Tomas, you may have forgot the human parameter: in order to release the modified moskitoes in the nature, "somebody" has to sign and decide. At the end, if it happens to be a mistake and if it makes more deads than without doing it, this guy may have to "pay" for his error (jail, etc.): the point is that nobody wants to be this guy... We see it in many other domains (easing any kind of rule in aviation domain, or equivalent) where constraints remain only because no one want to be the one that would be on the photo if something bad happens...
at least, in South Korea, and quite often. But here we are not only speaking from politician, we are also speaking from people at the head of dedicated agencies (FAA for aeronautics, FDA, Health, etc). Other example, If I remember well, some of the "technical" guys went to jail in some countries, from 20 to 40 years ago, for having badly managed the contaminated blood by AIDS. at least in France, but not only.
Hi! I just launched a petition on Avaaz to demand that the WHO releases the genetic technology that already allows us to eradicate the mosquitoes that transmit malaria, dengue, and others that bite humans. Every year, 700,000 people die (mostly children). Can you give me a hand by signing it?Sign and share the official petition here: 👇
There’s an economic and global justice angle that rarely gets talked about: mosquito-borne diseases don't just cost human lives, they devastate local economies by stalling productivity, and crushes economic fields as tourism, in the very regions that need to thrive the most.
Furthermore, our ethical double standard is striking: we look the other way while dousing entire fields in chemical pesticides that wipe out bees, butterflies, and all kinds of pollinators just to protect crops, yet we wring our hands when biotechnology allows us to act with surgical precision. Out of more than 3,500 mosquito species on the planet, only about 10 to 20 feed on humans and are effective vectors for transmitting potentially deadly pathogens like malaria, dengue, yellow fever, Zika, or West Nile virus.
While global health discussions naturally focus on mortality and morbidity, the macroeconomic drag caused by these diseases is immense and self-reinforcing. Sustainability should also mean freeing humanity from its most dangerous parasites.
"Malaria control programs in Africa rely on external funding to maintain and support personnel, infrastructure, and general operations. The 2024 WHO World Malaria Report states that $4 billion was spent on malaria control and elimination in 2023. Gene drive developers have been questioned about the long-term financial incentives and support that will follow if gene drive technology is applied and successfully leads to malaria elimination. How will this affect the millions of dollars allocated to existing malaria control programs? Will some of this money remain available for ongoing surveillance, infrastructure, and operations? "
It sounds like a big problem is that the people who would give permission in Africa are people who earn cushy salaries from anti-malaria programs. Eradicating malaria would eradicate their jobs.
A great place to test this would be Hawai'i. Hawai'i has no native mosquitoes. They were introduced accidentally in the 1800s and were devastating to local wildlife (they created a transmission vector for avian malaria between migratory seabirds and native birds that had no resistance). There are (I think) ten mosquito species there now, and they are ALL invasive.
Scientists could try eradicating one or two species and see if the altered genes are actually contained, or if they spread to other non-targeted mosquitoes. Use strong export controls to make sure that no mosquitoes accidentally leave on planes or boats. The worst-case scenario is that *all* mosquitoes get wiped out, but none of them belong there in the first place.
What an amazing idea! I'm going to ask the scientists behind the analysis why they didn't think of that. Maybe it's because Hawaii has a ton of plane and maritime traffic
Figured that's where you were going to go with this. But there are questions. Like, how sure are we that they won't hybridize with another species? Are mosquitoes so genetically distinct and incompatible with each other that this absolutely cannot happen? Or, like canines, do they just not prefer to? We've got three-way hybrids of domestic dogs-coyotes-wolves running around now. Any port in a storm seems to be the rule in nature. If lateral gene transfer happens you might oopsie a whole lot more species than you intended, including things you didn't think to keep in reserve.
I'm not too worried about developing strains of mutant super mosquitoes like we get with so many other misguided genetic experiments in microbes and agriculture. But... I don't really trust excited researchers to be thorough and honest about risks either. Insert Ian Malcolm quote.
It's a real problem when you're dealing with only a small group of people who really understand the subject matter *and* they're all of one mind about it. There is no skeptical, knowledgeable and thorough mosquito engineering review board we can trust to evaluate the technology before we cut loose with it, and that's a problem (not just with mosquitoes either, *cough*LLMs*cough*).
You don't spend too much text on it, but perhaps one issue is the fear about this gene spreading about. As perfectly predictable from past record, engineered genes inserted onto plants or salmon have been found to be far less species-bound than earlier models "predicted". Common pattern, stuff mixes by processes we don't know, and modelers believe what they don't know doesn't exist. It's almost the founding act of faith of any successful modeler, be it in economics, warfare, or genes spreading about.
So best is to assume these engineered genes for infertility will be found in other insects and other species within a short time. What would be the consequences? That needs to be assessed, and accountabilities identified and defined.
That being said, I personally would be far more willing to take risk there - millions dying in the status quo year warrants the experiment of unknown consequences. Wouldn't take the risk for stupid minimal short-term gains like being able to spread round-up insecticide in much larger amounts.
But for saving millions, yes, I think it is worth it.
But the unknown consequences of such genes spreading about to other species must be disclosed. And, assessed against less fashionable alternatives like those you describe of the South American campaign.
Thanks for explaining gene drive and comparing it to sterilization. Very helpful, and your polemic deserves support. People often enjoy sneering at international outfits like WHO, either because of an ideological opposition to public enterprises and their bureaucracies, or, in the case of those like Elon Musk, because of the idea that anything that raises the number of brown babies threatens Western Civilization. The latter is immoral and the former mistaken. Institutions like WHO can be clumsy and slow and they can make bad mistakes (tho so can profit-making corporations) but to imagine a world without broad public health leadership is to imagine, for example, ten times as many Covid deaths as we saw, and god knows how many millions from smallpox. Let's work together to get rid of malaria.
I'm all for eliminating dangerous mosquitos in sensible programs and appreciate the detail your elaborating re why and how. Hope your readership is wide and effective in spreading the education you're providing.
Indeed and I do but not always because as I implied today in my comment to your followup, I'm very aware of how inundated most of us are and am trying to cut back on how much I send on, including of very good articles, like your always are. But, take heart, Tomas, at least you're informing me and I'm out there doing what I can, and through me your viewpoints are being spread. Cheers.
Really interesting and hopeful. Thanks! Another possible reason this hasn't been pursued yet, it seems to me, is racism among the wealthy donors. And if the current US administration hadn't been so ham-handed/cruel/ignorant/focused on tax cuts for the wealthy (choose one or all, depending on your politics) with DOGE, someone might have realized there were ways to make USAID more effective instead of just eliminating the agency instead of the mosquitos.
Another excellent article! This country is so mired in bureaucratic and special interest crap. Granted, we need to be mindful of lessons like Mao and the sparrows but mosquito elimination is a no brainer.
Tomas, you may have forgot the human parameter: in order to release the modified moskitoes in the nature, "somebody" has to sign and decide. At the end, if it happens to be a mistake and if it makes more deads than without doing it, this guy may have to "pay" for his error (jail, etc.): the point is that nobody wants to be this guy... We see it in many other domains (easing any kind of rule in aviation domain, or equivalent) where constraints remain only because no one want to be the one that would be on the photo if something bad happens...
When has a politician paid with jail for signing off on a policy?
at least, in South Korea, and quite often. But here we are not only speaking from politician, we are also speaking from people at the head of dedicated agencies (FAA for aeronautics, FDA, Health, etc). Other example, If I remember well, some of the "technical" guys went to jail in some countries, from 20 to 40 years ago, for having badly managed the contaminated blood by AIDS. at least in France, but not only.
Yeah nearly all SK presidents went to jail or were killed, but was that because of specific policies, or because of crime?
In France, that was basically a crime too: they were told what they were doing was not right, and they continued doing it.
This is different: this is the best guess on a policy.
Did you miss 150 years of research that has been put into this? Ridiculous.
As one of those people that mosquitoes seem to prefer 100X more than other people, I'm all for getting rid of them.
To see the plus side, you'd make friends out here, everybody will want you at their barbeques as sacrificial protection.
Me too unfortunately.
Hi! I just launched a petition on Avaaz to demand that the WHO releases the genetic technology that already allows us to eradicate the mosquitoes that transmit malaria, dengue, and others that bite humans. Every year, 700,000 people die (mostly children). Can you give me a hand by signing it?Sign and share the official petition here: 👇
https://secure.avaaz.org/community_petitions/es/director_de_la_oms_dr_tedros_adhanom_y_ministerios_erradicar_los_mosquitos_que_nos_pican_y_enferman_ya_es_posible_oms_libere_la_tecnologia/
signed
I’d be interested to see if similar techniques would work (and similarly likely have no downsides) in the ticks which spread Lyme disease!
I’ve read a tiny bit on it and apparently it would. My understanding of the genetics is that we could do this with any animal.
There’s an economic and global justice angle that rarely gets talked about: mosquito-borne diseases don't just cost human lives, they devastate local economies by stalling productivity, and crushes economic fields as tourism, in the very regions that need to thrive the most.
Furthermore, our ethical double standard is striking: we look the other way while dousing entire fields in chemical pesticides that wipe out bees, butterflies, and all kinds of pollinators just to protect crops, yet we wring our hands when biotechnology allows us to act with surgical precision. Out of more than 3,500 mosquito species on the planet, only about 10 to 20 feed on humans and are effective vectors for transmitting potentially deadly pathogens like malaria, dengue, yellow fever, Zika, or West Nile virus.
While global health discussions naturally focus on mortality and morbidity, the macroeconomic drag caused by these diseases is immense and self-reinforcing. Sustainability should also mean freeing humanity from its most dangerous parasites.
Congrats Tomás, keep pushing!
Amén!
From the cited article on bureaucratic barriersL
"Malaria control programs in Africa rely on external funding to maintain and support personnel, infrastructure, and general operations. The 2024 WHO World Malaria Report states that $4 billion was spent on malaria control and elimination in 2023. Gene drive developers have been questioned about the long-term financial incentives and support that will follow if gene drive technology is applied and successfully leads to malaria elimination. How will this affect the millions of dollars allocated to existing malaria control programs? Will some of this money remain available for ongoing surveillance, infrastructure, and operations? "
It sounds like a big problem is that the people who would give permission in Africa are people who earn cushy salaries from anti-malaria programs. Eradicating malaria would eradicate their jobs.
Indeed. I saw that. Don’t want to add it to a very long article already, also because I assume not all think like that. But many might…
A great place to test this would be Hawai'i. Hawai'i has no native mosquitoes. They were introduced accidentally in the 1800s and were devastating to local wildlife (they created a transmission vector for avian malaria between migratory seabirds and native birds that had no resistance). There are (I think) ten mosquito species there now, and they are ALL invasive.
Scientists could try eradicating one or two species and see if the altered genes are actually contained, or if they spread to other non-targeted mosquitoes. Use strong export controls to make sure that no mosquitoes accidentally leave on planes or boats. The worst-case scenario is that *all* mosquitoes get wiped out, but none of them belong there in the first place.
What an amazing idea! I'm going to ask the scientists behind the analysis why they didn't think of that. Maybe it's because Hawaii has a ton of plane and maritime traffic
That might be it. Maybe too difficult to ensure containment.
Figured that's where you were going to go with this. But there are questions. Like, how sure are we that they won't hybridize with another species? Are mosquitoes so genetically distinct and incompatible with each other that this absolutely cannot happen? Or, like canines, do they just not prefer to? We've got three-way hybrids of domestic dogs-coyotes-wolves running around now. Any port in a storm seems to be the rule in nature. If lateral gene transfer happens you might oopsie a whole lot more species than you intended, including things you didn't think to keep in reserve.
I'm not too worried about developing strains of mutant super mosquitoes like we get with so many other misguided genetic experiments in microbes and agriculture. But... I don't really trust excited researchers to be thorough and honest about risks either. Insert Ian Malcolm quote.
It's a real problem when you're dealing with only a small group of people who really understand the subject matter *and* they're all of one mind about it. There is no skeptical, knowledgeable and thorough mosquito engineering review board we can trust to evaluate the technology before we cut loose with it, and that's a problem (not just with mosquitoes either, *cough*LLMs*cough*).
Very fair point. Thanks for sharing. I’ll think about it.
Good work.
You don't spend too much text on it, but perhaps one issue is the fear about this gene spreading about. As perfectly predictable from past record, engineered genes inserted onto plants or salmon have been found to be far less species-bound than earlier models "predicted". Common pattern, stuff mixes by processes we don't know, and modelers believe what they don't know doesn't exist. It's almost the founding act of faith of any successful modeler, be it in economics, warfare, or genes spreading about.
So best is to assume these engineered genes for infertility will be found in other insects and other species within a short time. What would be the consequences? That needs to be assessed, and accountabilities identified and defined.
That being said, I personally would be far more willing to take risk there - millions dying in the status quo year warrants the experiment of unknown consequences. Wouldn't take the risk for stupid minimal short-term gains like being able to spread round-up insecticide in much larger amounts.
But for saving millions, yes, I think it is worth it.
But the unknown consequences of such genes spreading about to other species must be disclosed. And, assessed against less fashionable alternatives like those you describe of the South American campaign.
I didn’t know that such genes found themselves elsewhere. Interesting I’ll look into that. Thanks!
Thanks for explaining gene drive and comparing it to sterilization. Very helpful, and your polemic deserves support. People often enjoy sneering at international outfits like WHO, either because of an ideological opposition to public enterprises and their bureaucracies, or, in the case of those like Elon Musk, because of the idea that anything that raises the number of brown babies threatens Western Civilization. The latter is immoral and the former mistaken. Institutions like WHO can be clumsy and slow and they can make bad mistakes (tho so can profit-making corporations) but to imagine a world without broad public health leadership is to imagine, for example, ten times as many Covid deaths as we saw, and god knows how many millions from smallpox. Let's work together to get rid of malaria.
Agreed!
Does WHO, the World Health Organization, do anything good? Enough to justify its bad effect on covid and now malaria?
They do plenty of things well, but both Covid and malaria are indeed shocking
Mosquitos are a scourge of humanity.
Yet I wonder what the consequences of eliminating a portion of the natural world?
We should do a isolated area as a test run.
Human have not got the best reputation in modifying our environment.
More than human lives are at stake.
Great article.
Yes! That’s exactly the proposal: a test in an isolated island
How am I just reading about this? And thank you for spreading the word
I'm all for eliminating dangerous mosquitos in sensible programs and appreciate the detail your elaborating re why and how. Hope your readership is wide and effective in spreading the education you're providing.
Thanks! Help the readership by sharing the article!
Indeed and I do but not always because as I implied today in my comment to your followup, I'm very aware of how inundated most of us are and am trying to cut back on how much I send on, including of very good articles, like your always are. But, take heart, Tomas, at least you're informing me and I'm out there doing what I can, and through me your viewpoints are being spread. Cheers.
Thank you!
Really interesting and hopeful. Thanks! Another possible reason this hasn't been pursued yet, it seems to me, is racism among the wealthy donors. And if the current US administration hadn't been so ham-handed/cruel/ignorant/focused on tax cuts for the wealthy (choose one or all, depending on your politics) with DOGE, someone might have realized there were ways to make USAID more effective instead of just eliminating the agency instead of the mosquitos.
I’m not sure. The donors can’t be said to be racist, as they are the ones spending the money to save mostly black African children
Another excellent article! This country is so mired in bureaucratic and special interest crap. Granted, we need to be mindful of lessons like Mao and the sparrows but mosquito elimination is a no brainer.