The Danger of GM Mosquitoes

1. oldalThe danger of GM mosquitoes

2011.11.01. 1:41:59http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/13483--the-danger-of-gm-mosquitoes

Reload original pagePrint pageEmail page address

The danger of GM mosquitoesTitle: The Danger of GM MosquitoesDate: 31 October 2011

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE

Dear Friends and colleagues,

RE: The Danger of GM Mosquitoes

Below is an article (Item 1) published in Scientific American, which raises concerns with regard to GM mosquitoes which have been released on a trial run in three countries thus far.The Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, which are the vectors for dengue fever, were genetically modified to carry a lethal gene which prevents the larvae from surviving in the absence oftetracycline. The author flags concerns related to health,ecology and pest control management. She also questions theethical aspect of the releases and raises issues pertainingtoregulatory oversight, the lack of genuine consultation; transparency and liability.

Another article giving the opposing view is also published in the same publication, please see “Genetically Modified Mosquitoes Could Be an Important Tool in the Fight againstDisease” by Mark Q. Benedict.

In related news, the results of the world's first field trialwith these GM mosquitoes were published yesterday in NatureBiotechnology. However, the research has raised concerns aboutpossible unintended effects on public health and the environment (Item 2). Among the concerns raised were the possibility that the mosquitoes could evolve resistance to the lethalgeneand the resistant mosquitoes might then be released inadvertently, the survival of insects to adulthood despite presumably carrying the lethal gene, and the possibility of release offemales (which bite humans and transmit dengue) due to sorting error, leading to a possible temporary increase in disease spread. Critics also say that Oxitec, the British biotechnologycompany that developed the GM mosquito, has rushed into field testing without sufficient review and public consultation, sometimes in countries with weak regulations.

With best wishes,

Third World Network131 Jalan Macalister,10400 Penang,MalaysiaEmail: [email protected] e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view itWebsite: www.biosafety-info.net and www.twnside.org.sgTo subscribe to other TWN information lists: www.twnnews.net

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Item 1

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dengue-case-for-genetically-modified-mosquitoes&page=3

The Danger of Genetically Modified MosquitoesBy Helen WallaceScientific American, October 24, 2011

The release of genetically modified (GM) insects should follow a precautionary approach, because what appears well understood in the lab can have unintended consequences whenreleased on a large scale into the environment. On release, GM mosquitoes become part of a complex system involving predators and prey, other mosquito species, four types of denguevirus, other tropical diseases transmitted by mosquitoes,and the humans - including children - who are being bitten andinfected.

An expert report to the European Food Safety Authority listsa wide variety of issues that should be addressed prior to thedeliberate release of any GM insects. They include the adverseeffects associated with the flow of genes into the wild population; the interactions of the GM insect with target and nontarget organisms; the impact on agricultural managementpractices and on management measures to control insects that are vectors for diseases; and a variety of potential effects on human health. The latter include allergies and irritation; thepresence of live female mosquitoes; potential changes in the ability of mosquitoes to transmit disease; and accidentalingestion (including of larvae and eggs). Other issues thathavebeen raised elsewhere include: the potential for viruses toevolve into more virulent forms; the impacts on human immunity and hence cases of disease; whether other species ofmosquito (transmitting the same or different diseases) might occupy the ecological niche vacated by a falling population of the target species (pdf); and whether infection with denguehas a protective effect against yellow fever.

The first open releases of GM mosquitoes have now taken placein the Cayman Islands, Malaysia and Brazil. In all three countries the biotechnology company Oxitec released GMAedes aegypti mosquitoes (yellow fever mosquitoes) with the intention of reducing the population of this species, which also transmits dengue fever. In choosing the British OverseasTerritory of the Cayman Islands to undertake the first releases, Oxitec bypassed the provisions of the Cartagena Protocol (covering impacts on biodiversity) and the Aarhus Convention(covering access to environmental information), both of which would apply in the U.K. The Cayman trials were in an inhabited area where dengue is not endemic; the smaller Malaysiantrial was in an uninhabited area in a country where dengue is endemic; and the ongoing, much larger Brazilian trials are inan inhabited area where dengue is endemic. Only in Malaysiadid the company openly consult the public, and even there, a small-scale release caused public concerns due to the lack oftransparency about the timing and insufficient publicinformation. Further, only a summary of the risk assessmenthas been published, leaving the regulator's decisions about what hazards to include, and whether or not they were significant,open to dispute.

Although no doubt genuine in its desire to tackle dengue fever, Oxitec is a commercial company with a patented technologyto sell. Its business plan relies on convincing thegovernments of dengue endemic countries to pay for ongoing releases of its GM mosquitoes to maintain suppression of the mosquito population. Its investors include the University ofOxford, the venture capital company Oxford Capital Partners (which offers significant tax breaks to its investors), and a Boston-based multimillionaire. The former U.K. scienceminister, Lord Drayson, and the former president of the Royal Society, Lord May, have both acted as advisors to investorsin the company. Oxitec has also received significant U.K.government subsidy via the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council as well as the Technology Strategy Board. Its open-release experiment in Malaysia was funded viaa translational grant from the Wellcome Trust. Although thecompany is a spin-off from Oxford, the university's ethics board plays no role in overseeing its experiments.

Research on public attitudes to potential releases of GM mosquitoes to tackle malaria in Mali found that participants wanted to see evidence that GM mosquitoes could reduce malariawithout adverse effects on human health and the environment, and many were skeptical that the technology would work. A majority of participants would support a release that satisfiedtheir conditions, but a substantial minority would not support a release under any circumstances. Whereas it is difficult to extrapolate from a small study in a single country (whichincluded mainly male participants), the study does succeedin raising some important issues. How is people's consent tobe obtained for such experiments, given that most people wouldonly grant it if certain conditions were fulfilled? And, is it ethical to undertake experiments if some people continue to oppose them?

Oxitec seems to have treated this ethical problem as largelyan issue of public relations. In Cayman it released a video claiming its GM mosquitoes were sterile, rather than explainingthat they breed and the offspring die as pupae; it also didn'tmention that they were genetically modified. In Brazil activities have included attending carnival dressed up as mosquitoes.Concerns that the technology is not 100 percent effective, leaving some female (biting) mosquitoes to breed, have simply been ignored.

For observers, it is hard to understand how decades of debateat the World Health Organization and elsewhere have come to this. Is there really any regulatory oversight; any datarequired of any company; and any ethical requirements before GM insects can be released into the open? Decisions appear to be being taken by a small circle of powerful investors whohave decided they must rush to commercialize a particular technology, rather than in consultation with the people who will be affected. Who is going to be liable if anything goes wrong?And will any problems be reversible as releases happen on an ever larger scale?

----------------------

Helen Wallace is the director of GeneWatch UK. She has workedas an environmental scientist in academia and industry and as senior scientist at Greenpeace UK, where she wasresponsible for science and policy work on a range of issues.She has a degree in physics from the University of Bristol anda PhD in applied mathematics from University of Exeter.



HelenWallaceis thedirectorof GeneWatchUK. Shehasworkedasanenvironmentalscientistin academiaandindustryandasseniorscientistatGreenpeaceUK, whereshewasresponsible for science and policy work on a range of issues.She has a degree in physics from the University of Bristol anda PhD in applied mathematics from University of Exeter.

--------------------

Item 2

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/31/science/concerns-raised-about-genetically-engineered-mosquitoes.html?ref=global-home&pagewanted=all Concerns Are Raised About Genetically Engineered MosquitoesBy ANDREW POLLACKPublished: October 30, 2011

These mosquitoes are genetically engineered to kill — theirown children.

Researchers on Sunday reported initial signs of success from the first release into the environment of mosquitoes engineered to pass a lethal gene to their offspring, killing them beforethey reach adulthood.

The results, and other work elsewhere, could herald an age inwhich genetically modified insects will be used to help control agricultural pests and insect-borne diseases like denguefever and malaria.But the research is arousing concern about possible unintended effects on public health and the environment, because once genetically modified insects are released, they cannot berecalled.Authorities in the Florida Keys, which in 2009 experienced its first cases of dengue fever in decades, hope to conduct an open-air test of the modified mosquitoes as early as December,pending approval from the Agriculture Department.

“It’s a more ecologically friendly way to control mosquitoes than spraying insecticides,” said Coleen Fitzsimmons, a spokeswoman for the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District.

The Agriculture Department, meanwhile, is looking at usinggenetic engineering to help control farm pests like the Mediterranean fruit fly, or medfly, and the cotton-munching pinkbollworm, according toan environmental impact statement it published in 2008. Millions of genetically engineered bollworms have been released over cotton fields in Yuma County,Ariz.

Yet even supporters of the research worry it could provoke a public reaction similar to the one that has limited the acceptance of genetically modified crops. In particular, criticssay thatOxitec, the British biotechnology company that developed the dengue-fighting mosquito, has rushed into field testingwithout sufficient review and public consultation, sometimes incountries with weak regulations.

“Even if the harms don’t materialize, this will undermine the credibility and legitimacy of the research enterprise,” said Lawrence O. Gostin, professor of international health law atGeorgetown University.

The first release, which was discussed in a scientific paperpublished online on Sunday by the journal Nature Biotechnology, took place in the Cayman Islands in the Caribbean in 2009and caught the international scientific community by surprise. Oxitec has subsequently released the modified mosquitoes in Malaysia and Brazil.

Luke Alphey, the chief scientist at Oxitec, said the companyhad left the review and community outreach to authorities inthe host countries.

“They know much better how to communicate with people in those communities than we do coming in from the U.K.” he said.

Dr. Alphey was a zoology researcher at Oxford before co-founding Oxitec in 2002. The company has raised about $24 millionfrom investors, including Oxford, he said. A major backeris East Hill Advisors, which is run by the New England businessman Landon T. Clay, former chief executive of Eaton Vance, an investment management firm.

Oxitec says its approach is an extension of a technique used successfully for decades to suppress or even eradicate pests, which involves the release of millions of sterile insects thatmate with wild ones, producing no offspring.

But the technique has not been successfully used for mosquitoes, in part because the radiation usually used to sterilizethe insects also injures them, making it difficult for them tocompete for mates against wild counterparts.

Oxitec has created Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, the species that is the main transmitter of the dengue and yellow fever viruses, containing a gene that will kill them unless they are giventetracycline, a common antibiotic.

In the lab, with tetracycline provided, the mosquitoes can be bred for generations and multiplied. Males are then released into the wild, where tetracycline is not available. They live longenough to mate but their progeny will die before adulthood.

The study published on Sunday looked at how successfully thelab-reared, genetically modified insects could mate. About 19,000 engineered mosquitoes were released over four weeksin 2009 in a 25-acre area on Grand Cayman island.

Based on data from traps, the genetically engineered males accounted for 16 percent of the overall male population in thetest zone, and the lethal gene was found in almost 10 percent oflarvae. Those figures suggest the genetically engineered males were about half as successful in mating as wild ones, a rate sufficient to suppress the population.

Oxitec has already said a larger trial on Grand Cayman islandin 2010 reduced the population of the targeted mosquito by 80percent for three months. That work has not yet beenpublished.

Dr. Alphey said the technique was safe because only males were released, while only females bite people and spread the disease, adding that it should have little environmental impact.“It’s exquisitely targeted to the specific organism you aretrying to take out,” he said.

The company is focusing on dengue fever rather than malaria because a single mosquito species is responsible for most of its spread, while many species carry malaria. Also, unlike formalaria, there are no drugs to treat dengue, and bed nets do not help prevent the disease because the mosquito bites duringthe day.

There are 50 million to 100 million cases of dengue each year,with an estimated 25,000 deaths. The disease causes severe flu-like symptoms and occasionally, hemorrhagic fever.

The Oxitec technique, however, is not foolproof.Alfred M. Handler, a geneticist at the Agriculture Department in Gainesville, Fla., said the mosquitoes, while being bred for generations in the lab, can evolve resistance to the lethalgene and might then be released inadvertently.

Todd Shelly, an entomologist for the Agriculture Department in Hawaii, said in a commentary published on Sunday by Nature Biotechnology that 3.5 percent of the insects in a lab testsurvived to adulthood despite presumably carrying the lethal gene.

Also, the sorting of male and female mosquitoes, which is done by hand, can result in up to 0.5 percent of the released insects being female, the commentary said. If millions ofmosquitoes were released, even that small percentage of females could lead to a temporary increase in disease spread.Oxitec and a molecular biologist, Anthony A. James of the University of California, Irvine, say they have developed a solution — a genetic modification that makes female mosquitoes,but not males, unable to fly. The grounded females cannot mate or bite people, and separating males from females before release would be easier.

In a test in large cages in Mexico, however, male mosquitoes carrying this gene did not mate very successfully, said Stephanie James, director of science at the Foundation for theNational Institutes of Health, which oversaw the project.In Arizona, pink bollworms sterilized by radiation have already helped suppress the population of that pest. To monitorhow well the program is working, the sterile bugs are fed a reddye. That way, researchers can tell if a trapped insect is sterile or wild.

But the dye does not always show up, leading to false alarms that wild bollworms are on the loose. Giving the sterilized bugs a coral gene that makes them glow with red fluorescence isa better way to identify them, said Bruce Tabashnik, an entomologist at the University of Arizona. He is an author of a report on the field trial published in the journal PLoS One inSeptember.



But thedyedoesnotalwaysshowup, leadingto falsealarmsthatwild bollwormsareon theloose. Giving thesterilizedbugsa coralgenethatmakesthemglow with redfluorescenceisa better way to identify them, said Bruce Tabashnik, an entomologist at the University of Arizona. He is an author of a report on the field trial published in the journal PLoS One inSeptember.

Experts assembled by the World Health Organization are preparing guidelines on how field tests of genetically modifiedinsects should be conducted. Proponents hope the field willnotface the same opposition as biotechnology crops.

“You don’t eat insects,” said Dr. James of the Foundation forthe National Institutes of Health. “This is being done for a good cause.”

Excerpted fromThe danger of GM mosquitoeshttp://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/13483--the-danger-of-gm-mosquitoes

Documents

The Danger of GM Mosquitoes