[DOOMED] Scientists Release Controversial Genetically Modified Mosquitoes In High-Security Lab

I could do immortality on the xbox. Easy.

 

I need to do this. I'll open the first park with dinosaurs and make millions. I'm going to half-price books right now

 

How much for a jar?

 

These are gene experts wanting to engineer genes. Nature is more complicated.

 

We can keep as many deadly diseases, viruses, bacterias, fungus in a lab as we want, we should do all we can to eliminate diseases from the actual human population.

It's a pretty toxic and carcinogenic substance to humans, it's hard for me to advocate spraying it indoors where people live, even if it does kill mosquitos. Its why I find hitting mosquitos with the ban hammer from the forum of earth to be an attractive idea to explore.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1012-ddt-finally-linked-to-human-health-problems/

Disease-free world vs immortality are different questions. I don't enjoy the hardships in life, humans should continue to do everything they can to eliminate the hardships of life, especially ones such as deadly diseases affecting millions. I don't think you'd be as philosophic about all of this if you had a child die from malaria. Young children are the vast majority of malaria deaths.

In the same light, I also oppose starvation and world hunger, even though it's been a part of life as long as humans have lived, just like eliminating diseases, I don't think it's a question whether we should do all we can to eliminate it.

 

I'm not familiar with the Longnecker study, but it appears he analyzed numbers generated from when DDT was still widely used via aerial spraying ("Longnecker analysed data on 2380 babies born in the US in the 1960s, when DDT was still widely used.") That is not primarily how DDT is used today. for what it's worth

 

also for what it's worth--a somewhat more recent (2011) survey article that concludes DDT may still have some appropriate uses for combating malaria, despite the human health risks.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3114806/

Abstract:

The debate regarding dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) in malaria prevention and human health is polarized and can be classified into three positions: anti-DDT, centrist-DDT, pro-DDT.

Objective
We attempted to arrive at a synthesis by matching a series of questions on the use of DDT for indoor residual spraying (IRS) with literature and insights, and to identify options and opportunities.

Discussion
Overall, community health is significantly improved through all available malaria control measures, which include IRS with DDT. Is DDT “good”? Yes, because it has saved many lives. Is DDT safe as used in IRS? Recent publications have increasingly raised concerns about the health implications of DDT. Therefore, an unqualified statement that DDT used in IRS is safe is untenable. Are inhabitants and applicators exposed? Yes, and to high levels. Should DDT be used? The fact that DDT is “good” because it saves lives, and “not safe” because it has health and environmental consequences, raises ethical issues. The evidence of adverse human health effects due to DDT is mounting. However, under certain circumstances, malaria control using DDT cannot yet be halted. Therefore, the continued use of DDT poses a paradox recognized by a centrist-DDT position. At the very least, it is now time to invoke precaution. Precautionary actions could include use and exposure reduction.

Conclusions
There are situations where DDT will provide the best achievable health benefit, but maintaining that DDT is safe ignores the cumulative indications of many studies. In such situations, addressing the paradox from a centrist-DDT position and invoking precaution will help design choices for healthier lives.
​

 

I don't want to know what vampire slayers do behind the scenes, just do it.

 

It's one of the greatest entomological success stories of all times and also one of the least well-known peaceful uses of atomic energy: perfection of an effective control for screwworm, Cochliomyia hominivorax (Coquerel), using x-radiation.


Obnoxious and destructive, the screwworm is the only insect known to consume the living flesh of warm-blooded animals. It has caused immeasurable suffering and losses in livestock, wildlife, and even human populations the world over.


In the 1930's ARS scientists Edward F. Knipling and Raymond C. Bushland turned their attention to alternative screwworm control measures. They concluded that reducing or eliminating the insect population would be a better solution than treating the pests topically after entry into hosts via skin wounds, as was then commonly done.


Though World War II's pressing entomological needs intervened, Knipling never gave up thinking about using genetic means to control screwworms. In 1946, he was named chief of the Insects Affecting Man and Animals Division of USDA's Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine. Four years later, colleague Arthur W. Lindquist recommended to Knipling a book by Nobel laureate H. J. Muller titled "Drosophila," which discussed use of radiation to alter the genetic material of insects. Knipling immediately began a correspondence with Muller exploring the possible use of radiation to sterilize screwworms.


Convinced that the approach could work, Knipling reordered priorities to provide funding for Bushland to carry out tests at Kerrville, Texas. Bushland secured the cooperation of a nearby U.S. Army medical unit with suitable x-ray equipment. In just 6 months, it was handily demonstrated that 2,500 to 5,000 roentgens of x-rays would sterilize screwworm pupae without disrupting their adult mating behavior.


Knipling's theory was simple: Fertile females would mate with sterilized males mass-reared in insectaries and released into infested areas. With offspring resulting only from matings with native, unsterilized males, the screwworm population would gradually become insignificant and perhaps disappear.


But could it really work? First, a field test on Sanibel, the 20-square-mile Florida island, confirmed the theory. Though encouraged, scientists knew that a larger test was needed to verify those early findings. By chance, a routine request from a veterinarian from Curacao, Netherlands Antilles, alerted them to the screwworm's presence on the 170-square-mile island. The Dutch government was eager to assist in its elimination.


So a thousand sterile flies per square mile were released each week by airplane. After just three weeks--the length of one screwworm reproductive cycle--about 70 percent of new egg cases found were sterile. After the next 3 weeks of releases, sterility was 84 percent. And by the end of the third 3-week period, very few egg cases were to be found and all were sterile!


The speed with which screwworm eradication was achieved on Curacao demonstrated the great potential of this control method. Since then, strategic deployment of sterile flies has been used effectively in many locales--most recently, northern Africa--to protect vast areas from the horrific screwworm's predations.


Ever the visionary, Knipling believes that the sterile fly technique can be a successful management tool for many other insects of economic importance. "It's just a matter of working out a few more details," he says. He and Bushland were recently honored for their screwworm research by the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome, Italy.--By Linda R. Tokarz, ARS Information Staff.


[NOTE: The The sterile-insect approach eradicated the screwworm from the U.S. in 1966. Since 1991, Mexico and several countries in Central America have been declared free of screwworm: Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua.]

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ou..._release_programs/screwworm/screwworm_history

 

I get the distinct impression that you haven’t experienced watching a close friend you have known for many, many years die slowly in a hospital of a disease he, and you, would literally give anything, pay anything to discover a cure for. Watch a parent die from something you inherited from that parent yourself, yet still live because a cure was found, one not yet discovered in time for him or her.

No, I seriously doubt if you have, and if you have, and you can still play your “intellectual” game, then I feel sorry for you. You lack empathy and you lack understanding of the most basic underpinning of human life. Love, and the desire to keep your loved ones safe and well. These “intellectual” games are easy to play, even entertaining when you are in college or in your 20’s and feel immortal. Guess what. You’ll feel differently someday. Enjoy the games while you can.

 

I agree with you, it'll be interesting to see in their lab how many generations they run, I'd like to see the longterm impact in their controlled environment. And since it's mosquitoes, they'll be able to see rapid generations.

With that said, I'm glad Italy is doing something like this since they're following protocols vs. What the scientist in China did trying to edit out parts for the HIV sites in those unborn children (ie trying to replicate the mutation for the small portion of the human population that is immune to HIV). - That's where I find it unethical, like unless the child has a deadly genetic disorder, you don't just jump to CRISPR for the hell of it in humans (it's very cutting edge), for example the kids could have all kinds of ramifications later because no protocol was followed.

 

followup on the reference to Williams's paper: "Is the quest for immortality worse than death?"

https://www.newstatesman.com/2019/12/quest-immortality-worse-death

 

Depends on the living situation.

 

This just in ...

Spoiler

 

DDT is actually an excellent product when used in moderation and not fogged out of a large machine or aircraft. It's still widely used particularly across Africa -- pest control lightly sprays it using a common hand pump around living spaces similarly to spraying for roaches in the US. Just a small amount of DDT is super effective against mosquitoes and is long lasting.

 

I don't think he meant to step across those lines. His question is at the heart of many younger people who are faced with the prospect of different doom level catastrophes of our own doing (overpopulation, over pillaged earth, rapidly increasing rate of extinction level events from other species). This underlying unease is the fuel for doomsday movies and a fetish for zombie apocalypses.

I don't want to see my friends die. One of my better friends is dealing with the very recent loss of his mother from cancer. That pain is real and it opens up wounds from my father's cancer experience. Death is one of the pillars of religion and spirituality. It's also part and parcel to the paradox of living.

Knowing that life comes from other life, if I were to step outside that circle, what happens to the meaning of my own existence? I'm still a consumer of life, but without my bones telling me to work harder to maintain my body or my heart telling me my time is precious, I'd personally dig further in my cave and wait out a shitty era or two. If I were to guess by our politics and our approach to civic responsibility, digging deeper into that "cave" is what most Americans are doing. It neither helps nor enriches anyone else. Immortality (and it's important yet more neglicted cousin, eternal youth) breaks the natural laws we live under. Death is the ultimate equalizer for the rich, poor, marginalized, and the fortunate. Callous and cold as it is, it also opens up opportunities for the young. Without death, these billionaires wouldn't be talking up a good game for their philanthropic foundations.

I wouldn't mind having the "option" to become immortal, but it'd also give me the creeps to what that ultimately means.

 

So is that what we call common sense nowadays?

Humanities?