5 ms·

Why can't they do both? Seems pretty short sighted to be against new technology for no good reason.

mimixco 5y ago
Because GMO mosquitos introduce unnecessary risks. This is the best summary that I wrote at the time: https://neveragainkw.wordpress.com/2016/09/05/5-things-you-must-know-about-gmo-mosquitoes/ https://neveragainkw.wordpress.com/2016/09/05/5-things-you-m... It's of note that the project is so unpopular in the Keys that they have had to move from a Keys-wide trial covering thousands of homes to an opt-in only test with 130 houses. In other words, the people who live there don't want to be part of the experiment.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- itake 5y ago
  > No one can know the effects of Oxitec’s artificial DNA entering the human bloodstream through mosquito bites I'm still not sure I understand the problem. This entire experiment feels like a much safer version of the time the USA released a massive amount of DDT to end polio transmission [0]. DDT is obviously horrible for humans, but now we also live in a country without polio. There are costs to everything. Nothing is perfect. Please provide better evidence than "having non-natural DNA in your blood is bad". [0] - https://academic.oup.com/envhis/article/22/4/696/4057684 https://academic.oup.com/envhis/article/22/4/696/4057684
  - mimixco 5y ago
    I wrote a whole website about this, so I'm not really down to debate it with you. There's a lot to read about this, including source documents from Oxitec and the FDA. You can draw your own conclusions from the evidence that's there.
    - selestify 5y ago
      Not everyone has the time to read "a whole website," nor is everyone inclined to if you are unwilling to clear up a seemingly unscientific concept (DNA from GMO entities ending up in our genome).
  - soperj 5y ago
    Except that the DDT probably had little to no effect on the transmission of Polio, and the real reason we live in a country without polio is that we've got a vaccine against it.
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      Malaria was endemic in the US prior to the National Malaria Eradication Program, which used DDT.
      - soperj 5y ago
        Malaria is a completely different disease than Polio. Thanks.
        maxerickson 5y ago
        Right, I didn't add any context in my first comment, but the point is that DDT and mosquito control were an important component of disease control in the United States, regardless of whether polio is relevant to the discussion or not.
        soperj 5y ago
        That's exactly what my comment was about though, polio isn't relevant.
  - paul_f 5y ago
    DDT is not "obviously horrible for humans". That's dubious. It has not been proven to be carcinogenic and is only listed as "probable".
  - Turing_Machine 5y ago
    Polio isn't spread by mosquitos. I think you're confusing it with something else.
- mgraczyk 5y ago
  Hello from Miami. Sorry but your assessment is just a luddite fallacy. You point out potential harm without acknowledging any potential benefits. It's clear to me that the potential benefits massively outweigh the potential harms. The potential harms you point out are tiny compared to the millions of lives ruined and hundreds of thousands of deaths caused each year by malaria.
  - thebean11 5y ago
    > hundreds of thousands of deaths caused each year by malaria. I might be missing something..there are people dying of malaria in Florida? Or you're saying that doing the test in Florida will help to get this technology to places where malaria is common? Put another way, are there in potential benefits for the people living in the testing sites?
    - kbenson 5y ago
      > Put another way, are there in potential benefits for the people living in the testing sites? The submitted article mentions Zika in the first paragraph. So reducing Zika cases spread by mosquitos is one potential benefit.
      - slowmovintarget 5y ago
        I'm all for reducing the EEE in the Greater Boston Area, too. There are only four species of mosquito that bite humans. They are a tiny part of the food chain, and would be completely replaced by other food sources. It's also not the first time humans have successfully made this kind of intervention. Here's an article from 2016 about the same thing (it even mentions Oxitec): https://slate.com/technology/2016/01/zika-carrying-mosquitoes-are-a-global-scourge-and-must-be-stopped.html https://slate.com/technology/2016/01/zika-carrying-mosquitoe... (I believe it was posted to HN a while back, but the article stuck with me as we don't dare enjoy the outdoors here for fear of our child getting Eastern Equine Encephalitis: https://www.cdc.gov/easternequineencephalitis/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/easternequineencephalitis/index.html )
    - 5y ago

Because GMO mosquitos introduce unnecessary risks. This is the best summary that I wrote at the time: https://neveragainkw.wordpress.com/2016/09/05/5-things-you-must-know-about-gmo-mosquitoes/ https://neveragainkw.wordpress.com/2016/09/05/5-things-you-m... It's of note that the project is so unpopular in the Keys that they have had to move from a Keys-wide trial covering thousands of homes to an opt-in only test with 130 houses. In other words, the people who live there don't want to be part of the experiment.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
itake 5y ago
> No one can know the effects of Oxitec’s artificial DNA entering the human bloodstream through mosquito bites I'm still not sure I understand the problem. This entire experiment feels like a much safer version of the time the USA released a massive amount of DDT to end polio transmission [0]. DDT is obviously horrible for humans, but now we also live in a country without polio. There are costs to everything. Nothing is perfect. Please provide better evidence than "having non-natural DNA in your blood is bad". [0] - https://academic.oup.com/envhis/article/22/4/696/4057684 https://academic.oup.com/envhis/article/22/4/696/4057684
- mimixco 5y ago
  I wrote a whole website about this, so I'm not really down to debate it with you. There's a lot to read about this, including source documents from Oxitec and the FDA. You can draw your own conclusions from the evidence that's there.
  - selestify 5y ago
    Not everyone has the time to read "a whole website," nor is everyone inclined to if you are unwilling to clear up a seemingly unscientific concept (DNA from GMO entities ending up in our genome).
- soperj 5y ago
  Except that the DDT probably had little to no effect on the transmission of Polio, and the real reason we live in a country without polio is that we've got a vaccine against it.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    Malaria was endemic in the US prior to the National Malaria Eradication Program, which used DDT.
    - soperj 5y ago
      Malaria is a completely different disease than Polio. Thanks.
      - maxerickson 5y ago
        Right, I didn't add any context in my first comment, but the point is that DDT and mosquito control were an important component of disease control in the United States, regardless of whether polio is relevant to the discussion or not.
        soperj 5y ago
        That's exactly what my comment was about though, polio isn't relevant.
- paul_f 5y ago
  DDT is not "obviously horrible for humans". That's dubious. It has not been proven to be carcinogenic and is only listed as "probable".
- Turing_Machine 5y ago
  Polio isn't spread by mosquitos. I think you're confusing it with something else.
mgraczyk 5y ago
Hello from Miami. Sorry but your assessment is just a luddite fallacy. You point out potential harm without acknowledging any potential benefits. It's clear to me that the potential benefits massively outweigh the potential harms. The potential harms you point out are tiny compared to the millions of lives ruined and hundreds of thousands of deaths caused each year by malaria.
- thebean11 5y ago
  > hundreds of thousands of deaths caused each year by malaria. I might be missing something..there are people dying of malaria in Florida? Or you're saying that doing the test in Florida will help to get this technology to places where malaria is common? Put another way, are there in potential benefits for the people living in the testing sites?
  - kbenson 5y ago
    > Put another way, are there in potential benefits for the people living in the testing sites? The submitted article mentions Zika in the first paragraph. So reducing Zika cases spread by mosquitos is one potential benefit.
    - slowmovintarget 5y ago
      I'm all for reducing the EEE in the Greater Boston Area, too. There are only four species of mosquito that bite humans. They are a tiny part of the food chain, and would be completely replaced by other food sources. It's also not the first time humans have successfully made this kind of intervention. Here's an article from 2016 about the same thing (it even mentions Oxitec): https://slate.com/technology/2016/01/zika-carrying-mosquitoes-are-a-global-scourge-and-must-be-stopped.html https://slate.com/technology/2016/01/zika-carrying-mosquitoe... (I believe it was posted to HN a while back, but the article stuck with me as we don't dare enjoy the outdoors here for fear of our child getting Eastern Equine Encephalitis: https://www.cdc.gov/easternequineencephalitis/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/easternequineencephalitis/index.html )
  - 5y ago