Islands, Malaysia and Brazil. In all three countries the biotechnology company Oxitec released GM Aedes aegypti mosquitoes (yellow fever mosquitoes) with the intention of reducing the population of this species, which also transmits dengue fever. In choosing the British Overseas Territory of the Cayman Islands to undertake the first releases, Oxitec bypassed the provisions of the Cartagena Protocol (covering impacts on biodiversity) and the Aarhus Convention (covering access to environmental information), both of which would apply in the U.K. The Cayman trials were in an inhabited area where dengue is not endemic; the smaller Malaysian trial was in an uninhabited area in a country where dengue is endemic; and the ongoing, much larger Brazilian trials are in an inhabited area where dengue is endemic. Only in Malaysia did the company openly consult the public, and even there, a small-scale release caused public concerns due to the lack of transparency about the timing and insufficient public information. Further, only a summary of the risk assessment has been published, leaving the regulator's decisions about what hazards to include, and whether or not they were significant, open to dispute.
Although no doubt genuine in its desire to tackle dengue fever, Oxitec is a commercial company with a patented technology to sell (pdf). Its business plan relies on convincing the governments of dengue endemic countries to pay for ongoing releases of its GM mosquitoes to maintain suppression of the mosquito population. Its investors include the University of Oxford, the venture capital company Oxford Capital Partners (which offers significant tax breaks to its investors), and a Boston-based multimillionaire (pdf). The former U.K. science minister, Lord Drayson, and the former president of the Royal Society, Lord May, have both acted as advisors to investors in the company. Oxitec has also received significant U.K. government subsidy via the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council as well as the Technology Strategy Board. Its open-release experiment in Malaysia was funded via a translational grant from the Wellcome Trust. Although the company is a spin-off from Oxford, the university's ethics board plays no role in overseeing its experiments.
Research on public attitudes to potential releases of GM mosquitoes to tackle malaria in Mali found that participants wanted to see evidence that GM mosquitoes could reduce malaria without adverse effects on human health and the environment, and many were skeptical that the technology would work. A majority of participants would support a release that satisfied their conditions, but a substantial minority would not support a release under any circumstances. Whereas it is difficult to extrapolate from a small study in a single country (which included mainly male participants), the study does succeed in raising some important issues. How is people's consent to be obtained for such experiments, given that most people would only grant it if certain conditions were fulfilled? And, is it ethical to undertake experiments if some people continue to oppose them?
Oxitec seems to have treated this ethical problem as largely an issue of public relations. In Cayman it released a video claiming its GM mosquitoes were sterile, rather than explaining that they breed and the offspring die as pupae; it also didn't mention that they were genetically modified. In Brazil activities have included attending carnival dressed up as mosquitoes. Concerns that the technology is not 100 percent effective, leaving some female (biting) mosquitoes to breed, have simply been ignored.
For observers, it is hard to understand how decades of debate at the World Health Organization and elsewhere have come to this. Is there really any regulatory oversight; any data required of any company; and any ethical requirements before GM insects can be released into the open? Decisions appear to be being taken by a small circle of powerful investors who have decided they must rush to commercialize a particular technology, rather than in consultation with the people who will be affected. Who is going to be liable if anything goes wrong? And will any problems be reversible as releases happen on an ever larger scale?
Helen Wallace is the director of GeneWatch UK. She has worked as an environmental scientist in academia and industry and as senior scientist at Greenpeace UK, where she was responsible for science and policy work on a range of issues. She has a degree in physics from the University of Bristol and a PhD in applied mathematics from University of Exeter
Previous: Genetically Modified Mosquitoes Could Be an Important Tool in the Fight against Disease
By Mark Q. Benedict
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