The Zika virus and genetically modified mosquitoes
The Zika virus has spread to much of South America and it seems to be linked to brain damage in children born to infected mothers. An interesting debate on genetically modified mosquitoes has emerged:
If you search for Zika and genetic modification, at the moment you get links to articles from a number of news sites.
The more reputable ones (The Guardian, Bloomberg, etc.) write that genetically modified mosquitoes can help curb the spread of the Zika virus, while some other news sites that starts with "daily" in the UK, and Russia Today put forward the hypothesis that the genetically modified mosquito contributed to the spread of The Zika virus.
I do not know which hypothesis is correct, but the interesting thing is that what later will be proved true may greatly influence public attitudes to genetically modified organisms in general. If it appears that an increased use of these mosquitoes helps, it will be more sympathetic. If it is found that the mosquito has instead contributed to the epidemic, it might be a nail in the coffin for these experiments.
It seems that The Zika virus started moving from its previous heartland a few years ago by way of French Polynesia, and it may simply be that it is the jet age with its rapid transportation of humans over large distances that is the decisive factor behind the epidemic: The disease simply thrives in new areas, once it was offered the chance to get there.
That said, I do not know myself what is true in this case, but I think generally you should not genetically modify things that are:
- Small
- Can multiply
When you are unsure about the odds, take a look at the potential outcomes and it becomes quite clear that self-replicating stuff should not be meddled with, or created.'
And even if these modified mosquitoes aren't meant to breed in any meaningful sense, I am not convinced of the accuracy and stability of what has been created. I found this comment from Reddit and I can not assess the veracity of it, but it gives pause for thought and I find that the reasoning in it would be worthy of further exploration, with the help of someone more knowledgeable in the area:
sky_s 2 points
I'm personally pretty skeptical about the claims here, but you are the person who'se made the most incorrect claim I've read so far. Your claim that DNA is just DNA is too simplistic, and because of that you're just wrong. The way that most modifications on non-bacteria are made is by using either a polymerase or virus and then inserting an active sequence of DNA.
A few major concerns pop up with lab genetic modifications vs natural modification Firstly, most of the methods lead to DNA which is orders of magnitude more unstable than normal DNA, leading to horizontal transfer across the genome. This is in part due to the tails used needing to initially bind with foreign DNA, since they had to once readily unbind from something else for the initial implanting they are generally much more prone to repeating that later.
Another effect is that promotion is much more poorly regulated in GMO than natural mutations, since in nature besides base sequence there are steric effects that lead to proper regulation of promotion. These genes have sequences called promoters which bind due to some stimuli, and this binding allows for gene readout to begin after it. In viral techniques, there is a growing concern since it seems that in some cases active viral genes is also transferred to the organism. Sometimes it's because we thought they were inert, other times its just carelessness.
For animals the two primary sources of mutation are a single base pair being incorrectly replaced, or an extra insertion of a base pair. Both are much less likely to result in adverse steric effects and the cell can trigger aptosis if the error is particularly egregious. If not aptosis, then it still has to get through natural selection if a gamete mutated poorly. GMO is a very interesting technology, heck I've done bacterial genetic modification before, but I think it's far too underdeveloped a field for people to foolishly claim that it's indistinguishable from nature.