Eradicating Diseases

[BigRedBuster]

How far are we willing to go?

This is some amazing technology that could change the world for a lot of people.

 

 

[knapplc]

People see & hear "GMO" and they freak out.  But just about everything around us is a GMO.  Almost all of the food we eat is from genetically modified sources, even most of the stuff labeled "organic" in the store.

 

I'm fine with most GMOs. I'm fine with modifying mosquitoes to end malaria as long as it doesn't drastically upset the food chain.

[RedDenver]

27 minutes ago, knapplc said:

People see & hear "GMO" and they freak out.  But just about everything around us is a GMO.  Almost all of the food we eat is from genetically modified sources, even most of the stuff labeled "organic" in the store.

 

I'm fine with most GMOs. I'm fine with modifying mosquitoes to end malaria as long as it doesn't drastically upset the food chain.

Well that's just untrue. Corn, soy, and cotton are almost entirely GMO these days but other crops haven't reached those levels. Here's and article from a few years ago that looks at the different crops that have GMO variants: http://time.com/3840073/gmo-food-charts/

[knapplc]

Depends how you define GMOs.  Most every plant and animal we see at the supermarket is the result of selective breeding, which by some definitions makes them GMOs.

[Landlord]

15 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Well that's just untrue. Corn, soy, and cotton are almost entirely GMO these days but other crops haven't reached those levels. Here's and article from a few years ago that looks at the different crops that have GMO variants: http://time.com/3840073/gmo-food-charts/

 

 

Human beings created those crops, more or less. 

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Depends how you define GMOs.  Most every plant and animal we see at the supermarket is the result of selective breeding, which by some definitions makes them GMOs.

No

 

GMO has a very specific definition and very few things we eat are GMO. 

[knapplc]

Before this thread turns into a s-show about what is or isn't a GMO, I'm going to edit my original post by saying this:

 

57 minutes ago, knapplc said:

I'm fine with most GMOs. I'm fine with modifying mosquitoes to end malaria as long as it doesn't drastically upset the food chain.

 

[huKSer]

I think this would be a great way to get around the anti-vax crowd - but first check to see if getting bit by a mosquito causes autism

[Moiraine]

18 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Before this thread turns into a s-show about what is or isn't a GMO, I'm going to edit my original post by saying this:

 

 

Regardless of whether you're for it...

 

 

The huge majority of people and scientists discussing GMOs are talking about genetic engineering. They're talking about inserting genes into an organism or editing them. Genetic engineering is now synonymous with GMO, even if you can find other definitions for it. People talking about GMOs do not mean selective breeding/cross-pollination or mutations, and that's not what BRB's link is about either. They are editing the genes with generic engineering.

 

People are freaked out by genetic engineering, not cross-pollination, and I'm assuming you think the freak out is silly and therefore are equating it with methods that have been used for centuries as if to show it's stupid they're freaking out. Just my guess. Not saying you're wrong that it's stupid but GMO means genetic engineering and it has been used for about 40 years now.

[knapplc]

 

 

[TGHusker]

  seems like we need a general tread on GMO - pros and cons and issues.   

Yes by all means get those  Frankenstein mosquitoes in the air and mix wt the native population to take the bite out of the mosquito bite.

 

The rise in malaria can be traced back to the 1970s when DDT was banned and we've had an uphill battle ever since.   In 2006 the World Health Org

advocated the indoor spraying of DDT  once again to combate malaria.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1570869/

 

Since then, the oh so crafty mosquito has built up a resistance to DDT.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140224204808.htm

 

Quote

 

Researchers from LSTM have found that a single genetic mutation causes resistance to DDT and pyrethroids (an insecticide class used in mosquito nets). With the continuing rise of resistance the research, published in the journal Genome Biology, is key as scientists say that this knowledge could help improve malaria control strategies.

The researchers, led by Dr Charles Wondji, used a wide range of methods to narrow down how the resistance works, finding a single mutation in the GSTe2 gene, which makes insects break down DDT so it's no longer toxic. They have also shown that this gene makes insects resistant to pyrethroids raising the concern that GSTe2 gene could protect mosquitoes against the major insecticides used in public health.

 

 

It seems the best fix is to 'fix the mosquito by doing what they do best, breeding, against them. 

[Moiraine]

24 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

  seems like we need a general tread on GMO - pros and cons and issues.   

 

 

We already had a general thread on it where we discussed the definition of GMOs and for some reason someone again had to post here that we've had GMOs since the dawn of time when we were walking with dinosaurs instead of commenting on the genetic engineering used in the OP's linked story.

[RedDenver]

I think the mosquito idea sounds reasonable, but there's a paragraph from the article that I think lends itself to why GMO is ripe for abuse:

Quote

CRISPR would “enable scientists to construct efficient … gene drives not only in mosquitoes, but in many other species,” they wrote. Insects like the Western corn rootworm and plants like the horseweed and pigweed that disrupt farming could be rendered nonresistant to pesticides and herbicides, or changed so they no longer like the taste of the crops they prey on. Invasive species like Asian carp could be eradicated from habitats they’ve invaded. Vulnerable or endangered species could be engineered to be more fertile.

The temptation to modify the ecosystem is a REALLY bad one. First, this technique can't actually render pests nonresistant to pesticides and herbicides because natural selection will immediately cause resistant populations to become dominant, so the entire thinking that this technique can fix problems that it actually can't is fatally flawed. Second, what we term "invasive species" is what every living thing on Earth was at one time or another, so it'll be a political fight over what's "invasive" and what isn't. I mean, the crops we grow are technically "invasive", so who gets to label things becomes very important. But the biggest reason to be cautious is unintended consequences, which can be dire for genetic engineering:

https://gizmodo.com/genetically-engineering-the-natural-world-it-turns-out-1820493131

Quote

“[Modified organisms] probably can’t be safely tested in the field because they’re likely to spread to most populations of the target species throughout the world,” Esvelt said.

Quote

“I badly misled many conservationists who are desperately in need of hope,” Esvelt said. “My mistake was in miserably failing to communicate clearly.”

Quote

Some recent research has suggested that wild populations will naturally develop resistance to lab-engineered modifications before a gene drive really has a chance to work its magic. In one 2015 study, researchers reported a CRISPR gene drive had allowed an infertility mutation in female mosquitoes to be passed on to all offspring, but as the mutation increased in frequency over several generations, resistance to the gene drive also emerged, making it unlikely for the mosquitoes to invade wild populations. But Esvelt has floated potential ways around this problem, such as inserting the gene drive gene at several important places in a species’ genome so that it’s unlikely to develop resistance. Even with an inefficient gene drive though, the bioRxiv paper suggests a model in which a small number of altered species could spread to unintended populations.

 

[RedDenver]

Coincidentally, Jon Oliver tackled this subject last night:

 

[The Dude]

I suspect many anti-science hippies would rather have millions killed by malaria than ever admit GMOs are safe and necessary.