5 ms·

> In an international partnership between CSIRO, Verily and James Cook University, scientists used specialised technology to release millions of sterilised male

> In an international partnership between CSIRO, Verily and James Cook University, scientists used specialised technology to release millions of sterilised male Aedes aegypti mosquitoes This is so stupid. A population will recover from this in a single generation, because the second you stop releasing sterile males, the remaining males (no matter how few) can repopulate the species. If you want to make a species of mosquitoes extinct (and I'm in favor of this, they serve no irreplaceable environmental purposes), the more effective method would be releasing males that only have male offspring.

ksec 8y ago
>they serve no irreplaceable environmental purposes How are we sure of this?
- crusso 8y ago
  We don't have to wipe out all mosquitos in one shot. There are many different species, not all of which transmit the deadly diseases of concern. We can start with less populous species that share their ecological niche with other species that can replace them in the food chain - observe the impact of removing that one species then move on to others as warranted by the results. Answer #2: It's worth the risk. Kill them all.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    > It's worth the risk Not really. Mosquitoes, both adults and larvae, serve as an important food source for many animals that humans eventually depend on for food. Many types of juvenile fish eat their larvae, for example, juvenile fish that eventually grow up and become a major source of protein for some groups of people.
    - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
      >a major source of protein for some groups of people. // But not for Westerners in temperate climes, so, y'know, who cares ... [that's deeply black sarcasm in case it's not obvious].
  - noonespecial 8y ago
    I like 2. Bad things might happen, but probably not worse than malaria. We had some missteps applying technology last century but the time has come to stop being paralyzed by fear and start carefully, optimistically fixing some of this stuff.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- jonny_eh 8y ago
  Yes, pretty sure: https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html
  - wukerplank 8y ago
    Maybe it's true, but usually it's human hybris. I doubt that we understand our ecosystem enough to make these kinds of judgements.
  - JackCh 8y ago
    > "Yet in many cases, scientists acknowledge that the ecological scar left by a missing mosquito would heal quickly as the niche was filled by other organisms." More concerning than the ecological scar left behind by the eradication of some species of mosquito is the precedent that would be set. Once you've deliberately eradicated one pest species, people will incorporate the knowledge of that action into their image of how the world works and the sort of things we're willing to do. The next time somebody proposes that a species be eradicated, there will almost certainly be less debate. I've heard people defend the deliberate eradication of mosquitoes by pointing out how we've already deliberately eradicated viruses like smallpox. This demonstrates my concern. What will the eradication of mosquitoes be used to justify? It's already the case in the modern era that angry mobs of idiots need to be restrained from emotional outbursts against animals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Australian_shark_cull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Australian_shark_cull). Having scientists justify the extermination of mosquitoes will only make it harder to get these angry mobs to back down. I don't really doubt that human-feeding mosquito species could be eradicated without much harm to the environment, but these social concerns remain unaddressed.
    - Nasrudith 8y ago
      Eradicating pest and threat species is so very not new. Ask the wolves around centuries old ranching regions. Mosquitoes have indirectly the highest human body count in history and prehistory. Even with reuse it is pretty mating strategy dependent. It isn't a dial an extinction. Trying that with say feral cats would be a miserable failure or at best the equivalent of releasing a bunch of teaser tomcats into an area having only the TNR occupying effect on inhibiting population growth by claiming territory until they die of natural causes.
- cbhl 8y ago
  Because they used to not exist in these areas. That's what the word "invasive species" means.
  - ufo 8y ago
    Indeed. Aedes aegipti originated in Africa and spread to throughout the world due to trade and globalization (including the transatlantic slave trade). It brought with it many African mosquito-bourne diseases such as Dengue and Yellow Fever, which are specifically transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes.
- robotcookies 8y ago
  We can always keep a few in labs around the world in the very small chance they do serve a useful purpose.
konschubert 8y ago
Or a gene drive that renders male offspring sterile.
- cbhl 8y ago
  Sterilizing with Wolbachia is "natural" and thus reduces time-to-market versus a GMO-based solution. The Verily folks are well aware of gene drives and CRISPR, but they're working to get a useful profitable product out to market, so they'll have more money to support that sort of R&D.
hiddencost 8y ago
You say "stupid", I say "recurring revenue".
jtr1 8y ago
> This is so stupid. A population will recover from this in a single generation, because the second you stop releasing sterile males, the remaining males (no matter how few) can repopulate the species. Or perhaps it's prudent and by design. Mosquitos are part of a complex ecosystem that we barely understand. Irreversibly wiping out a _species_ without fully understanding the consequences is a drastic measure.
- stefan_ 8y ago
  It's always bizarre to read these opinions. They seem to start from an unmentioned point of view where the rapid growth of humans has somehow never caused species to cease to exist and that today, right now is the most natural state of being and that the discussed actions threaten this perfect balance we've carefully built. It's all revisionist nonsense. Take a look out the window at all the hulking tons of metal burning up dinosaurs to move faster than any land animal ever did. Complex ecosystem. It's the same phenomenon we get with opposition to GMO food found predominantly in faux educated circles. Heard about evolution in school, never really understood it.

ksec 8y ago

>they serve no irreplaceable environmental purposes How are we sure of this?

crusso 8y ago
We don't have to wipe out all mosquitos in one shot. There are many different species, not all of which transmit the deadly diseases of concern. We can start with less populous species that share their ecological niche with other species that can replace them in the food chain - observe the impact of removing that one species then move on to others as warranted by the results. Answer #2: It's worth the risk. Kill them all.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  > It's worth the risk Not really. Mosquitoes, both adults and larvae, serve as an important food source for many animals that humans eventually depend on for food. Many types of juvenile fish eat their larvae, for example, juvenile fish that eventually grow up and become a major source of protein for some groups of people.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    >a major source of protein for some groups of people. // But not for Westerners in temperate climes, so, y'know, who cares ... [that's deeply black sarcasm in case it's not obvious].
- noonespecial 8y ago
  I like 2. Bad things might happen, but probably not worse than malaria. We had some missteps applying technology last century but the time has come to stop being paralyzed by fear and start carefully, optimistically fixing some of this stuff.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
jonny_eh 8y ago
Yes, pretty sure: https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html
- wukerplank 8y ago
  Maybe it's true, but usually it's human hybris. I doubt that we understand our ecosystem enough to make these kinds of judgements.
- JackCh 8y ago
  > "Yet in many cases, scientists acknowledge that the ecological scar left by a missing mosquito would heal quickly as the niche was filled by other organisms." More concerning than the ecological scar left behind by the eradication of some species of mosquito is the precedent that would be set. Once you've deliberately eradicated one pest species, people will incorporate the knowledge of that action into their image of how the world works and the sort of things we're willing to do. The next time somebody proposes that a species be eradicated, there will almost certainly be less debate. I've heard people defend the deliberate eradication of mosquitoes by pointing out how we've already deliberately eradicated viruses like smallpox. This demonstrates my concern. What will the eradication of mosquitoes be used to justify? It's already the case in the modern era that angry mobs of idiots need to be restrained from emotional outbursts against animals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Australian_shark_cull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Australian_shark_cull). Having scientists justify the extermination of mosquitoes will only make it harder to get these angry mobs to back down. I don't really doubt that human-feeding mosquito species could be eradicated without much harm to the environment, but these social concerns remain unaddressed.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    Eradicating pest and threat species is so very not new. Ask the wolves around centuries old ranching regions. Mosquitoes have indirectly the highest human body count in history and prehistory. Even with reuse it is pretty mating strategy dependent. It isn't a dial an extinction. Trying that with say feral cats would be a miserable failure or at best the equivalent of releasing a bunch of teaser tomcats into an area having only the TNR occupying effect on inhibiting population growth by claiming territory until they die of natural causes.
cbhl 8y ago
Because they used to not exist in these areas. That's what the word "invasive species" means.
- ufo 8y ago
  Indeed. Aedes aegipti originated in Africa and spread to throughout the world due to trade and globalization (including the transatlantic slave trade). It brought with it many African mosquito-bourne diseases such as Dengue and Yellow Fever, which are specifically transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes.
robotcookies 8y ago
We can always keep a few in labs around the world in the very small chance they do serve a useful purpose.

konschubert 8y ago

Or a gene drive that renders male offspring sterile.

cbhl 8y ago
Sterilizing with Wolbachia is "natural" and thus reduces time-to-market versus a GMO-based solution. The Verily folks are well aware of gene drives and CRISPR, but they're working to get a useful profitable product out to market, so they'll have more money to support that sort of R&D.

hiddencost 8y ago

You say "stupid", I say "recurring revenue".

jtr1 8y ago

> This is so stupid. A population will recover from this in a single generation, because the second you stop releasing sterile males, the remaining males (no matter how few) can repopulate the species. Or perhaps it's prudent and by design. Mosquitos are part of a complex ecosystem that we barely understand. Irreversibly wiping out a _species_ without fully understanding the consequences is a drastic measure.

stefan_ 8y ago
It's always bizarre to read these opinions. They seem to start from an unmentioned point of view where the rapid growth of humans has somehow never caused species to cease to exist and that today, right now is the most natural state of being and that the discussed actions threaten this perfect balance we've carefully built. It's all revisionist nonsense. Take a look out the window at all the hulking tons of metal burning up dinosaurs to move faster than any land animal ever did. Complex ecosystem. It's the same phenomenon we get with opposition to GMO food found predominantly in faux educated circles. Heard about evolution in school, never really understood it.