Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Brazil declares emergency after 2,400 babies are born with brain damage

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 142 posts

Re: Brazil declares emergency after 2,400 babies are born with brain damage

#111

Post by danieltillett »

rewqfdsa wrote: post #103
danieltillett wrote: post #9

The sooner we get serious and start to deal with mosquitos the better. We already know what needs to be done [1], now all we need to do is get on with. How many millions of people have to die before we solve the problem of mosquito borne disease once and for all. Are we really going to sit around for decades debating if we should use this technology or not? Edit. For those who want to understand more about this gene…

What prevents gene drive techniques from working on humans? The implications are disturbing, considering that humans have numerous ancestry-specific markers.

In principle they would work, but it would take thousands of years for a driver gene to spread through the human population. We also have the ability to do something about it and we could remove any driver gene from the population.

South Africa tried to develop a pathogen that would target black people during the apartheid era. This is certainly scary, but this is nothing to do with gene drivers like this.

Re: Brazil declares emergency after 2,400 babies are born with brain damage

#112

Post by tomjen3 »

danieltillett wrote: post #9

The sooner we get serious and start to deal with mosquitos the better. We already know what needs to be done [1], now all we need to do is get on with. How many millions of people have to die before we solve the problem of mosquito borne disease once and for all. Are we really going to sit around for decades debating if we should use this technology or not? Edit. For those who want to understand more about this gene…

We would have solved this long ago if we hadn't given up on using DDT. We assumed it was a trade-off to save some birds, now it is more a trade-off to save humans vs birds.

Re: Brazil declares emergency after 2,400 babies are born with brain damage

#113

Post by danieltillett »

tomjen3 wrote: post #112
danieltillett wrote: post #9

The sooner we get serious and start to deal with mosquitos the better. We already know what needs to be done [1], now all we need to do is get on with. How many millions of people have to die before we solve the problem of mosquito borne disease once and for all. Are we really going to sit around for decades debating if we should use this technology or not? Edit. For those who want to understand more about this gene…

We would have solved this long ago if we hadn't given up on using DDT. We assumed it was a trade-off to save some birds, now it is more a trade-off to save humans vs birds.

This is a really complex topic, but DDT alone is not enough to remove mosquito borne disease. In some parts of the world you just can’t spray enough to make a difference even if you had a massive budget.

Re: Brazil declares emergency after 2,400 babies are born with brain damage

#114

Post by RobertoG »

rewqfdsa wrote: post #105
psykovsky wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why does productivity need to go up if the population is declining? what about the unemployed?

Unemployment is on a long-term upward trend because as technology advances, it becomes economical to replace an increasing number of jobs with machines, starting with the lowest-skilled jobs first. Without eugenics, population decline will not increase the smart fraction in society, so to achieve economic growth, you constantly need fewer people to do more work. That is, the more technology we have, the larger the po…

Unemployment is a policy choice that we do as a society.

http://heteconomist.com/unemployment-is-a-government-policy-...

Re: Brazil declares emergency after 2,400 babies are born with brain damage

#115

Post by danieltillett »

robbiep wrote: post #107
danieltillett wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes these approaches have potential - the problem with them is the cost is much higher than using a CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive system. From the BBC article "As the mosquito only lasts a generation, it is necessary that the environment is continuously fed by new GMOs until it reaches the extermination.” This costs a lot of money and would not be able to implemented in most countries. If a country can’t afford to spray the…

I haven't heard much about CRISPR-Cas9 in population studies/experiments like this - my understanding was that you need to insert the RNA. Since RNA is so unstable it is usually a 'one shot' process transfecting cells with plasmids through infusion. Is the proposed mechanism to release a virus with the appropriate RNA scaffolds in the wild? This strikes me as extremely dangerous

No you introduce it into the genome of the mosquito and then release the mosquito. No virus involved. It is best to read the paper and its references.

What makes you think it is dangerous?

Re: Brazil declares emergency after 2,400 babies are born with brain damage

#116

Post by robbiep »

danieltillett wrote: post #115
robbiep wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't heard much about CRISPR-Cas9 in population studies/experiments like this - my understanding was that you need to insert the RNA. Since RNA is so unstable it is usually a 'one shot' process transfecting cells with plasmids through infusion. Is the proposed mechanism to release a virus with the appropriate RNA scaffolds in the wild? This strikes me as extremely dangerous

No you introduce it into the genome of the mosquito and then release the mosquito. No virus involved. It is best to read the paper and its references. What makes you think it is dangerous?

I haven't seen the paper. Was it referenced in this thread?

If you're just genetically engineering the mosquito to be unable to transmit the virus, I can't see the harm in it. But if you are releasing a virus to act as your vector for genetic modification of the mosquitos, then I would think that has the potential to veer wildly off plan

Re: Brazil declares emergency after 2,400 babies are born with brain damage

#117

Post by lukasm »

themartorana wrote: post #37
danieltillett wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes these approaches have potential - the problem with them is the cost is much higher than using a CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive system. From the BBC article "As the mosquito only lasts a generation, it is necessary that the environment is continuously fed by new GMOs until it reaches the extermination.” This costs a lot of money and would not be able to implemented in most countries. If a country can’t afford to spray the…

Have we ever on-purpose driven another species to extinction in order to save ourselves?

Most big cats in Europe. Possibly Aurochs.

Re: Brazil declares emergency after 2,400 babies are born with brain damage

#118

Post by danieltillett »

robbiep wrote: post #116
danieltillett wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No you introduce it into the genome of the mosquito and then release the mosquito. No virus involved. It is best to read the paper and its references. What makes you think it is dangerous?

I haven't seen the paper. Was it referenced in this thread? If you're just genetically engineering the mosquito to be unable to transmit the virus, I can't see the harm in it. But if you are releasing a virus to act as your vector for genetic modification of the mosquitos, then I would think that has the potential to veer wildly off plan

The paper is linked at the top of this whole thread. The technology could be used to prevent transmission or drive the mosquitos to extinction. Preventing transmission is harder because there are so many diseases to prevent.

How do you think it might veer wildly off plan?

Re: Brazil declares emergency after 2,400 babies are born with brain damage

#119

Post by robk »

PerfectElement wrote: post #66
mixmastamyk wrote: post #47

This isn't the first dangerous disease spread by mosquitos, and may not be the last. Not to mention how incredibly annoying they are in general. I've been to Brazil a number of times, and the thing I could never understand is why, in a tropical country knee-deep in hungry disease causing mosquitos, is there not a single screen on any of the windows there? Big mistake, they're not expensive. They are cheaper and safer…

When I lived in Brazil, we had window screens, but it was on an affluent area in the coast of Rio. I'm not sure it made things that much better though. You need a lot of discipline to keep those screens shut all the time when you live in a tropical country and go outside all the time. We just learned that during the summer, around 7pm, it was time to close doors and windows and turn the A/C on.

In England at least you can't easily find them and even if you could your local council would likely not approve the planning permission to install them.

Re: Brazil declares emergency after 2,400 babies are born with brain damage

#120

Post by robbiep »

danieltillett wrote: post #118
robbiep wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't seen the paper. Was it referenced in this thread? If you're just genetically engineering the mosquito to be unable to transmit the virus, I can't see the harm in it. But if you are releasing a virus to act as your vector for genetic modification of the mosquitos, then I would think that has the potential to veer wildly off plan

The paper is linked at the top of this whole thread. The technology could be used to prevent transmission or drive the mosquitos to extinction. Preventing transmission is harder because there are so many diseases to prevent. How do you think it might veer wildly off plan?

My bad re article.

Using a virus as a vector? The highly mutable nature of a virus. It's been engineered to perform a specific function, and within some limits of mutation it will still perform that function. There's a wide range of further mutations that will perform no noticeable function, and then there's a small space where it might do something that no-one expected. I mean, let's not get all doomsday about this - viruses are mutating and changing and leaping species all the time. We never know what nature will do for itself and how those effects will percolate through ecosystems.

My strongly held view is that we should be not be engineering with vectors. I do and have for a long time believed that species engineering (such as with this proposed system, although I was unaware of it until just now) is the way forward.

When I was completing my Biochem major I used to dream about ways to engineer our pestilent species out of existence, rabbits, cane toads and carp. Although in 2009 CRISPR wasn't even published and most of my thoughts revolved around chromosome engineering and X inactivation schemes to wipe the males of the species out. Not surprisingly, I wasn't the first to think of it and there was some great research out on those subjects

Post reply on HN