
Trial wipes out over 80% of Australian disease-spreading mosquito - sjbase
https://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2018/Trial-wipes-out-more-than-80-per-cent-of-disease-spreading-mozzie?featured=F29EDEB1728C4A92B579C7A5DC28BAD5
======
denzil_correa
> To address this challenge, Verily, an affiliate of Alphabet Inc, developed a
> mosquito rearing and sex sorting and release technology as part of its
> global Debug project.

Verily is formerly "Google Life Sciences" and currently Alphabet Inc's
research arm for life sciences.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verily_Life_Sciences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verily_Life_Sciences)

~~~
twelvechairs
If only Australia's CSIRO still had enough funding to do this kind of work
itself rather than 'partner with' (i.e. contribute public funding towards the
private investment goals of) for-profit companies.

Amongst CSIRO's earlier inventions are 1960s insect repelent 'Aerogard',
polymer banknotes and major components of Wi-Fi as we know it.

~~~
pm90
I don't see what the problem is if the for-profit companies goals align with
theirs.

~~~
NamTaf
It's more a reflection on the fact that our governments have successively cut
CSIRO's funding again and again despite their demonstrated return on
investment and notable achievements.

~~~
bko
Really? It seems pretty steady although it has ticked down slightly as a
percentage of gdp since 2012. And looking at spending as a percentage of gdp
is a bit misleading, as funding may increase but not at the same pace as gdp
growth. I think a more meaningful measure would be real dollars.

CSIRO funding over time

2012-2013 733.8

2013-2014 778.2

2014-2015 745.3

2015-2016 750.3

Do you think that high extra 28mm to attain that high water mark of 2013-2014
funding would have made the big impact?

Maybe 2017-2018 are dramatically lower and if they are, please provide a
source.

[http://www.arc.gov.au/sites/default/files/filedepot/Public/M...](http://www.arc.gov.au/sites/default/files/filedepot/Public/Media%20&%20Resources%20Centre/Presentations/graphics/2016/Selected_research_agencies_2003to2016_million.jpg)

[http://theconversation.com/infographic-how-much-does-
austral...](http://theconversation.com/infographic-how-much-does-australia-
spend-on-science-and-research-61094)

~~~
NamTaf
Thanks for pointing that out and correcting me. I'd not followed it personally
since the Abbott prime-minstership and didn't realise that Turnbull had
actually reversed the inital plan to cut $115m over 5 years. The first year of
that was the ~30m reduction in 2014-15 that your data shows. I hope the
2016-17 figure continues that trend.

Again, thanks for fact-checking me. I appreciate the correction!

------
dev_dull
> _Aedes, Anopheles and Culex are found almost all over the world and are
> responsible for around 17 per cent of infectious disease transmissions
> globally. "_

If I understand that correctly, that is a _massive_ number. I really like what
these sterilization trials are producing. In my mind, it’s a lot safer than
spraying chemicals across cities.

~~~
luma
It gets worse. As I posted elsewhere in the comments, an article in Nature[1]
suggests that up to half of humans ever to live have died as a result of
mosquito-borne disease.

In light of those numbers I feel we are ethically clear to take drastic
action. We don't have to kill all mosquitoes as fewer than 1% of mosquito
species feed on humans. We have several tools which will target the specific
species which impact us (such as the approach used in this article). It's time
we do something about it, or accept the fact that millions more humans are
going to die while we wring our hands.

[1]
[https://www.nature.com/news/2002/021003/full/news021001-6.ht...](https://www.nature.com/news/2002/021003/full/news021001-6.html)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
What are the negative outcomes? Presumably we leave a niche for other mosquito
or insect species to prosper in, which species will they be. Which species
predate the mosquitoes we're eliminating, or how do those particular species
adapt the environment and so impact the local eco-system?

If we've not found any negatives then I imagine we've not tried very hard.

Australia is kinda synonymous with species-wide population control and not in
a good way; hopefully this will change that?

~~~
joatmon-snoo
This question comes up every time something like this makes the news, and in
general the people qualified to have opinions are generally either ambivalent
or believe the pros outweigh the cons.

One article:
[https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html](https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Your source appears to support the destruction of the whole Culicidae family;
and doesn't appear to care if that puts the Carmargue martens, as an example,
below replacement levels of reproduction.

>"They don't occupy an unassailable niche in the environment," says
entomologist Joe Conlon, of the American Mosquito Control Association in
Jacksonville, Florida. "If we eradicated them tomorrow, the ecosystems where
they are active will hiccup and then get on with life. Something better or
worse would take over."

Is that entomologist in the group you're allowing to have opinions? Because
"<shoulder shrug> could be better or worse" doesn't appear terribly
enlightened.

We've regretted destruction of killer species before (I'm thinking of the
deforestation that follows wolf annihilation and the desire by some to
reintroduce wolves to Scotland); we should be very careful.

IMO non-experts can add a needed objectivity to rational consideration that is
often difficult for experts to tap in to.

That all said, and not that anyone cares, but I support targeted species-level
eradication tests.

(Also TIL Arctic mosquitoes.)

~~~
magduf
One thing to remember is that many of these mosquito species are actually
invasive species. A. aegyptus is from Africa, after all, so it really has no
business in the Americas or Australia. Unless it's a prime food source for
something else, and has also basically eradicated some other native species
that served that role, I don't see how you could argue that it shouldn't be
eradicated from those continents. Eradicating invasive species is almost
always considered OK.

------
billions
It is theorized there is no adverse effect from killing mosquito species.
There is always a counter-effect. Typically it's unpredictable. Mosquitoes
FACILITATE transmission of bad stuff. I believe that if bad stuff is not
transmitted, species evolve more slowly against pathogens. Species will still
be exposed, maybe generations later through a scratch or otherwise. At that
point, having never evolved a strong immune system the same animals will be
less prepared. It's not whether the American Indians were to die from European
diseases, but when.

~~~
dosy
Agreed. Ecosystems are a delicate balance. Who knows what chaos will be
unleashed by tampering with them? Especially species facilitating horizontal
gene transfer. Pathogen vector may be only one of the functions of the
mosquito. Perhaps by simply existing and occupying so much of a certain
pathway they are keeping other pathogens at bay or preventing other viruses
from evolving, perhaps down paths that, after the pressure of not having
mosquito as a carrier, selects for more powerful pathogens that can thrive
without mosquitoes. Sometimes having a tolerable evil we know is better than
one we don't. Perhaps what we are really doing with ending mosquitoes is
putting selective pressure on the pathogens formerly carried by them to find
innovative, and possibly worse-for-us, ways to evolve and spread.

~~~
billions
What if some helpful antibodies are transmitted via mosquitos? What if this
happens cross-species?

~~~
dosy
Exactly. I agree and think this is actually a thing. We don't know enough
about what mosquitoes could be doing to help us. I think less-risk strategies
like repellents / clothing / vaccines are better than ecosystem engineering.
As 'impressively effective' as their results are, I do not think they are
doing a good thing. So you better get your mosquito bites while they last.

~~~
meowface
You're not wrong, but you also have to consider that species-altering
technology will likely save millions more lives in the next few decades than
"strategies like repellents / clothing / vaccines" alone. There are careful
tradeoffs and considerations to be made here.

Germline altering should only be done in extreme circumstances, and I think
this is one of them. Even if mosquitoes do pass on vital antibodies (why
hasn't this issue already been noticed in wealthy people who have never been
bit and have never consumed something that was bit?) or malaria finds a new
way to spread or their absence otherwise creates some kind of butterfly effect
ecosystem chaos, what's easier to do in 30 years? Artificially re-introducing
safer versions of these mosquitoes / mosquito analogs / isolated antibodies
back into the ecosystem and finding new treatments for pathogens, or
resurrecting the millions of people who needlessly suffered and died of
preventable diseases?

And also consider the chance that maybe nothing bad at all will happen if they
all die off. Obviously, this is a very risky hypothesis that's nearly
impossible to prove or disprove in a lab, but it's just a possibility to keep
in mind. Complex systems like ecosystems are fickle. Sometimes removing a tiny
piece of a system wrecks the whole thing like a Jenga tower collapsing, and
sometimes removing a massive piece has almost no effect at all. Eliminating a
parasite species doesn't necessarily mean there will be significant negative
consequences. But of course, there absolutely could be.

As long as this technology is tested extremely carefully and applied to
smaller real-world ecosystems which can be studied for years before being
deployed globally, it seems like the overall best answer is to avoid the
short-term death and despair and deal with future problems as they arise.

Evolution by natural selection no longer holds all the cards. Humanity has,
and will continue to, supersede it and override it to achieve things that
would never otherwise be possible. We don't have to cower in fear of natural
processes anymore, because we can intelligently shape our world, and soon
other worlds, as we see fit. We still have to understand these systems and
processes to prevent externalities, but that doesn't mean we can't cautiously
venture into this kind of technology. It would happen sooner or later, so why
not right now?

~~~
dosy
Yeah I think this is the right approach to thinking about these things.
Careful consideration of the trade-offs and potential consequences. Rather
than the "hey we have a new big weapon against X", let's deploy it everywhere!
Maybe I was wrong to think people were suggesting this, but history has
examples where humans have made these mistakes. So I think instinct to caution
for systems we don't understand and can't easily fix (if we break them), is
correct.

If we do it like the way you are saying I think it will work. At least I think
that's the best chance we have. And I totally agree we must take these
chances. And And I'm totally on board with the net benefit/ number of lives
saves calculus, and also that we must go beyond natural selection to better
our species.

We'll probably be okay because people as a whole have a diversity of opinions:
some enthusiastic want to push forward, others want to move more cautiously.
Put it together, hopefully we get the right balance. I guess this trait itself
evolved, from hunter-gatherers. Only tribes that had the right mix of people:
adventurers who want to explore new territory and cautioners who want to be
careful, survive on average, I think. Hooray for careful progress.

~~~
dosy
But thinking about it more I really don't think we should be ecoengineering by
deleting species. I think we can modify species, and in this case I think what
we should be aiming for is modifying the pathogen, and we should not be
deleting a species of mosquito. That is very bad I think.

------
ggm
IIRC this is an Australian initiative: the basic work on the application of
Walbachia to dengue, the formation of the world mosquito program, it's an
initiative grounded in Australian science.

yes, you will find "we did it" in China and Brazil and Vietnam and other
places: The roots of this work go back to 2011 and before, at Monash
University:

[https://www.monash.edu/industry/success-
stories/dengue](https://www.monash.edu/industry/success-stories/dengue)

[http://www.eliminatedengue.com/about-
us](http://www.eliminatedengue.com/about-us)

~~~
zavi
The article says it's "an international partnership between CSIRO, Verily and
James Cook University".

~~~
ggm
Yes. this story is. It would not surprise me if there are co-collaborators in
CSIRO who came from the Monash programme, or if the WMP has funded this (which
is run from Monash).

Verily brought mechanistic sex-sorting of mozzies. The CSIRO has a remit to
get IPR into play, its government science for profit (I used to work at the
CSIRO btw) and James Cook is right in the heart of the Australian mosquito
belt. Maybe Monash is in a different sphere now.

No matter: the groundwork on Walbachia, the fundamentals stem from what they
did. The cited 'happened here before' moments in this thread? most of them are
WMP initiatives.

------
cimmanom
How long did they measure this for, and how long is that relative to the
lifecycle / reproductive cycle of a mosquito? Is there any reason to believe
the mosquito population won't quickly (or if not quickly, then eventually)
bounce back?

~~~
gus_massa
Assuming they are like some flies that has been eradicated
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_insect_technique](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_insect_technique)
, the population would bounce back in a few years. You must repeat the
treatment next year lower the population to the 5% of the initial population,
and repeat the treatment the next year to reduce it to the 1% and repeat it a
few years to reduce each time the population until it is completely
eradicated. And then a few times to be sure.

And later implement some kind of check to avoid the reintroduction. Some
countries that have a nice natural barrier have checks to avoid the
introduction of fruit that may have flies larva. With mosquito, I'm not sure
how the larva can travel from one country to another...

~~~
cimmanom
In the bilge of a ship, since they lay eggs in water?

~~~
soperj
Pretty sure mosquito eggs don't survive in salt water.

~~~
samatman
Bilge water isn't consistently salty.

A ship which unloaded in the St. Lawrence Seaway would fill the bilge tanks
with fresh water.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
According to the WHO ([http://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-
sheets/detail/malaria](http://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-
sheets/detail/malaria))

* Malaria killed 445,000 people in 2016.

* Of those, 285,000 were children under the age of 5.

* There were 216 million cases of malaria in 2016.

That is a large city's worth of children dying every year, and a large
country's population having severely reduced productivity.

And that is just one mosquito born illness.

The guaranteed human and economic benefits of wiping out mosquitoes, far
outweigh any theoretical downside.

This group and other groups working to wipe out mosquitoes are truly doing
humanity a great service.

~~~
gascan
_The guaranteed human and economic benefits of wiping out mosquitoes, far
outweigh any theoretical downside._

I like how you just state that, like it doesn't even matter what the downside
was. What if bird populations crashed and a pestilence set upon crops
worldwide, and caused mass starvation & millions dead- kind of exactly like
what happened during the Great Leap Forward?

I'm not saying that would happen, but we can't just say _" lots of people die
of malaria, so don't even worry about the downside"_

~~~
zaroth
There are literally thousands of species of mosquito which don’t bite humans.
Just one sub-species which kills hundreds of thousands of human babies is
being targeted.

It’s great to ask “what-if”?! This is a well studied problem of an _invasive_
species where the scientific answer to your question is: there is no downside.

------
unsupak
This was already done in China 3 years ago..

[https://qz.com/640394/a-chinese-mosquito-factory-
releases-20...](https://qz.com/640394/a-chinese-mosquito-factory-
releases-20-million-of-the-little-buggers-into-the-wild-every-week/)

------
mderazon
Initially I thought it was about using CRISPR and gene drive [1] to eliminated
the gene that facilitates the infection.

But looks like we're not there yet.

1\. [https://www.vox.com/science-and-
health/2018/5/31/17344406/cr...](https://www.vox.com/science-and-
health/2018/5/31/17344406/crispr-mosquito-malaria-gene-drive-editing-target-
africa-regulation-gmo)

------
baxtr
What happened to the other 20%? If this is the part of the population that is
resistant to the trial, then good luck in the coming years.

~~~
ZeikJT
While 20% of the population resisted the trial, it's not really because
they're immune/resistant to the trial itself. It's not a viral, chemical or
bacterial effect. What they're doing is a whole lot more clever, let me quote
the article:

"From November 2017 to June this year, non-biting male Aedes aegypti
mosquitoes sterilised with the natural bacteria Wolbachia were released in
trial zones along the Cassowary Coast in North Queensland.

They mated with local female mosquitoes, resulting in eggs that did not hatch
and a significant reduction of their population."

In theory all they have to do is keep releasing these males and hopefully
eventually all the female vectors will have mated with these introduced males
and that's it.

~~~
baxtr
Interesting. Do you know how and why the 20% resisted?

------
loadzero
I didn't realize that the CSIRO had its own 2LD within the .au TLD, that's
neat.

[https://www.domainregistration.com.au/news/2014/1404-au-
doma...](https://www.domainregistration.com.au/news/2014/1404-au-domain-
trivia.php)

------
beauzero
I have one question...can we do this with fire ants?

~~~
scythe
Ants actually serve a purpose in the ecosystem. Mosquitoes are unique in that
many ecologists believe mosquito eradication would not adversely affect other
species.

~~~
IllogicalLogic
Strong suspicion every member of the ecosystem plays a role in sustaining the
ecosystem.

Mosquitos are still the deadliest animal as far as humans are concerned, makes
me wonder what other populations they are keeping under control....

Ecologist hubris and ignorance of 2nd and 3rd order effects is marching with
misplaced confidence towards the death spiral.

*Buys more SpaceX bonds....

~~~
maxerickson
Places with endemic disease tend to have higher fertility rates. Mosquitoes
aren't keeping the human population under control.

The ones most harmful to humans are also fairly specific about what species
they bite:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anopheles#Preferred_sources_fo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anopheles#Preferred_sources_for_blood_meals)

------
bencollier49
Out of interest, does anyone know how this affects ecological balance. Are the
insects replaced by another species? How does this affect bird populations
which rely on eating the mosquitos?

------
hamilyon2
Will next generation of mosquitos be selected for greater fertility and more
obscure sex-related features, thus making them harder to sterilize that way?

------
soperj
I never understood why the U.S didn't just do the same sort of thing with
poppies in Afganistan. Would have completely wiped out the Taliban funding.

~~~
JackCh
In early 2001 the Taliban banned the growth of poppies and opium export
plummeted to near zero.

> _The first American narcotics experts to go to Afghanistan under Taliban
> rule have concluded that the movement 's ban on opium-poppy cultivation
> appears to have wiped out the world's largest crop in less than a year,
> officials said today. The American findings confirm earlier reports from the
> United Nations drug control program that Afghanistan, which supplied about
> three-quarters of the world's opium and most of the heroin reaching Europe,
> had ended poppy planting in one season._

> _But the eradication of poppies has come at a terrible cost to farming
> families, and experts say it will not be known until the fall planting
> season begins whether the Taliban can continue to enforce it._

[https://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/world/taliban-s-ban-on-
po...](https://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/world/taliban-s-ban-on-poppy-a-
success-us-aides-say.html)

Later that year America invaded and poppy production soon _exceeded_ historic
numbers by a significant margin.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanista...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan#/media/File:Afghanistan_opium_poppy_cultivation_1994-2007b.PNG)

Make of this what you will.

~~~
soperj
Today I learned... thank you!

------
dumbstein
Larger insects, small birds and amphibians eat mosquitoes. Shortage of food in
a lower ring of the chain can escalate to the top as early as within a year
and cause a severe depression in another part of the world for humans. As seen
in all past instances, no matter how confident humans are, something goes awry
when we try to cut something out of an ecosystem.

~~~
dotdi
You misread the article. They are not destroying all mosquitoes, only a
specific species within that Genus. There are plenty of other mosquitoes to
take the place of Ae. aegypti in the food chain.

------
drb91
Now we just have to wait a few decades to see if it has sustained impact!

------
yazr
What is the probability of these sterile mosquitoes somehow evolving and
reproducing on their own ?!

(So most of the batch is sterile and cant reproduce so cant evolve. But maybe
just a single mosquito of the batch is "faulty" and can reproduce and is
released anyway etc etc ?)

~~~
janekm
If it's not sterile, it's just a regular mosquito, of which they already have
plenty in Australia...

------
known
Scent of Chicken can drive away Mosquitoes qz.com/739510

------
chiefalchemist
What are the unintended consequences? Surely, these mosquitoes are someone's
breakfast, lunch and/or dinner. What happens when that species can't eat?

~~~
dalyons
They are an introduced species, so are already an unintended consequence

------
ape4
mozzie, lol

~~~
jmts
Here'y'are mate, if you thought that was a cracker, you're gonna have a ripper
of an arvo with this:

    
    
        http://www.koalanet.com.au/australian-slang.html/

------
ohiovr
Birds may miss a few meals.

~~~
goda90
I'd argue that this approach is better for the food chain than any chemical
sprays. This way other bugs aren't indiscriminately killed as well.

------
jdlyga
They should've paid for the full version to wipe out the remaining 20%

------
dfsegoat
As good as this is for preventing the awful scourge of human disease that
mosquitoes cause - I still wonder what the knock-on effects of this will be,
with respect to the overall loss of biomass and mosquitoes as a food source.

tldr: Mother nature does not like sudden vacuums in complex ecosystems, it
gets ugly for somebody at some part of the food chain where we never expected
it.

------
IllogicalLogic
Always interesting when a 300,000 year old species decides a 50+ million year
old species doesn't need to exist anymore.

Tell me more ecologists...grabs popcorn.

------
trophycase
If this isn't the peak of human hubris I'm really not sure what is. What could
go wrong?

------
bmcusick
> In an international partnership between CSIRO, Verily and James Cook
> University, scientists used specialised technology to release millions of
> sterilised male Aedes aegypti mosquitoes

This is so stupid. A population will recover from this in a single generation,
because the second you stop releasing sterile males, the remaining males (no
matter how few) can repopulate the species.

If you want to make a species of mosquitoes extinct (and I'm in favor of this,
they serve no irreplaceable environmental purposes), the more effective method
would be releasing males that only have male offspring.

~~~
ksec
>they serve no irreplaceable environmental purposes

How are we sure of this?

~~~
crusso
We don't have to wipe out all mosquitos in one shot. There are many different
species, not all of which transmit the deadly diseases of concern.

We can start with less populous species that share their ecological niche with
other species that can replace them in the food chain - observe the impact of
removing that one species then move on to others as warranted by the results.

Answer #2: It's worth the risk. Kill them all.

~~~
craftyguy
> It's worth the risk

Not really. Mosquitoes, both adults and larvae, serve as an important food
source for many animals that humans eventually depend on for food. Many types
of juvenile fish eat their larvae, for example, juvenile fish that eventually
grow up and become a major source of protein for some groups of people.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>a major source of protein for some groups of people. //

But not for Westerners in temperate climes, so, y'know, who cares ... [that's
deeply black sarcasm in case it's not obvious].

------
panarky
The 20% that survived are immune to this and will now multiply unchecked.

~~~
iknowstuff
It's not a virus. Rather than being immune, they might have managed to avoid
mating with the altered mosquitos (by chance apparently, as there seems to be
no perceptible difference) - for now.

Antiretrovirals fight HIV by blocking its multiplication in multiple ways,
such that the virus would have to mutate in a few particular ways
simultaneously to survive, which is extremely unlikely. Perhaps the mosquitos
could be altered similarly.

~~~
thaumasiotes
What happens by chance in the first generation will happen by design in later
generations. Unless the altered mosquitoes differ from normal ones in a new
and unpredictable way every generation from now to the end of time, they will
eventually be detected and avoided.

~~~
delecti
They didn't do anything to the existing mosquitos. They released sterile
specimens. All of the fertile wild specimens were still going about their
business making more Mosquitos, but the matings between the normal wild ones
and the sterile lab ones didn't result in offspring.

If you roll a collection of dice, and remove all of them when they roll
something other than 6, the other dice haven't "evolved" to only roll 6s.

~~~
kd5bjo
No, but dice that roll sixes more often are contributing more offspring to the
next generation. If the selection pressure keeps up, you will have most dice
consistently rolling 6s.

~~~
maxerickson
The technique has been used against other species of insects since ~1950.

There should be a horror story by now.

~~~
thaumasiotes
Horror story? The "horror story" would be "the insects are still around".

~~~
maxerickson
Indeed, I was being flip. It's actually been successful at eradicating
populations of insects, rather rapidly.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sterile_insect_techniq...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sterile_insect_technique_trials)

~~~
thaumasiotes
I see that "eradication" has been declared in most of those trials, but I also
see that formal "eradication" is often followed by renewal of the trial,
recovery of the population, or "complete eradication". I'm forced to conclude
that "eradication" in this context does not have its usual meaning.

That said, it does look like this is usually a pretty successful method of
ongoing population suppression.

