The Happy Talent
  • Blog
  • About
  • Popular
  • Education
  • Social Science
  • Travel
  • Products
  • Contact
"It is a happy talent to know how to play."

Scientists Have Invented a Way to End Malaria, Saving Millions of African Lives. But Will the Western World Allow It?

12/7/2015

11 Comments

 
CRISPR technology can now wipe out a species of malaria-carrying mosquitoes in Africa -- but will the anti-GMO/anti-science movement prevent scientists from saving millions of lives per year? #BlackLivesMatter
Picture
You may have heard of CRISPR, a hot new gene-editing technology that allows scientists to specify a target (a specific sequence of DNA) and cut and edit that site. This has made gene editing cheaper, easier, faster and more specific than ever -- and it's opened a lot doors. For example, editing specific genes in cell lines to study disease; creating pools of gene deletion to learn more about cancer; and, notably, preventing disease-spreading organisms from spreading deadly pathogens.
It looks something like this:
Picture
And, interestingly, the idea for CRISPR came from something that was already happening in nature, anyway. If you want to hear the best explanation of CRISPR I've heard so far, it's this one, via RadioLab:
A November 23, 2015 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) paper out of UC Irvine used a controversial method called "gene drive" to ensure that Anopheles stephensi mosquitoes (which had been genetically modified to have malaria resistance) would pass their resistance down to all of their offspring. Models by Valentino Gantz et al. predicted that the malaria-resistant gene would completely pervade the wild population within ten generations -- or, roughly, 3-4 months. Awesome! 

Except, here's the thing: malaria is highly adaptive. It's crafty and sneaky and evolves quickly. Ten generations of mosquito reproduction may be enough for the plasmodium parasite (which causes malaria) to evolve resistance to the malaria-resistant mosquito, meaning that this amazing solution to one of the world's most deadly diseases... could flop.

But today, a new paper in Nature Biotechnology revealed a new gene drive solution that could completely eliminate Anopheles gambiae, a different species of mosquito that spreads diseases across sub-Saharan Africa -- without the dangerous use of pesticides. Here's how it works:

The "goal" of any gene is to propagate itself -- and it usually does this by improving the whole organism so it can have more reproductive success. But there are some naturally-occuring "selfish genes," which propagate themselves, sometimes to the detriment of the species. They don't benefit the organism as a whole, but they persist, because they benefit themselves. 

​
(One example of this is a transposon, a chromosomal segment that can undergo transposition, especially a segment of bacterial DNA that can be translocated as a whole between chromosomal, phage, and plasmid DNA in the absence of a complementary sequence in the host DNA.)
Picture
H/t Broad Institute of MIT
Because of CRISPR, we now have the ability to create "gene drives," or artificial selfish genes. As long as the selfish gene doesn't kill individuals right away, the selective advantage of the gene drive is so high that it doesn't matter if it's a detriment to the individual.

Using this principle, Hammond et al. determined what genes cause infertility in female (but not male) Anopheles gambiae -- then edited the genes of male, creating a gene that causes infertility in females and can create two copies of itself in every offspring. In other words, the daddy gene cuts an allele in the mom's DNA, and replaces it with his genetically modified one. If allowed to mate with the wild population, the engineered males will transmit the gene to wild females. All female offspring will be infertile, and all males offspring will keep passing on the gene drive to the wild-type females.

Because every offspring is a homozygote, this gene will sweep the population extremely quickly -- and because the ultimate result is the elimination of the species, there is little chance the plasmodium parasite will evolve resistance. 

Hence wiping out the species. Hence saving millions of Africans per year.

Here's an image from the Scientific American:
​
Picture
H/t Scientific American

Obviously, there are ethical concerns here. And we should think about them very carefully.

Some people think wiping out an entire species is wrong -- even though we've already wiped out malaria carrying mosquitos in both the US and Italy. We've benefitted immensely from not having malaria here. Except the way we did it was with the massive use of DDT, which also killed other insects and birds. There was a huge negative environmental impact, which could be completely avoided using the gene drive/CRISPR method.

The ecological impact is also worth discussing. Every ecosystem is in a delicate balance. Eradicating a species could have effects that are hard to predict -- for example, when sea otter populations began to decline in Alaska in the 1990s, sea urchin populations (sea otters' primary prey) exploded, and began stripping large areas of kelp forests. 

However, the human toll should be considered heavily in this debate. The cost of doing nothing -- of having the technology to save lives, and sitting on it -- is allowing millions of people to die each year we procrastinate implementing this technology. History has already shown the toll this can have.

Golden rice, which is enhanced to produce the vitamin A precursor beta-carotene, was developed to prevent blindness and death in Asian populations. By 2002, animal testing had demonstrated zero health risks; financial interests had been handed over to a non-profit organization (meaning "big biotech" would not profit from its use); and the technology was in place to save millions of people from dying and thousands from going blind due to vitamin A-deficiency. 

Yet golden rice is still not in use today, partly due to "efforts" by "activists" at Greenpeace that are not dissimilar from terrorism. Two agricultural economists, one from the University of California, Berkeley and one from the Technical University of Munich, have calculated the cost of this opposition, measured in human health. Their results are horrifying. ​
Picture
Misinformed and anti-scentific terrorists (disguised as farmers) destroy a golden rice field. H/t Slate.
Justus Wesselera and David Zilberman estimate that the delayed application of Golden Rice in India alone has cost 1,424,000 life years between 2002 and 2013. This accounts not only for humans (mostly children) who died, but also for the blindness and other health disabilities that Vitamin A deficiency causes. Again, the majority of those who went blind or died because they did not have access to Golden Rice were children.

But here's the most sickening thing, though. The people who oppose genetic modification are not starving Indian children. They are not African mothers whose children have all died of malaria. They're not even scientists who have spent their lives studying genetics and intimately understand how the technology works. 

They're privileged white people in America and Europe. They have a stable food supply, doctors, medicine, and a relatively disease-free existence. They don't have degrees in science -- but they do shop at Whole Foods! Which, to them, means their ignorant, uninformed fears are more important than Black lives. 

Police brutality in the U.S. sucks, and I sincerely hope the #BlackLivesMatter movement can help save the lives here at home. But right now, we have technology that can save millions of lives across the globe -- and we need to figure out if, when and how to use it.

Please Tweet, Like, and Share this important information -- but if you're going to try to debate me in the comments, please back up your argument with data, science and scholarly research.

Co-written by Eva Glasrud, founder of Paved With Verbs, and Justin Smith, a PhD student at Stanford University who is specializing in CRISPR.
23 Pairs of Chromosomes. One Unique You. Get your DNA story at 23andMe.com.
11 Comments
Ilana
12/7/2015 03:27:02 pm

I agree with most of this blog post (yes I agree GMOs are not harmful and likely eradicating a population of mosquitos is a good thing to do), but have a few issues with what you've said here. First of all, though you mention that ecosystem unpredictability is an issue, I think conflating the opposition to CRISPR with the opposition to GMOs is inappropriate. I agree the human toll of malaria likely outweighs the possible risk of destabilizing an ecosystem, but ecosystems are inherently more unpredictable than agricultural systems so the opposition isn't really comparable to the opposition to GMOs. Second of all, the last paragraph implies that African countries want these technologies and are being denied by Western forces. This ignores the fact that there are at least half a dozen African countries that have bans on growing/importing GMO crops (http://www.unep.org/dewa/Africa/publications/AEO-2/content/154.htm). This is not to say that these bans are independent of Western influence, but to ignore them ignores the agency of African governments.

Reply
Justin Smith
12/7/2015 04:56:23 pm

While opposition to CRISPR and opposition to GMO are different, they share a lot in common. CRISPR is a technology to create genetic modifications. It can be used for therapy, basic research, or to create Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Since in this case we are talking about a genetically modified organism, in this case a mosquito, I thought it was an appropriate comparison. Granted for a lot of people GMOs means something you eat, and I can see why under that definition they may be different, these mosquitos are GMOs under the most basic definition. A lot of the opposition to GMOs has become generalized. People don't just oppose GMOs from big corporations for profit. Those who oppose them often oppose the non-profit use such as golden rice or the Hawaiian rainbow papaya. I do think the comparison is important.

Now, in regards to the effect on the ecosystem, most traditional GMOs are done in a way that hopes to minimize gene transfer to wild populations, while Gene Drives seek to do the exact opposite. This definitely should spark a conversation. It is something important to consider and weigh out. My personal opinion is that the positives out weight the negatives, and I'd rather see gene drives used which kill only the target species, rather than insecticides or other approaches.

Finally, regarding the bans on GMOs in African Countries, I agree with your perspective that these countries should be involved in the decision making. I do believe the African bans on GMO are largely due to a campaign of misinformation by activists, but the biggest issue with these mosquitos is they will not respect borders. Once released, one can expect in the absence of geographic barriers, the gene drive genes will spread through out the population. So if one African nation decides to release the mosquitos they are effectively deciding for the neighboring mosquitos. This is another decision that like global warming is independent of boarders so the broader community must decide they are important before their release. My fear is that misguided activists will try and hijack the conversation.

Reply
bob
12/10/2015 10:31:44 am

there is another story- people lovers without any perspective of where this is headed

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/oct/24/population-growth-zambia-slums

Reply
Eva Glasrud link
12/11/2015 02:39:46 pm

I'm not going to claim I necessarily know where this is headed. It's obviously something we need to think about very carefully -- and we will need all kinds of intelligence to figure out what's the best course of action. That's why I wrote It's "Safe" to be a Doctor or Engineer. But This Kind of Intelligence is Valuable, Too:

http://www.pavedwithverbs.com/blog/its-safe-to-be-a-doctor-or-engineer-but-this-kind-of-intelligence-is-valuable-too

Reply
personal statement services link
2/1/2016 10:36:16 am

I read this article and its tell us about about since education and how to save human body to disease thanks for sharing .

Reply
Zeph
8/3/2017 12:45:36 am

Points worth considering, as usual, Eva.

The tone is a bit mixed; on one hand it at least partially acknowledges that there are legitimate concerns to be considered; on the other it gets kind of preachy and holier-than-thou (or more scientific rational than thou).

My main reason for writing this however is to decry the conflating of direct action (whether wise or foolish) with terrorism. The original meaning of terrorism was the use of tactics to terrorize a population for political ends (or variants thereof). Bombing a marketplace or an airliner are classic examples.

Vandalizing a field may be criminal and short sighted, or it may be justifiable property damage, depending on one's viewpoint, but it's not terrorism. (Harming or credibly threatening the staff could be terrorism).

The powers that be have tried to use "terrorist/terrorism", like "commie" before, as a general purpose label to invoke reflexive, unthinking revulsion against their challengers. To avoid being puppets, we need to examine every usage of "terrorism" and see if the label really fits, or if someone is trying to manipulate us. Of course, many non-terrorist activities can still be bad, but we lose perspective and nuance about just how bad if we let the labeling go unquestioned. Leet's call vandalism vandalism, and terrorism terrorism.

Reply
Eva Glasrud link
8/4/2017 04:03:42 pm

You say "vandalizing a field". I say "destroying someone's livelihood and taking nutrients out of children's mouths."

Either way, the effect is the same: it's chilling. It's threatening. Make a decision we don't like, disagree with our political agenda, manage your own farm and property the way you want, and we will destroy it. If someone would destroy my property, why should I think they wouldn't hurt me?

We're not talking about a sit-in or a strike. We're talking about destruction and violence. What do you suppose they would have done if the farmer had tried to stop them?

Maybe extortion or racketeering would be more accurate. But I think it could definitely be argued that this is a form of terrorism -- one that's claimed far more lives than 9/11. Was it *not* an unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims?

Regardless of semantics, we've already sacrificed over 2 million life years; allowed children to starve to death and go blind; and stood by while farmers were terrorized by anti-scientific activists.

Reply
Zeph
9/6/2018 03:34:10 pm

Context: this message is ONLY your response to my objection to characterising the vandalization of a rice field in the Phillipines in 2013 "not unlike terrorism". It's not about whether the vandalism was justified (I think not) or whether Golden Rice is a good thing (I think it is, on balance), much less about mosquitos and CRISPR.

* You say "vandalizing a field". I say "destroying
* someone's livelihood and taking nutrients out of
* children's mouths."

Wow, that response is not up to your normal standards, Eva. Read the content of your own link, and other easily available sources. Political activists destroyed one of five experimental fields in the Phillipines in 2013.

Number of people whose livelhoold was destroyed: 0 (the scientists continued their experiments and got their paychecks).

Number of children whose nutrition was depending on that experimental field: 0.

Net setback to overall Golden Rice research and development from this vandalism - insignificant.

"manage your own farm and property the way you want, and we will destroy it."

What part of "experimental field run by research scientists employed by IRRI" do you not understand? Are you imagining that thousands of little golden rice farmers tending their own crops were attacked in 2013 or since? Not happening, that's a false but emotionally manipulative fantasy similar to those our golden haired leader promotes on Faux News. Fact: Some activists in the Phillipines vandalized one experiemental field of Golden Rice in 2013.

"If someone would destroy my property, why should I think they wouldn't hurt me?"

Um, if the activists wanted to harm the scientists or their manual help, according to the account they were present on site (they were expectinng dialogue, not vandalism). Do you imagine that every protest that damages property is inherently on the verge of a murderous rampage and needs to be forcibly suppressed accordingly? Is there a history - before or since - of those particular activists moving from symbolic vandalism to violent attacks on people?

Look, the vandalism was a bad thing, but let's not start pretending that it's terrorism or that whole populations live in fear because of it. Even bad things deserve proportionate condemnation and response, not hysterical hyperbole. Facts do matter, and accurate labels do matter.

"We're not talking about a sit-in or a strike. We're talking about destruction and violence."

Um, violence against one experimental rice crop in 2013, with only symbolic value (no setback to research).

"What do you suppose they would have done if the farmer had tried to stop them?

What do you imagined would have happened? Do you have any shred of evidence to support that imagining? (Given you seem to be misunderstanding this as a a case of vandalism/terrorism against some an individual farmer just trying to feed his family, it seems unlikely that you have been objectively evaluating factual evidence in the case, to lead you to that imagining).

It was in the context of a non-violent protest that about 1/8th of the protestors broke away and destroyed a crop, to the dismay of the others. Nobody reported feeling physically harmed or threatened.

"Maybe extortion or racketeering would be more accurate."

Huh? There were zero threats reported to continue doing the same thing unless X happened, or to get money. Far more accurate would simply be "a case of political vandalism in 2013 against one field of research rice crop". That's an objective descriiption, why throw in ANY further false or misleading mischaracterizations?

Understand that I will join you in decrying that event, just not in grossly distorting the nature or effect of it.

I also think it's wrong to tag private property with grafitti, but don't think that should be a capital offence (or even a violent felony). Accuracy and proportion is all I'm suggestiong, not support.

"But I think it could definitely be argued that this is a form of terrorism -- one that's claimed far more lives than 9/11."

OK, you have just jumped the shark, Eva. I am very dissapointed in you. I've found your blog (despite some criticisms) to be very insightful and often very thoughtful. But comparing this isolated and truly minor protest vandalism to 9/11 is outrageous distortion. Remember, in 2013 there were 4 more experimental fields in the Phillipines alone, and that IRRI themselves said at the time they could continue their research without that one field - which they have done ever since as well. So there was no measurable effect on Golden Rice research that year or since. You really, really cannot blame massive deaths on the "terrorism" of some activists trashing one rice field in 2013. Not even vaguely close to an honest appraisal.

(One of the reasons they plant multiple fields is that various accidents can destroy one - planning for that is taken into account in advance; in this case it was a human caused problem that destroyed one ye

kuu
1/17/2019 02:19:54 am

wouldn't saving them be a white westren "science rules all" savior complex? if anything it's anti vaccine homeo/naturopath animal rights activists who want to stop them

Reply
Eva Glasrud link
1/17/2019 11:54:25 am

Are you proposing we make decisions based on folklore? I agree about anti-vaxxers and animal rights people. They're dangerous. They cost lives.

Reply
phun diệt muỗi link
6/23/2020 04:10:06 pm

Awesome and interesting article. Great things you've always shared with us. Thanks

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    About the Author
    Picture
    Eva is a content specialist with a passion for play, travel... and a little bit of girl power.  Read more >


    Want to support The Happy Talent? CLICK HERE!
    Support the Happy Talent
    Or Find me on Patreon!
    Picture

    What's Popular on The Happy Talent:
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture

      Want more?

    Submit

    Trending in Dating and Relationships:
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture



    ​What's Popular in Science:
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture


    Playfulness and Leisure Skills:
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture

    Popular in Psychology and Social Skills:
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture

    Categories

    All
    20s
    Adolescence
    Backpacking
    Boredom
    Boredom Avoidance
    Camping
    Career Advice
    Careers
    Communication
    Confidence
    Consent
    Creativity
    Curiosity
    Dating
    Economy
    Education
    Entrepreneurship
    Fearlessness
    Female Travel
    Feminism
    Free Speech
    Gap Year
    Great Products
    Growth Mindset
    Health
    Hiking
    Hitchhiking
    Life Advice
    Meeting New People
    Mental Health
    Mexico
    Mindfulness
    Most Popular
    National Parks
    Outdoors
    Parenting
    Parenting Advice
    Passive Entertainment
    Play
    Playfulness
    Psychology
    Relationships
    Resilience
    Science
    Scuba Diving
    Self Help
    Self-help
    Sex
    Sports
    Stanford University
    Startups
    Study Abroad
    Summer
    Technology
    Teenagers
    Therapy
    Travel
    Yosemite

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly
Photos used under Creative Commons from paweesit, Steven Penton, torbakhopper, Theo Crazzolara, edenpictures, Kiwi Tom, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park, Homedust, wocintechchat.com, Ralphman, wbaiv, kg.abhi, Jamiecat *, UnitedWarVeterans, D()MENICK, True Portraits, Neville Wootton Photography, Salvation Army USA West, South African Tourism, phalinn, WilliamsProjects, j_bary, Japanexperterna.se, thephotographymuse, Elvert Barnes, ThoroughlyReviewed, hairy:jacques, joncutrer, wuestenigel, Franck_Michel, jimwerner25, Imahinasyon Photography, joanne clifford, m01229, Antonio Campoy Ederra, Our Dream Photography (Personal), shixart1985, davidstewartgets, couples in nature, Dage - Looking For Europe, jonseidman, andymw91, garryknight, wuestenigel, Rosmarie Voegtli, werner.philipps, Gage Skidmore, Novafly, dinuxm1, Eddie Yip, Prayitno / Thank you for (10 millions +) views, DMahendra, James_Seattle, jamkablam, vanitystudiosphotography, Luiz Gustavo Leme, oki_jappo, Daquella manera, CasparGirl, Mary Anne Morgan, inkknife_2000 (10.5 million + views), homethods, wocintechchat, Hypnotica Studios Infinite, dailyrectangle, Tobyotter, torbakhopper, Kevin Johnston, David Robb, eisenberg_emily, True Portraits, Douglas Pimentel, pmarkham, Noize Photography, rawdonfox, dollen, davidstewartgets, ed and eddie, Ryosuke Yagi, Anthony_Greene, Ruth and Dave, best couples, Jenn Durfey, Cost3l, Orin Zebest, anjanettew, dollen, Editor B, Alexander Day, LyndaSanchez, polosopuestosblog, UpSticksNGo, Agência Brasil, homethods, Find Rehab Centers, Novafly, Deornelas4, buzzern, seefit, C. VanHook (vanhookc), University of Delaware Alumni Relations, Franck_Michel, gordontarpley, Chris Photography(王權), usadifranci, virgohobbs, TheUglySweaterShop, popofatticus, Mitya Ku, Stefano Montagner - The life around me, Official U.S. Navy Imagery, xxxology, Valentina (GaiaPhotography), True Portraits, Lars Plougmann, Scioto Photos, Carlos ZGZ, quinn.anya, anokarina, amtecstaffing, mliu92, sfbaywalk, MakaiylaW, jerseytom55, Ray in Manila, BoldContent, stevenbates, Janitors, True Portraits, dwhartwig, Kuruman, sffoghorn
  • Blog
  • About
  • Popular
  • Education
  • Social Science
  • Travel
  • Products
  • Contact