A similar LW post, based on an RSR post based on this paper not about genetic drive, but about the sterile insect technique. Genetic drive sounds to me like a lot better idea, but most of the discussion was not that specific.
Genetic drive is a lot harder, though, because you have to invent a gene that can survive in the wild. An intermediate difficulty version is RIDL (“release of insects carrying a dominant lethal”), which is what Oxitec I believe actually does, not genetic drive. (Indeed, in the comments to the above LW post, JenniferRM linked to an article she had written about Oxitec using RIDL.)
I don’t think the core issue is difficulty in creating a gene that can survive in the wild. The core issue would be that such a intervention can wreck ecosystems in very unpredictable ways while the RIDL Oxitec approach produces a very controlled effect.
Given public fears about wrecking ecosystems with GMO’s Oxitecs approach seems much more politically viable and it’s not that expensive anyway.
If you think it’s so easy, what gene do you propose?
One proposal is a gene for the mosquito to resist malaria. This has no ecological consequences, but it probably wouldn’t wipe out malaria. This could be driven with CRISPR techniques, but I don’t know if there are any such candidates.
Another proposal I have heard is sexual drive. In species with XY sex determination (some, but not all malarial mosquitoes), a male that produces only Y sperm and breeds true could wipe out the species. But this is a more complicated drive than CRISPR. RIDL+CRISPR techniques might yield a male whose daughters die young, but that might not be enough drive.
The great thing about genetic drive is that it requires the release of very few mosquitoes, so it can be done surreptitiously.
I was thinking of a virus gene that self replicates and doesn’t produce issues if there one copy of the gene but produces issues if there are 1000 copies.
A similar LW post, based on an RSR post based on this paper not about genetic drive, but about the sterile insect technique. Genetic drive sounds to me like a lot better idea, but most of the discussion was not that specific.
Genetic drive is a lot harder, though, because you have to invent a gene that can survive in the wild. An intermediate difficulty version is RIDL (“release of insects carrying a dominant lethal”), which is what Oxitec I believe actually does, not genetic drive. (Indeed, in the comments to the above LW post, JenniferRM linked to an article she had written about Oxitec using RIDL.)
I don’t think the core issue is difficulty in creating a gene that can survive in the wild. The core issue would be that such a intervention can wreck ecosystems in very unpredictable ways while the RIDL Oxitec approach produces a very controlled effect.
Given public fears about wrecking ecosystems with GMO’s Oxitecs approach seems much more politically viable and it’s not that expensive anyway.
If you think it’s so easy, what gene do you propose?
One proposal is a gene for the mosquito to resist malaria. This has no ecological consequences, but it probably wouldn’t wipe out malaria. This could be driven with CRISPR techniques, but I don’t know if there are any such candidates.
Another proposal I have heard is sexual drive. In species with XY sex determination (some, but not all malarial mosquitoes), a male that produces only Y sperm and breeds true could wipe out the species. But this is a more complicated drive than CRISPR. RIDL+CRISPR techniques might yield a male whose daughters die young, but that might not be enough drive.
The great thing about genetic drive is that it requires the release of very few mosquitoes, so it can be done surreptitiously.
I was thinking of a virus gene that self replicates and doesn’t produce issues if there one copy of the gene but produces issues if there are 1000 copies.