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

Oh good, screwworms are back (2025)

marginallycompelling.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 87 posts

Re: Oh good, screwworms are back (2025)

#31

Post by squibonpig »

zdragnar wrote: post #26
inigyou wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I heard there was one keeping this under control. It involved transgenic flies, which sounds close to transgender. DOGE ended it. It was also pitched as "why are we studying the mating habits of flies?"

We already have medicines that treat the problem. We've had it solved for a long time. We didn't need to genetically modify flies to solve it then, and we don't now. See sibling threads.

Yeah we did have it solved for a long time. We had no screwworms at all in the country. That was a great solution that lasted decades. Why would having to do all the work of applying medication, paying for the medication, animals that you catch late dying of infection and paying for those animals, people occasionally getting screwworms, pets dying to screwworms, etc etc etc be better or cheaper?

Also they don't genetically modify flies they still just irradiate the larva.

Re: Oh good, screwworms are back (2025)

#32

Post by devin »

readthenotes1 wrote: post #27
jmward01 wrote: post #24

Trust in science is so low in the US that this was bound to happen. The author's conclusion nails it: But institutional failures like this aren’t just the aggregate failure of a number of irresponsible people, they are a failure of a cultural attitude that doesn’t demand excellence from everyone in order to get the job done. I'll add though that when crisis happens the entity 'doing something about it' suddenly looks…

Is this like fouci funding gain of function research and then being in charge of managing results (including but not limited to suppressing information about his role in it)?

Can't even spell the name right? Come on, man.

Re: Oh good, screwworms are back (2025)

#33

Post by magicalist »

zdragnar wrote: post #26
inigyou wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I heard there was one keeping this under control. It involved transgenic flies, which sounds close to transgender. DOGE ended it. It was also pitched as "why are we studying the mating habits of flies?"

We already have medicines that treat the problem. We've had it solved for a long time. We didn't need to genetically modify flies to solve it then, and we don't now. See sibling threads.

> We already have medicines that treat the problem

We do have treatments of screwworm infestations, but it involves physically removing the larva and usually removing tissue as well as systemic treatments like antiparasitics. It's labor intensive and not cheap.

It also doesn't actually fix the _overall_ problem because screwworms will happily lay eggs in wild mammals too and so you will constantly be treating your livestock.

> We've had it solved for a long time

Yes, we solved it with mass releases of sterile flies over decades.

Re: Oh good, screwworms are back (2025)

#34

Post by squibonpig »

readthenotes1 wrote: post #27
jmward01 wrote: post #24

Trust in science is so low in the US that this was bound to happen. The author's conclusion nails it: But institutional failures like this aren’t just the aggregate failure of a number of irresponsible people, they are a failure of a cultural attitude that doesn’t demand excellence from everyone in order to get the job done. I'll add though that when crisis happens the entity 'doing something about it' suddenly looks…

Is this like fouci funding gain of function research and then being in charge of managing results (including but not limited to suppressing information about his role in it)?

Yall ain't sending your best huh

Re: Oh good, screwworms are back (2025)

#35

Post by jmward01 »

timr wrote: post #15
maeglin wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Yes, the screwworm problem predates the funding cut. Surely that should prompt an increase or at least a maintenance of existing funding for monitoring programs though, certainly not a decrease. I think atoav is saying the /stupid consequence/ is the cut in funding itself, not the screwworm resurgence.

> I'm not sure what your point is here. My point is that the instinct to be partisan on this issue is inane, but also factually incorrect. > Yes, the screwworm problem predates the funding cut. Great, so we're agreed that this is at least a bi-partisan problem. > Surely that should prompt an increase or at least a maintenance of existing funding for monitoring programs though, certainly not a decrease. Fortunately, i…

A problem happening eventually is expected. The point of a good program is a layered approach that admits no layer is perfect so you have backups that kick in to minimize the impact of problems. So the problem was emerging in 2022, not great but not a tragedy. Cutting monitoring means we reacted slower and our inability to play with our neighbors well means that we can't coordinate a response quickly or as effectively. Destroying our layered, nuanced policies has real consequences and this is one of them.

Re: Oh good, screwworms are back (2025)

#36

Post by pstuart »

timr wrote: post #15
maeglin wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Yes, the screwworm problem predates the funding cut. Surely that should prompt an increase or at least a maintenance of existing funding for monitoring programs though, certainly not a decrease. I think atoav is saying the /stupid consequence/ is the cut in funding itself, not the screwworm resurgence.

> I'm not sure what your point is here. My point is that the instinct to be partisan on this issue is inane, but also factually incorrect. > Yes, the screwworm problem predates the funding cut. Great, so we're agreed that this is at least a bi-partisan problem. > Surely that should prompt an increase or at least a maintenance of existing funding for monitoring programs though, certainly not a decrease. Fortunately, i…

Pointing out legitimate failure of an administration is not partisan -- denying or deflecting that criticism is partisan. The current regime has slashed so many programs based on the flimsiest reasoning (including "my predecessor supported this so therefore I hate it").

I'm more than happy to acknowledge any failures by Dem leadership because I'm not a party member and even if I were I would not let that blind me to the reality of that failure.

Re: Oh good, screwworms are back (2025)

#39

Post by biophysboy »

timr wrote: post #6
atoav wrote: post #5

Headline from March of last year: Bird flu, screwworm monitoring among foreign aid programs killed by Trump See: https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/22636-bird-flu-screwworm... Elect stupid leaders, get stupid consequences.

As the article you've linked to makes clear, this problem predates the cut in funding.

The argument is not that cutting funding caused the problem; the argument is that you have to use money to solve the problem.

Re: Oh good, screwworms are back (2025)

#40

Post by [deleted] »

timr wrote: post #6
atoav wrote: post #5

Headline from March of last year: Bird flu, screwworm monitoring among foreign aid programs killed by Trump See: https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/22636-bird-flu-screwworm... Elect stupid leaders, get stupid consequences.

As the article you've linked to makes clear, this problem predates the cut in funding.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN