
Genetically engineered moth is released into an open field - sigmaprimus
https://www.technologynetworks.com/genomics/news/world-first-genetically-engineered-moth-is-released-into-an-open-field-329960
======
tmikaeld
I'm sure other have the same question [0]:

"But how does the self-limiting gene work?

First, let’s step back and consider that each mosquito is made up of many
cells. In order for each cell to survive, it needs to make essential proteins.
The proteins are made when genes (made of DNA) are converted into RNA and
subsequently the RNA is converted into protein.

DNA → RNA → Protein … Happy cell

However, when the self-limiting gene (DNA) is made into a protein, the self-
limiting protein is able to block the process of converting DNA into RNA.

DNA -X RNA -X Protein … dead cells, dead mosquito

Without RNA, proteins aren’t made, the cells die, and the mosquito dies too."

[0] [https://stringsblog.com/2017/06/19/how-it-works-a-self-
limit...](https://stringsblog.com/2017/06/19/how-it-works-a-self-limiting-
gene/)

~~~
raducu
But natural populations of mosquitoes probably number in millions/billions and
the don't have the mutation.

How can you release a handful of lab mosquitoes into the wild and reduce the
population by 90%?

Shouldn't only their descendants die?

~~~
nmca
Indeed a germline modification to produce only male offspring would do it.
Children of men, and all that.

~~~
Accujack
They're turning the moths gay!

------
psaux
I assume over time, the diamondback female moth would be able to determine
which males produce stale offspring and avoid them. There has to be some
science to selective breeding. I am groc’ng now, I swore I watched a show
where a beetle evolved to have selective mating distinction. Prior to Netflix
and Prime, Discovery was my morning, lunch, and dinner, learned so much.

~~~
fifnir
> the diamondback female moth would be able to determine

I'll rephrase:

If some females for whatever reason avoid the engineered males, they will
produce more offspring

~~~
danShumway
Good distinction. Evolution is hard to talk about, I still often have to take
a step back and try to reword things that I'm talking about.

Somewhat obviously, females that happen to produce a larger number of viable
offspring will produce a larger number of viable offspring.

That means over time, a lot of the new viable offspring will be coming from
those females. Which means over time, a lot of the species will have similar
genes to those females. Which means that _if_ the females all share a common
mutation, over time a lot of the species will have that mutation.

------
aspyct
Who gives clearance to that kind of experiment?

Oxitec has done the same in the past with mosquitoes, with small to no result.
Some say it's even worse now.
[https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/09/...](https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/09/24/genetically-
engineered-mosquitoes.aspx)

Now the same company is toying with moths.

There's no way we can predict the outcome of such genetic engineering. If they
achieve their goal and kill all moths, other species may decline. Or else they
will simply make stronger moths, like they did with the mosquitoes: "very
likely resulting in a more robust population than the pre-release population
due to hybrid vigor."

I believe we should all oppose such practices. Who is Oxitec to decide to run
that experiment and potentially ruin the world for everyone of us?

~~~
stefan_
"There is no way we can predict the outcome", he said, writing from his
climate controlled room surrounded by concrete for miles in any direction.

Don't worry, evolutionary systems are continuous and highly robust. Remember,
nature is out there rolling dices and so far, no killer moths have been
spotted, despite getting in 190 million years of moth gene dice rolls.

~~~
close04
> no killer moths have been spotted, despite getting in 190 million years of
> moth gene dice rolls

Nature works much slower than humans and with different "targets". There's a
reason we shun engineering of deadly pathogens that could wipe out the entire
population, and the assumption that "it can't be done otherwise nature would
have done it already" doesn't hold.

~~~
red75prime
Unintended consequences are unintended because they weren't actively searched
for. Why do you think that they will be more dangerous than random search
performed in nature?

~~~
ngcc_hk
It is the unknown unknown you worry about when change like this. I wonder the
China part as well. Not sure still about the military lab on virus in wuhan.

What is the governance and ethic model here?

------
danShumway
I'm not strongly opposed, but I was pretty nervous about the mosquito trials,
and I thought (perhaps wrongly) that mosquitoes were a really special case and
we weren't going to start doing this all the time for every single insect
pest.

The argument for doing heavy population control on mosquitoes is at least
backed up by a number of scientists who doubt mosquitoes play any substantial
roles in their ecosystems. Have we drawn the same conclusions about
diamondback moths? Are they at least an invasive species or something?

I remain conscious of the fact that I am not an expert in these areas, but I
also remain very nervous about genetic engineering trials in the wild. The
fact that we're now doing this for agricultural purposes and not just to stop
malaria rings a lot of alarm bells for me, but I don't know enough about this
subject to clearly articulate _why_ it makes me so nervous.

I can't credibly claim that my aversion to actively editing genes in wild
animals isn't just an internalization of cultural norms from movies like
Frankenstein. But the alarm bells are still there for me. Is there a timeline
of other insects this company is looking at? Is it _just_ mosquitoes and
moths, or is there a X year plan to start targeting other pests?

------
ChrisCinelli
As genome editing become simpler, we will see more mutated organisms released
in the wild by some not so scrupulous scientists.

Some sci-fi movies come to mind. I feel a little uneasy with how the things
that can go wrong.

What can we do to prepare for this scenario?

~~~
doublerabbit
Giant Spiders. Giant sized Tarantula's.

------
vectorEQ
soon the first genetically engineered human is released onto the streets. to
reproduce and spread their self-limiting genes. everyone will always be happy,
and happily consume :O :D

~~~
mapcars
>everyone will always be happy, and happily consume

That's not how it works, if you are always happy you don't need to consume.
What supports consumerism is a constant chase - "I need this to be happy" and
big enough amount of goals to keep one busy for more than a lifetime so that
torch will be passed to the next generation.

------
sigmaprimus
Interesting number of comments on this thread, I posted this thread after
doing a news search on GMOs because of a disagreement I had with a commenter
on another thread.

It amazes me how many people are OK with the currently accepted practice of
growing food such as soy, wheat and corn using GMOs but move just one tick up
the food chain and it's heresy.

Personally I would love to tinker around with Crispr and a gene gun to grow
some glowing plants etc. But I am afraid of what greedy corporations are
currently doing with the same tech.

This is truly a personal hypocrisy or paradox that I can't square other than
admitting my own arrogance on this subject.

~~~
wtracy
I think it's only because genetically modified plants are common enough
already to not make headlines. When they were new, people went bonkers. (Many
people still do.)

------
ptah
would it not be better to encourage their natural predators?

~~~
ryan_j_naughton
This moth species originated in either Europe / the Mediterranean, or Africa.
It has spread worldwide. Thus, it is an invasive species. Introducing other
invasive species as part control can really backfire.

Classic example being the Cane Toad. [1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toad#Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toad#Australia)

------
Jaruzel
We're going to rue the day we started doing this.

As they say 'Nature abhors a vacuum' \- Once the diamondback moth numbers have
declined significantly, another (probably more invasive) species will rise to
take it's place.

The planet's ecosystem has had billions of years to balance itself out, who
are we to assume we can do it better?

~~~
ben_w
> We're going to rue the day we started doing this.

Perhaps.

> As they say 'Nature abhors a vacuum' \- Once the diamondback moth numbers
> have declined significantly, another (probably more invasive) species will
> rise to take it's place.

Eventually, but evolution is slow. Why would the replacement be “probably”
more invasive?

> The planet's ecosystem has had billions of years to balance itself out, who
> are we to assume we can do it better?

It’s not balanced. From one point of view, humans are a product of evolution
and our errors are evolution’s errors, though even without counting humans
other predator populations do sometimes wipe out their prey and then starve
into their own extinction.

From a different perspective, we can do better because while evolution is
limited to the gradient descent local minima of natural selection, we can do
extreme long-term planning — which is how we’re even physically capable of
having this conversation, let alone perform the genetic modifications that
this article is talking about.

~~~
mr__y
>Eventually, but evolution is slow. Why would the replacement be “probably”
more invasive?

You don't have to wait for the evolution. There were already cases when a
species from other country/continent was accidentally introduced to a new
environment due to "parasite passengers" in shipping containers. While this
problem exists independently of genetically engineered moths, since this
already happened before[0], creating a void in an ecosystem might make this
process easier.

[0] the first thing that pops in my head would be chinese mitten crabs in
Germany [https://cutt.ly/1rTUHN3](https://cutt.ly/1rTUHN3)

~~~
ben_w
Hmm. I would argue that because what you describe is a problem that exists
independently, that isn’t a convincing argument for _not_ modifying these
moths.

I accept I could be wrong though. I do have the feeling that this is straying
outside my confidence zone.

~~~
mr__y
I was commenting on this from parent posts:

>>another (probably more invasive) species will rise to take it's place.

>Eventually, but evolution is slow.

While the evolution is indeed slow, I was trying to point out that there are
other ways to introduce new species, that are not slow.

>problem that exists independently yes, of course, but... if new species in
small amounts are introduced to an ecosystem there is relatively high
probability that they might not survive in that ecosystem. Now if there was
some void in that ecostystem, the chances of that new species could be higher
since their competition was removed/reduced. This of course requires some kind
of coincidence - when the species accidentally introduced to the ecosystem can
take over the place of moths being reduced. Since there are so many variables
I believe it is close to impossible to asses the probability of such
coincidence. I assume that this probability is very close to "unlikely" but
still non-zero.

------
lowdose
When can I buy a tiger the size of a cat with the character of a dog?

In the USA alone it is estimated at least 10.000 of these animals live in
captivity so there must be a market for a more civilized version. Are we on
the path to engineer pets to our own wishes or is this pure sci-fi?

How much investment/breakthroughs are needed to get there?

~~~
cgarvis
Toygers are real:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyger)

~~~
lowdose
It's still a cat.

