For start, can science bring back the mosquito,
after extinction by the "gene drive" experiment,
when
it is determined that the outcome of the experiment
is worse than malaria?
In other words, is it good or bad to rid us entirely of the mosquito
population, rather than controlling its population
and growth?
Only non-scientists like us
can ask this question before the AU accepts the proposed “gene
drive” experiment in Africa, as alleged
Anthony A. James, a scientist, in his article on “Gene
Drive System In Mosquitoes: Rules of the Road,“
describes a
“naturally occurring or synthetic genetic mechanisms
for gene spread upon which drive .” the gene drive
is based to eradicate mosquitoes.
In plain English, the “gene drive” attacks the
fertility of the malaria carrying mosquito.
And soon, it breeds itself out.
The effort is
already out of the gate.
The pesky little critter’s existence in Africa and
elsewhere is, probably,
now under
threat.
A web publication,
TheScientist, reports on Sept 24, 2018 that “a
gene drive has successfully caused the
collapse of a malaria-carrying mosquito population
in the lab.
“This is the first time a gene drive—a genetic
element that ensures its own inheritance—has caused
a population of mosquitoes to self-destruct, a
result that holds promise for combating malaria.”
West Africa, known as “the white man’s graveyard” because of the mosquito,
will become a
paradise for all. Its huge potential in land and resources
will beckon welcome to
all!
Well, is that the good news, with the mosquito gone?
We should be very careful here.
The “gene drive” in question causes infertility in
mosquitoes.
But is that where the infertility stops and
can the infertility be transmitted to humans?
Just asking questions worthy of a non-scientist.
Not trying to spin a conspiracy theory here.
But this mosquito raid reminds me of when
the HIV virus was said to have crossed the
species barrier!
Infertility
threat aside, there will
still be other problems.
With the mosquito
eradicated, population explosion will occur within
the indigene society, in addition to new settlers for whom
the eradication of the mosquito will open a new
frontier for migration.
Biodiversity in the
mosquito affected region will suffer.
But when one aspect of nature is destroyed, other
things go down too.
A web article, published November 07, 2018, has
something to say about this conundrum called
biodiversity.
It cites
a Florida study, which finds that the population
of “monarch butterflies declined 80 percent since
2005.”
And the
article points out the trigger factors for the
decline:
It started with the development of areas that had
natural growth of “native milkweed, the favorite
food of young monarchs.
The other trigger is the
widespread use of a herbicide called glyphosate,
often applied to farm fields to kill weeds…”
The herbicides killed the milkweed.
The milkweed is a cherished food for the monarch
butterfly.
In biodiversity terms, the mosquito is a cherished
food of others in the food chain.
What else will be disturbed in the region
when the mosquito is eradicated?
VOX, another web publication, comes in with an
answer:
Vox claims, in an article on insects, that loss of
those little critters, which “serve
as food for many other forms of life in the
ecosystem — has also coincided with losses of
birds, lizards, and frogs.“
Thus, it is reasonable to expect at the top of the
food chain that humans can also be impacted, when
insects like the mosquito “are obliterated from the
bottom.”
Unless it could be argued that the last stage of
human life is an
unnecessary factor because the human in malaria
prone areas, just like the mosquito, would have been
redenderd infertile
by the gene drive!
This article is not written because of love for
mosquitoes or malaria. It is written because of the
fear of what can be unleashed.
The reverse of the adversity we have now, in the
form of mosquito induced malaria,
could be nastier with the mosquito gone.
We know
deaths by malaria will be reduced.
A good thing, but increasing life expectancy
also has its unsavory outcomes.
There would be population growth and this will be the next evil to tackle.
Human populations grow
exponentially and will always outpace man’s ability
to grow food for consumption, according to the
economist Malthus.
Sooner or later, the
population growth problem will demand
a solution. The solution will be either pleasant or
unpleasant.
The unpleasant part is
already happening on the
African continent today. Some are fleeing the continent,
trekking across the Sahara desert for greener
pastures in Europe, while others
remain to fight over the little that is available.
The philanthropist Bill Gates is aware of the
problem. especially its impact on the West.
He has proposed a beneficent solution to
provide humanitarian support to keep the youth of
Africa from fleeing the continent.
Ironically,
in the face of this Gates’ humanitarian
proposal, we come to find out that
the "gene drive" effort is also backed
by the Gates Foundation.
What does Bill want, one would ask.
What went so suddenly wrong with Bill’s original,
beneficent concern about population growth in Africa
and its impact on the West to this move for the “gene drive”?
Could the
“gene drive” be a Trojan Horse” for something
else?
But the choice make could hide a devilish consequence.
This “gene drive” is a big venture, a
huge disturbance of nature and so consequential to
life, that we should not leave
the decision to science alone.
E. Ablorh-Odjidja, Publisher www.ghanadot.com,
Washington, DC, November 10, 2018
Permission to publish: Please feel free to
publish or reproduce, with credits, unedited. If
posted at a website, email a copy of the web page to
publisher@ghanadot.com . Or don't publish at all.
