Debating pros and cons of gene drives to control disease-carrying insects and other pests

British biotech company Oxitec plans to kick off a months-long experiment in which it will release billions of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in California and Florida. But these aren’t just any mosquitoes — they’re genetically engineered so that they don’t bite, and will, if all goes according to plan, eventually reduce the population of mosquitoes in these areas.

Proponents say, at scale, such a program would result in:

• Less mosquito-borne illness
• Little ecological impact since mosquitoes are not a keystone species
• Less pesticide use, currently used against mosquitoes, which means better protection of local plants and animals
• Little or no negative impact on humans as the mosquitoes are safe, quick, and effective

Opponents say:

Related on the SLP

No related posts.

The heated debate over trans athletes in the WNBA

Viewpoint: Women, depression and empathy: Explaining the gender gap in views about child-murderer Lindsay Clancy

Outing students: California court says schools need not notify parents of their child’s gender identity—unless they ask

• Mosquitoes may not be a keystone species, but other animals do eat them and so eliminating the insects may in fact have an ecological impact
• There could be unintended consequences, such as a hybrid species or the creation of a new ecological niche that other animals, which carry potentially even more lethal diseases, could move into
• It takes expensive, large-scale trials to have certainty about safety and efficacy

Others envision even more far-reaching applications, such as species conservation (by helping native species become immune to disease or even to the harsher conditions of climate change).

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here