Unnatural Selection: Genetically-Modified, Malaria-Proof Mosquitoes
Saturday, 17 Jul 2010 — Contributed by Kuncen
Image via Wikipedia
Scientists have at long last succeeded in creating a mosquito which is immune to the malaria parasite. Via genetic modification they have shortened the insect's lifespan by 20%, which deprives the parasite of sufficient time to mature in the mosquito's gut. The LA Times states that the researchers "don't yet understand how the genetic change makes the mosquitoes malaria-proof." That doesn't diminish the tremendous potential it represents for tropical regions around the world, where malaria remains a major scourge and kills nearly 1 million people each year.
According to the BBC, "[the researchers'] ultimate goal is to introduce malaria-resistant mosquitoes into the environment." Professor Michael Riehle, working on the project, elaborates:
"Before we do this, we have to somehow give the mosquitoes a competitive advantage over the disease-carrying insects."
How does one give a modified mosquito a 'leg up' over regular mosquitoes? The BBC article suggests that these malaria-proof mosquitoes might be further genetically enhanced to be resistant to toxins that would otherwise kill normal mosquitoes. Immune to bug spray and malaria, these new mosquitoes would be more likely to survive and breed, thus replacing the malaria-prone ones.
Image via Wikipedia
Coincidentally, another discovery made recently may provide a different way to give these new mosquitoes an edge over their old-school counterparts. Scientists working at Northwestern University in the United States have pinpointed the gene which is responsible for producing sperm. They also learned that this crucial gene, unchanged for 600 million years, is found in nearly all animals. Of course an animal missing this gene would necessarily be unable to pass on its DNA, and would thus be an evolutionary dead-end. But could the gene be used in some other way, or perhaps enhanced in the malaria-proof mosquitoes? The lead researcher in the study states:
"Our work suggests that disrupting the function of [the sperm gene] in animals most likely will disrupt their breeding and put the threatening parasites or germs under control. This could represent a new direction in our future development of pesticides or medicine against infectious parasites or carriers of germs."
Charles Darwin is undoubtedly rolling over in his grave at these new developments. Playing god with genetics has long been a concern of scientists and watchdogs alike, but these discoveries throw a whole new light on the possibilities - and the pitfalls. The idea of mosquitoes which are immune to insect repellent is enough to give any adventurer nightmares. Then imagine a super-mosquito which uses its 'competitive advantage' to exterminate normal ones and make life hell for humans! And messing around with the sperm gene - possibly the oldest, and arguably one of the most important - would make any scientist take pause.
Of course more testing and careful deliberation are needed before these mosquitoes are introduced into the wild. But the world may not wait. The Daily Nation reports that Kenya is already planning to use them to eliminate malaria in seven years.
Do these recent discoveries open the door to the grave danger of genetic experiments gone awry, or are those fears overblown? Do they instead represent promise and hope for the eradication of malaria? Post a comment below and let us know your opinion.
Favorite
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Newsvine
StumbleUpon
Caution
Considering the scientists don't yet know how their discovery works, giving a competitive advantage seems to be jumping the gun. And the sperm gene should probably be left well enough alone. Great discoveries, but caution is needed.
Consequences
The idea of making a pest immune to pesticides seems like a really stupid move. I'm all for the eradication of malaria, but what of other mosquito-borne illnesses? Couldn't introducing these new and improved mosquitoes cause horrible consequences, such as a rise in Dengue fever, West Nile Virus, and any other illness carried by mosquitoes? I think it'd be great if scientists could figure out a way to make mosquitoes self-destruct if they were infected with malaria, so they wouldn't have a chance to pass the virus on to anyone... but then again, what if that was somehow passed on to humans?
1/2
From a recent article, malaria is responsible for half of all human deaths since the stone age ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870411170457535491183434045... ).
Additionally, the malaria parasite has given a selective advantage to the sickle cell gene in Africans like myself since the malaria parasite has a low survival rate in poorly oxygenated cells. And finally...the whammy: The sickle cell gene has the effect of increasing the carrier's vulnerability to HIV by 40%, while simultaneously increasing their average lifespan with the disease by 2 years. 2 extra years to be a disease vector. It's a perfect storm.
I think you know what my vote is.
Malaria-AIDS connection
Correct me if I'm wrong: malaria, via sickle cell anemia, is (indirectly) responsible for increasing the prevalence of AIDS, and the lifespan of those with AIDS. Is that right? Very interesting, as I was not aware of that connection. Please provide more links about this, if you have them, as my interest is piqued.
And can anyone confirm the statement in the Wallstreet Journal article that says "The malaria parasite has been responsible for half of all human deaths since the Stone Age"? The author didn't provide a source, and as the WSJ is better known for business than science, I'd be interested to know if this statistic can be verified. It's a very strong statement.
Rabbits and Australia.
Serious thinking needs to be done before this is released. Every time man decides to manage nature, an unforeseen consequence appears and usually gets out of control. Rabbits in Australia, Yellowstone Park, Dogs in New Zealand... the list goes on, and yet we still do not learn.
rabbits
I agree with you there Mr Shaw having experienced the canetoad invasion as it occurred firsthand in the Northern territory. Don't forget about the brushtail possum being introduced to New Zealand which has had disasterous consequences as well.
What do mean in reference to Yellowstone however? The reintroduction of the wolf has had very positive results.
With the malaria mosquito I see why they would want to do this as malaria has killed more people than anything else in history but the unintended consequences can indeed be dire. Man's constant fiddling with nature will eventually lead to even greater catastrophies.
Yellowstone Park
Yellowstone Park was tampered with by humans not long after it was founded, and humans have attempted to rectify the problems caused by altering the ecological status quo ever since. We still have not learned that if we want to preserve an area, we should leave it to its own devices. It won't happen though. We know best, we have gentleman in white suits with lengthy titles to prove it. Mr Bison and Mr Wolf have no chance. With regards to the Wolf being reintroduced, it may work but I doubt that the long term ramifications can truly be predicted.
I did forget about Possum to be honest. In terms of the cane toad, it is possible that in the future the Toad itself will replace all frogs, which are dying out...guess who's fault that is.
We will never run short of domestic animals though, which are heavily over-populated. Question is, while wee are stripping the planet of resources, are we doing it to feed ourselves, or to feed Fido and Whiskers? The future looks like wildlife will be sheep farms and cow paddocks. we do like beef and lamb though don't we?
wolfs in yellowstone
I disagree in regards to wolfs in yellowstone. They belong there and their temporary absence was a crime. I feel that their reintroduction is one of the best examples of returning an ecosystem to its natural balance. Unfortunately though Yellowstone as many places on earth is becoming an island of wilderness in a sea of man.
You are right about domestic animals though, it pains me that people seem to care more about lost doggies and the living conditions of pigs than they do about preserving biodiversity. Organizations like the RSPCA here in Tasmania care more about the plight of feral cats than they care about the native animals they are destroying.
As for New Zealand, there is a tale of woe. Before man it was one of the most unique places on earth. Now most of those animals that made it unique are long gone and the few that remain only barely cling on in the face of extinction.
Clarification
Sorry, I may have confused you. The wolves DID indeed belong in Yellowstone park. Their absence was a little more than temporary ...70 years is a long time. Their reintroduction is not really returning the ecosystem to its natural balance though. The only way to have done this would be to have left the park to its own devices in the first place. Yes the wolves have succeeded...in the short term, but these wolves are from Canada. Who knows the difference between these, and the original wolves that lived there, and it will take a long time before we can truly understand any differences and the consequences on the ecosystem. I'm pleased that Yellowstone has a animal that once lived there, again roaming and breeding. Will the wolves breed to quickly though? Do they produce more than the original wolves because the amount of prey they can hunt? Will they be immune to the diseases that their prey may have? Could this be passed on to other animals? Will the fact that they have already strayed outside of the park become a problem? Will they put pressure on another species within the park? All of the question can't be predicted accurately, that was my point. I really just wish we would leave animals well alone when we say we are trying to preserve the natural balance, instead of occasionally deciding what should happen.
Wolfs in Yellowstone
Really, Wolfs belong there--Doesn't the moose and Elk also belong there? I asked the Yellowstone Nation Parks where the best place to view Moose and Elk were--Because, when I was a kid my parents took me to see the Moose and Elk, I took my kids to see the Moose and Elk, and I stupidly wanted to show my Grandkids--I was at Yellowstone when they still had the bears on the roads, before the fire, after the fire, and before the wolfs.... Yellowstone Park told me to go view Moose in other Parks because Global Warming had displaced the herds... Why did global warming not displace the herds in the other Parks? Actually, I do think the wolfs have a place--and could be part of the Park.. However, I understand they did not use the Natives ones in Montana, Idaho, Or Washington. In fact, our good scientist tried to hide the fact that there were native wolfs still around in near-by states. Science is only as good as the people who use it for the highest and best calling-- To use science to eliminate one species while introduction a non-native species is the same argument with the mosquitos--Bad science--let's not use emotions but good science--Mosquitos need control so do wolfs.
Mosquitoes, are they necessary?
This article at the Nature Website is well worth a read. It explains what would happen if Mosquitoes were removed from the Ecosystem.
Selective extinction
That's a really fascinating article, thanks for sharing it MrShaw. The author seems to suggest in one breath that the jury is still out as to whether we can safely eliminate mosquitoes, and in another that it probably would not do much environmental/ecological damage at all. Needless to say, I've never seen so many scientists go on the record in favor (or at least not against) eliminating a species entirely. It's almost shocking, but I'm sort of in agreement with them. It's an interesting question: if we could prove that making a particularly irritating and disease-carrying animal go extinct would have a negligible environmental impact, would it be okay to go ahead and wipe that animal off the face of the planet?
Kuncen
Malaria mosquitoes evolving into 2 species
Scientists are now saying that the mosquitoes which carry malaria appear to be diverging into two distinct species, which would make any sort of genetic modification doubly difficult.
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2010/10/21/Malaria-mosquitoes-evolving-i...
Kuncen
Hello, Thanks for placing the
Hello,
Thanks for placing the article it will be really helpful for all the concerned ppl.
Spermless mosquitoes have now
Spermless mosquitoes have now been created:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14422440
Kuncen
Dengue-proof mosquitos:
Dengue-proof mosquitos: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8721540/Scientists-create-dengue-resistant-mosquitoes.html
It is very interesting news
It is very interesting news for all the human being...... Now feel free though you have malaria
mosquitoes are one of the
mosquitoes are one of the most dreaded insect in the world.. they take around 2 million lives every year in India.. but this is a blog in complete different context.. quite the insect !
This should definitely be
This should definitely be good news to many undeveloped countries in Africa. It should also be interesting to see the statistics 10 years after the implementation.
Seize the skull!
(Add a new comment)