|
Via the War Liberal comes this mention of a plan whereby a gene-engineered mosquito would be used to reduce the incidence of malaria. Mac Thomason has his doubts about the efficacy of such a plan. Whilst I don't think that his doubts are sufficient to cause the plan to be stopped, neither he is wrong to have them or to voice them. The Washington Post article mentions that the transmissibility of the disease by the GM skeeter is reduced by about 80%. Thomason is correct in pointing out that 80% is not 100%; a reduction in transmissibility is not necessarily equivalent to a compariable reduction in incidence. He also expresses some concern that the "natural" mosquito may outcompete the modified one. There's nothing obvious that would cause that to happen, but I'll freely concede that we have a limited understanding of the mechanisms by which it might do so. Finally, although he doesn't explicitly say so, I think that he has some concern over whether it's worth doing; perhaps the funds might be better used in developing new anti-malarials, or in more effective spraying programs, or in assassinating the local dictators so that their subjects can undertake some real economic development and fund their own anti-malaria campaigns (Thomason would probably disagree with me on that last). We do not know enough to say whether this is the most effective way of tackling the problem, or indeed whether is would be effective enough to be worth doing. We do know, however, that malaria is a widespread and debilitating disease. This, I think, is where Thomason and I would line up on the same side, as opposed to Kimbrell and Spielman (mentioned in the article), who appear to be taking the standard watermelon line that any amount of human suffering and death is preferable to trying something when we're not certain of the result. There is an unfortunate tendency in American society to decide that anything that not guaranteed to produce a pre-determined result is a wombat (waste of money, brains, and time). Even though who proclaim that they should better say it. Biosphere II was largely a stunt, but one of the data it produced was that the free oxygen in the habitat was disappearing into a hitherto unknown sink. That was a highly important piece of information, but the media proclaimed it a failure, because it wasn't the outcome that they had determined would be a success. I say: try the GM mosquito. In twenty years, we'll know the outcome of the experiment. Assuming that we're both still alive, either Thomason or I will say to the other, "Yes, you were right", and that other will say, "Well, you gave it your best shot; nothing to be ashamed about". John "Akatsukami" Braue Friday, May 24, 2002 |
|