Genetically modified Mosquitos!!!! Ahhhhh

[MACS-24]

Irrelevant - they are part of the food chain for many animals and if they are genetically modified, it serves that the food source should be tested against their natural predators to make sure there is nothing adverse that could happen.

Also irrelevant. But please, send a memo to all the mosquito predators and tell them to skip the mosquito's and go for the moths instead. Let me know how that works out.

:roll: yeah the mosquito predators are so many that there is no over abundance (let alone the deadly diseases they are capable spreading - very relevant) or any other more filling species. I'll also add in my stupid memo a reminder of conservation of energy.

As to the first snarky comment, "a part" is the key ingredient conveniently ignored about my posts.

 

[MACS-24]

It's not always as simple as "they will just eat something else". The ecosystem is a complex balancing act. That said, mosquitos kill more people than all other animals on the planet combined, including other humans, so I am sure whatever negative consequences there might be will be more than worth it. I'm optimistic.

The ones I'm talking about already eat something else, also - like bats and birds. Mosquitoes are a very small part of their diet. It's like eating a bean versus a McD bigmac

 

[Ockham]

:roll: yeah the mosquito predators are so many that there is no over abundance (let alone the deadly diseases they are capable spreading - very relevant) or any other more filling species. I'll also add in my stupid memo a reminder of conservation of energy.

As to the first snarky comment, "a part" is the key ingredient conveniently ignored about my posts.

You don't care - that's fine. If and when there are unintended consequences and there are mass extinctions... oh well!

 

[MACS-24]

You don't care - that's fine. If and when there are unintended consequences and there are mass extinctions... oh well!

Quote the parts in my posts where I say "I don't care"

 

[Ockham]

Quote the parts in my posts where I say "I don't care"

It's the impression I got from your post. Was I wrong?

 

[MACS-24]

It's the impression I got from your post. Was I wrong?

I will say I "care" more about risk versus benefits and benefits extremely outweigh risks. Mosquito eaters already eat more than just mosquitoes and mosquito larvae eaters can still eat GMO offspring early on it seems from what the report say, including other aquatic food it already consumes.

On top of that I prefer that way more than continually pouring chemicals into the air and water combating mosquitoes. The unintended consequences are larger. Cancer and deformed/disappearing amphibians.

 

[Kurmugeon]

I hate mosquitoes with a passion, but I love little brown bats, swallows and purple martins. So I am all for reducing the pesky insects while remaining respectful of other creatures.

Delightful, Delicious Trout are made out of Mosquitoes.

These idiots will kill U.S. all if we don't put limits on them.

If they were trying to breed a form of mosquito which was repelled by the scent of humans, fine. Though they should have to do 30 years of testing in remote L5 station before being allowed to bring it down here.

Eliminating an entire niche from the ecosystem is insanity.

The Woods NEED the Mosquito, or Darwin would have eliminated them eons ago.

-

 

[US Conservative]

An Oxford affiliated firm has bio-engineered a form of mosquito that is able to reduce the overall population of mosquito in the wild.

The male versions of this mosquito, when introduced to the wild, mate with their wild female counterparts, but due to the genetic modification the larvae somehow die off or produce incapable offspring. Additionally, these genetically modified males don't bite humans like their wild female counterparts. So the net affect is that the overall population of mosquitoes goes down, as well as mosquito borne illness transmitted to humans. This has been clinically tested in Brazil and the Cayman Islands.

This is revolutionary and a game changer. But not everyone is on board... In hippie bastion Key West, scientifically maladjusted hippies have cried foul rushing to sign petitions on 'change.org' and no doubt a lie laden article from 'truth.org' is forthcoming, in an effort to stop this marvel of modern science from benefiting their population.

What do you think? Isn't this what Science is supposed to do? Do the hippies have a point? Isn't it fun how members of both political ideologies continually disregard science (conservatives out of skepticism, and liberals out of fear)?

My personal take is that this is awesome. Think of all of the countries with significant mosquito problems that could benefit. I'm not sure what Key West's problem with mosquitoes is, but I can probably think of a better place than there to test these mosquitoes, especially given the local opposition.

Florida Keys: Sunshine, blue skies and genetically-modified mosquitoes? - The Washington Post

Good, over a million people die each year from mosquitos, and 500 million are made sick.
If I understand whats been done, as these mosquitoes die out there will be no lasting alteration to the DNA of non-modified mosquitos, so the population can be manipulated as needed to keep a beneficial presence.

This is a positive development that will likely be applied to other insects as well. It will likely save lives.

 

[Ockham]

I will say I "care" more about risk versus benefits and benefits extremely outweigh risks. Mosquito eaters already eat more than just mosquitoes and mosquito larvae eaters can still eat GMO offspring early on it seems from what the report say, including other aquatic food it already consumes.

That's true - and all I am saying is those predators need to be studied after eating those GMO larva and mosquitos before letting millions of GMO mosquito's out into the environment to avoid unintended consequences.

On top of that I prefer that way more than continually pouring chemicals into the air and water combating mosquitoes. The unintended consequences are larger. Cancer and deformed/disappearing amphibians.

Why must it be an "either or" ... why can't smaller unintended consequences be studied before going along with this program? Let's put it this way... the EPA is willing to stop any business or state governmental progress if a box turtle has a chance to be harmed. IS there a reason that the EPA shouldn't be just as cautious of this mosquito program which may have human benefits but may also have detrimental effects on the environment as well as the natural food chain including I'm sure, some endangered animals that are currently under it's protection?

I guess my point is, science and the EPA should be consistent in it's application and not hypocritical.

 

[US Conservative]

Delightful, Delicious Trout are made out of Mosquitoes.

These idiots will kill U.S. all if we don't put limits on them.

If they were trying to breed a form of mosquito which was repelled by the scent of humans, fine. Though they should have to do 30 years of testing in remote L5 station before being allowed to bring it down here.

Eliminating an entire niche from the ecosystem is insanity.

The Woods NEED the Mosquito, or Darwin would have eliminated them eons ago.

-

I didn't read that as eliminating an entire niche in the ecosystem. They aren't in danger of extinction, and simply not introducing new modified mosquitos if the numbers do indeed drop too far.

We already control mosquito threats via population control, as we do for many animals.

 

[MACS-24]

That's true - and all I am saying is those predators need to be studied after eating those GMO larva and mosquitos before letting millions of GMO mosquito's out into the environment to avoid unintended consequences.

Why must it be an "either or" ... why can't smaller unintended consequences be studied before going along with this program? Let's put it this way... the EPA is willing to stop any business or state governmental progress if a box turtle has a chance to be harmed. IS there a reason that the EPA shouldn't be just as cautious of this mosquito program which may have human benefits but may also have detrimental effects on the environment as well as the natural food chain including I'm sure, some endangered animals that are currently under it's protection?

I guess my point is, science and the EPA should be consistent in it's application and not hypocritical.

To the bolded. EPA has to sign off on it therefore studying consequences ARE going on.

EPA not being hypocritical - that's a whole nuther thread. But I'll say here that I don't think you can separate hypocrisy and EPA

 

[Peter Grimm]

An Oxford affiliated firm has bio-engineered a form of mosquito that is able to reduce the overall population of mosquito in the wild.

The male versions of this mosquito, when introduced to the wild, mate with their wild female counterparts, but due to the genetic modification the larvae somehow die off or produce incapable offspring. Additionally, these genetically modified males don't bite humans like their wild female counterparts. So the net affect is that the overall population of mosquitoes goes down, as well as mosquito borne illness transmitted to humans. This has been clinically tested in Brazil and the Cayman Islands.

This is revolutionary and a game changer. But not everyone is on board... In hippie bastion Key West, scientifically maladjusted hippies have cried foul rushing to sign petitions on 'change.org' and no doubt a lie laden article from 'truth.org' is forthcoming, in an effort to stop this marvel of modern science from benefiting their population.

What do you think? Isn't this what Science is supposed to do? Do the hippies have a point? Isn't it fun how members of both political ideologies continually disregard science (conservatives out of skepticism, and liberals out of fear)?

My personal take is that this is awesome. Think of all of the countries with significant mosquito problems that could benefit. I'm not sure what Key West's problem with mosquitoes is, but I can probably think of a better place than there to test these mosquitoes, especially given the local opposition.

Florida Keys: Sunshine, blue skies and genetically-modified mosquitoes? - The Washington Post

Mosquitoes suck, so I'm all for it

 

[SBu]

Here's some more information about the company:

Oxitec Science

From this site, it seems that the method has to be reapplied to maintain the suppression of the 'target species'. As mosquitoes don't live much longer than a couple weeks, it seems that the concerns of some regarding 'wiping out a species' are unfounded as it would likely only effect a very localized population (in populated areas or areas to be populated). Additionally, it is a targeted method, meaning that you can target a certain mosquito or insect vice the entire species. It's worthy to note that this is unlike pesticides which indiscriminately kill any bug that it is possible.

 

[Kurmugeon]

I didn't read that as eliminating an entire niche in the ecosystem. They aren't in danger of extinction, and simply not introducing new modified mosquitos if the numbers do indeed drop too far.

We already control mosquito threats via population control, as we do for many animals.

People don't like getting bitten by mosquitoes. More, they carry disease, and cause injuries which often get secondary infections. I get why we want them gone.

But it is the WOODS. It is their place, and they're an essential part of a very complex system. The trout need them, the plants need them, the bats need them, they fulfill a role to the woods.

We can try to reduce the number of mosquitoes to a level which no longer bothers people, but what percentage is that? All too easy, for non-thinking, non-caring people to blithely quip "0%, ha, hahhh, Good Riddance!"

And even if we can get a majority of people to be insightful enough to say 40%, a number which allows them to fulfill their essential roles to the ecosystem, then they still represent a problem for people in the spread of disease, and minor injuries which lead to secondary infections.

This is NOT a reasonable approach. You're addressing the problem in the wrong "Spatial Context". You're trying to say, "Let's control the number of mosquitoes in the Woods, in general, over the whole of their ecosystem niche range".

What we should be doing, is using the new tech and Genetech to create a form of mosquitoes which are altered as little as possible, but have some element which makes them self-exclude themselves from the very small comparatively space around each human being... ONLY!

If we want the enjoy the beauty and bounty of the Woods, we need to leave it alone, except for the minimal a interface zone around each of US as we move through the woods.

Just a better form of high tech, flexible, transparent, mosquito netting, or perhaps some sort of LED flash light UV light repellant would make sense.

A general reduction of the percentage of mosquitoes in the woods over all is just the kind of heavy handed, thoughtless, short sighted approach that have used to our regret in the past.

Change the woods as little as possible, should be our general approach!

-

 

[US Conservative]

People don't like getting bitten by mosquitoes. More, they carry disease, and cause injuries which often get secondary infections. I get why we want them gone.

But it is the WOODS. It is their place, and they're an essential part of a very complex system. The trout need them, the plants need them, the bats need them, they fulfill a role to the woods.

We can try to reduce the number of mosquitoes to a level which no longer bothers people, but what percentage is that? All too easy, for non-thinking, non-caring people to blithely quip "0%, ha, hahhh, Good Riddance!"

And even if we can get a majority of people to be insightful enough to say 40%, a number which allows them to fulfill their essential roles to the ecosystem, then they still represent a problem for people in the spread of disease, and minor injuries which lead to secondary infections.

This is NOT a reasonable approach. You're addressing the problem in the wrong "Spatial Context". You're trying to say, "Let's control the number of mosquitoes in the Woods, in general, over the whole of their ecosystem niche range".

What we should be doing, is using the new tech and Genetech to create a form of mosquitoes which are altered as little as possible, but have some element which makes them self-exclude themselves from the very small comparatively space around each human being... ONLY!

If we want the enjoy the beauty and bounty of the Woods, we need to leave it alone, except for the minimal a interface zone around each of US as we move through the woods.

Just a better form of high tech, flexible, transparent, mosquito netting, or perhaps some sort of LED flash light UV light repellant would make sense.

A general reduction of the percentage of mosquitoes in the woods over all is just the kind of heavy handed, thoughtless, short sighted approach that have used to our regret in the past.

Change the woods as little as possible, should be our general approach!

-

I get it, I totally do. But what if the tech isn't there to modify these mosquitos any other way?

Do nothing? What about the fact that they are the deadliest animal on earth?

There isn't a yes or no answer here, its about tradeoffs. Would you be willing to let more people die to maintain a "pristine" wilderness? Would you be willing to modify human genes if it meant eradicating genetic diseases?

These are the issues that arise with genetics.

 

[Kurmugeon]

I get it, I totally do. But what if the tech isn't there to modify these mosquitos any other way?

Do nothing? What about the fact that they are the deadliest animal on earth?

There isn't a yes or no answer here, its about tradeoffs. Would you be willing to let more people die to maintain a "pristine" wilderness? Would you be willing to modify human genes if it meant eradicating genetic diseases?

These are the issues that arise with genetics.

Do your first question:

But what if the tech isn't there to modify these mosquitos any other way?

I don't know? Do you?

Has anyone asked the question, i.e. put funding into a mosquito threat mitigation study using the new technologies, with a focus on not affecting the mosquitoes that are more than a few feet from the people who are out in the wildes?

Have exhausted all other options?

As to "Pristine" wilderness... well, there isn't much left of it.

Speaking of which, imagine yourself in the era of the movie/novel "Last of the Mohicans". A whole lot of wilderness, and most of it teaming with Mosquitoes, and yet those people, who did not even have the benefits of nylon mosquito netting, or DEET repellant spays, they managed to survive and thrive to pass the county on to U.S.... so... maybe, just maybe, the "THREAT" of mosquitoes has been just a bit exaggerated!

Maybe if you're going out to the woods, one of the costs and challenges is putting up with wearing protective netting and treating the injury sites of a few bites.

After all, if you mapped out how much of the land mass of the Mohican Era North America was wilderness, complete with mosquitoes, and compared it to the percentage area of the same today.... Just HOW MUCH area is left to even have such a threat.

For God's Sake, Leave what little Wilderness we have, as a Wilderness, complete with the essential element of our fine little buzzing friends!

-

 

[spud_meister]

Mosquitos do make up a significant part of the biomass of an aquatic ecosystem, however, they are no irreplaceable. Less mosquitoes would mean more insects like midges and gnats, whose larvae and adult forms would feed the animals that predate on mosquitoes. Another concern about the loss of mosquitoes is that it would increase the rate of algae blooms, as mosquito larvae feed primarily on algae, but again, other algae eating animals would thrive with less competition from the larvae.

 

[Moot]

I don't think its possible to rid the earth of all mosquitoes. But reducing their populations would be good.