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…
> Trust in science is so low in the US that this was bound to happen. How is "They were almost certainly transported via unchecked northward migration of people and animals." a consequence of loss of trust in science?
Oh good, screwworms are back (2025)
61–70 of 87 posts
Re: Oh good, screwworms are back (2025)
#62[flagged]
It wasn't herds of cattle moving through the jungles of Central America that likely helped the screwworm breach the barrier we'd been maintaining for decades. It was mass human migration. Once they managed to move north any animal was a potential host, not just commercial critters. And even then it probably could've been held at bay and fought back south, except Mexico in particular was extremely sensitive about any…
[citation needed]
Humans generally seek treatment when infected with some horrible parasite, which would result in said parasite getting killed before propagating. Even for incredibly poor people - AFAICS screwworm is rather painful. You're not gonna carry that.
Re: Oh good, screwworms are back (2025)
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tariffs would not stop the screw worm, which lives half of its life as a winged fly.
A fly that naturally spreads one mile per day does not travel from Panama to Texas in four years.
Distance from Panama to Texas is like 1700 miles.
It's not a large difference, wouldn't need much unnatural transport.
Re: Oh good, screwworms are back (2025)
#64Earlier 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.
"Involve transgenics" is broad enough cover the intern doing literature reviews on related subjects. The discovery process on an unfamiliar domain is a jargon/term of art minefield, and the phrases that fly past me turn in to shibboleths.
Re: Oh good, screwworms are back (2025)
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Re: Oh good, screwworms are back (2025)
#66Trust 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…
> Trust in science is so low in the US that this was bound to happen. How is "They were almost certainly transported via unchecked northward migration of people and animals." a consequence of loss of trust in science?
1. Mistrust in science, and
2. A habit of hastily strangling government watchdog agencies.
#1 has put all such public-safety programs on the chopping block. #2 is the fatal stroke of the axe.
Re: Oh good, screwworms are back (2025)
#67[flagged]
Gonna need one helluva tall border wall to stop the birds.
Re: Oh good, screwworms are back (2025)
#68When I was doing my PhD in bio one of my colleagues developed something called CRISPR gene drive, which had the potential of exterminating species wholesale. There was talk of using it to wipe out mosquito populations. The riskiness of it was quite high though. Wonder if people will consider reviving it in this case.
Re: Oh good, screwworms are back (2025)
#69Chances of current US gov mounting a coordinated scientific campaign to get on top of this seem vanishingly small to me. They’re busy defunding and dismantling any gov operation that smells like science
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?"
No.
First, the problem here predates DOGE by an entire presidential administration or more. If you had read the article, you’d know that the northward migration of flies started at least in 2020.
Second, the thing you’re misremembering has no relation to this program. It was funding for transgenic animals in a completely different area of research.
You are repeating hearsay that sounds like it should be the reason. It confirms your political priors while ironically making you feel smug about your scientific knowledge. I’m not a fan of the current administration, but seeing so many people here bend over backwards to blame this on their political enemies, without even a hint of intellectual curiosity is more depressing than anything the politicians have done. Your political team can be incompetent too — and probably is!
Re: Oh good, screwworms are back (2025)
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Y’all are just absolutely fixated on blaming one side for this.