Yes, indeed! I ask a simple question and get a great, complex but understandable answer.
BBC Newshour on NPR just inteviewed a Brit about this, again. The whole concept of “local suppression” was discussed. One point this person made: Look at the scientific name of the mosquito in question: “aegypti” - these insects are from Egypt. He cited a Brazilian report from 50 years ago related to tracking Dengue fever where it was noted that A.Aegypti was NOT PRESENT in Brazil at the time, so they weren’t dealing with that disease. So by eradicating A.A., they would be returning Brazil closer to how it was 50 years ago, with more indiginous skeeters more abundant.
Humans’ globalization has so many ramifications…and a completely different way to look at the question in the OP.
No, I mean, ultimately we can vaccinate for this as for rubella, but I just don’t want to do more ecological damage just because the risk of this manages to find synergy with anti-insect bias.
A vaccine won’t be available for at least 3-5 years (if at all). What do we do in the meantime?
What ecological damage are you referring to? GM sterile mosquitoes basically don’t alter the ecology at all except for suppressing population levels of Aedes aegypti, which isn’t native to the area at any rate.
The alternative (which is being done) is to spray insecticides. I guarantee you this has a MUCH greater effect on the ecological system (non-target effects and vertebrate toxicity).
Pretend you’re the one making policy. Millions of people are getting sick and babies are born with brain damage NOW. What are you going to do about it?
Why even discuss an idea that’s impossible anyway? You cannot rid the entire world of mosquito’s any more than we could cockroaches…at least not without destroying half the planet in the process.
You’re laboring under a big misunderstanding. Goal isn’t to eliminate all mosquitoes worldwide. That is, as you say, impossible (also stupid). We’re talking about suppressing or eliminating specific species in a defined local area.
There are about 3500 species of mosquitoes. Not all of them transmit pathogens, and of those that do, an even smaller fraction transmit pathogens to people and domestic animals (which are really the ones we care about). Maybe 200 (I don’t know the exact number).
Of these there are probably about 50 species that are really important, and maybe 10 that are REALLY important (scientists may quibble about the specific numbers but i’m in the right order of magnitude).
Aedes aegypti, the mosquito we’re talking about here, is one of the REALLY important species.
It is not native to the western hemisphere. It was almost eliminated from the americas once (by drenching the whole place insecticide). We can do it again.
Haven’t you seen any Hollywood movies?!? Surely someone will cross mosquito genes with Dick Chaney; what a disaster that will be when released into the wild.
Interesting info below - how about instead of turning on the gene permanently, wouldn’t it be better to adjust the mosquito genetics so the hormone is fully-on after 1 blood meal (of any size, so it is full off to full on). Mosquito biting isn’t really the problem for being disease vectors, its biting more than once… Allowing one blood meal seems less of an evolutionary strike that totally removing it. Most would probably still have decent fertility from just one meal so it wouldn’t affect the natural population as much.
Sure, it would be better. But also much more complicated to do so. I can (relatively) easily see how to turn it on when the adult emerges and and keep it on. Much harder to do what you’re suggesting. But I have no doubt it could be done, it would just take more work.
Allowing mosquitoes to live long enough to reproduce but not long enough to transmit pathogens is a core principle behind the idea of “Evolution-Proof” or “Evolution-Resistant” control strategies. Lots of people working on those (myself included).