Hide table of contents

In March 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted a draft of its environmental assessment on the potential impact of testing OX513A mosquitoes in the Florida Keys. OX513A mosquitoes are genetically modified to pass genes to their offspring which result in offspring death. They are used to suppress Aedes aegypti mosquito populations, which are known for spreading dengue fever, chikungunya, Zika fever and yellow fever viruses, as well as other diseases.


Following this post, Jack Newman from Amyris and Zagaya alerted Tessa Alexanian of the opportunity and she organized a team with Matthew Gentzel to submit a public comment addressing the risks and benefits of testing OX513A as proposed. You can find the comment we submitted to the FDA here.


Summary of comment:


If OX513A mosquitoes are released as described in this proposal, there appears be little risk of relatives of released mosquitoes spreading further than intended during testing because of their low survival rates. Even if they did, there is very little risk of harm to anything except populations of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes close to the release site. The potential benefits of future use of this and related technologies in the fight against mosquitoes and disease make it well worth conducting the study.


Oxitec will be releasing OX513A transgenic male Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. Male mosquitoes do not blood-feed. This will be an instance of Release of Insects with Dominant Lethality (RIDL), which means that the offspring of these males will die in a controlled fashion. The method of death is the overproduction of a protein encoded on the inserted sequence called tTAV. If there is any tTAV in these mosquitoes, the modified genes will make them create more tTAV unless it is cancelled out by the presence of tetracycline. Although the mechanism is different, the results should be comparable to an application of a widely-used method called Sterile Insect Technique (SIT). In SIT, the sperm of male mosquitoes is rendered inviable via radiation before release into the wild. In RIDL, the parents are reared with tetracycline and their offspring will die without it.


This is not a gene drive. Offspring of these mosquitoes are expected to die out within a couple of generations after release. The offspring of the modified mosquitoes have, by design, far lower rates of survival than the wild type. Only about 3-4% make it to adulthood. The nearest hospital (and the only nearby place that could plausibly have enough of the tTAV antidote, tetracycline) is more than 300 meters away, and beyond the typical lifetime flight distance for Ae. aegypti males. This method of death is not pesticide-based or mutagenic. The end result is that survivors are no more likely to carry dangerous mutations than the wild-type, and will have far fewer surviving offspring.


OX513A mosquitoes are also non-toxic, dead or alive. Without the introduced genes, tTAV is non-toxic. Predators fed on a diet consisting almost entirely of modified mosquitoes suffered no adverse effects. With the sorting methods used, less than 0.03% of mosquitoes released are expected to be female and potential blood-feeders. Even if someone was bitten by one, it is unlikely to be any different from a normal mosquito bite. The only unusual proteins in these mosquitoes - the lethality protein (tTAV) and the glowing red protein used to identify these modified mosquitoes (DSRed2) - weren’t detected in transgenic mosquito saliva.


A major environmental disturbance seems unlikely. Aedes aegypti are an invasive non-native species, and so are probably not an important part of the local ecosystem.


The trial is short in duration, and the chosen location is remote. The site of release is an area of the Florida Keys far from the mainland, and mostly surrounded by ocean. Considering their low survival rates, these modified mosquitoes are unlikely to spread without the help of tetracycline, and would be no more hazardous than their wild cousins if they did. The result of the release will probably only be a reduction in the size of mosquito populations in the local area, which is exactly the result intended.

 

Going forward:

The FDA has approved trials with OX513A, though local government could still prevent the trials from being performed. A nonbinding referendum is taking place in the Florida keys to inform local government decisions. A national survey in February indicated 78 percent of the 964 participants supported the introduction of genetically modified mosquitoes to fight the Zika virus, however this sample was not representative of the Florida Keys population, and is out of date. Nevertheless, it does seem likely trials will proceed, especially given that the referendum is nonbinding and Florida’s mosquito board ultimately has decision authority.


To follow up on comments submitted last year by Effective Altruism Policy Analytics, Richard Bruns and Matthew Gentzel will be searching the Federal Register for agency responses later this August.


Special thanks to Tessa Alexanian, Eric Yu, Anjali Gopal, Linchuan Zhang, John Min, Olivia Schaeffer, the Scientists at Zymergen and others for helping produce our policy comment!

-Megan Crawford and Matthew Gentzel

Comments6


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thanks for sharing! This seems like good news, and I'm glad they're looking at safety issues along so many different axes.

However, I'm a bit confused as to what interventions like this are meant/expected to accomplish. It seems like the long-term result of this kind of intervention would be a recovery of the mosquito population as the modified mosqs' descendents got outcompeted by mosquitos without the genes.

Is the idea that mosquito populations are small enough (relative to the number of modified ones introduced) that they might be eradicated entirely, to lower populations temporarily during a high-disease-risk period, or to hopefully end up in an evolutionary equilibrium with fewer a. aegypti (e.g. if other mosquito species that carry less diseases can move in on their niche while the population is low)?

Ashwin,

Oxitec takes the following strategy:

  1. Issue repeated releases of large numbers of male transgenic mosquitoes over 4-6 months to suppress the mosquito population to very low levels.

  2. Issue repeated releases of lower numbers of male mosquitoes after that to prevent resurgence of the mosquito population.

See this video, starting from 4:50:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XGcYoeHMMY#t=4m50s

Avi

Mosquitoes are the most feared pests in the world.

Thanks for providing this update! I'm happy to hear that the FDA has approved the field trial. To the extent that your policy comment was influential in securing this approval, great work! :)

Thanks for the post!

Thanks for sharing this information. You also can use preventive measures, which is important for pest infestation prevention. Keep the area around your home free of standing water will help control a mosquito issue and if your place is infested with serious mosquito infestation then calling a professional pest control exterminator CT would the best possible option available.

Curated and popular this week
Garrison
 ·  · 7m read
 · 
This is the full text of a post from "The Obsolete Newsletter," a Substack that I write about the intersection of capitalism, geopolitics, and artificial intelligence. I’m a freelance journalist and the author of a forthcoming book called Obsolete: Power, Profit, and the Race to build Machine Superintelligence. Consider subscribing to stay up to date with my work. Wow. The Wall Street Journal just reported that, "a consortium of investors led by Elon Musk is offering $97.4 billion to buy the nonprofit that controls OpenAI." Technically, they can't actually do that, so I'm going to assume that Musk is trying to buy all of the nonprofit's assets, which include governing control over OpenAI's for-profit, as well as all the profits above the company's profit caps. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman already tweeted, "no thank you but we will buy twitter for $9.74 billion if you want." (Musk, for his part, replied with just the word: "Swindler.") Even if Altman were willing, it's not clear if this bid could even go through. It can probably best be understood as an attempt to throw a wrench in OpenAI's ongoing plan to restructure fully into a for-profit company. To complete the transition, OpenAI needs to compensate its nonprofit for the fair market value of what it is giving up. In October, The Information reported that OpenAI was planning to give the nonprofit at least 25 percent of the new company, at the time, worth $37.5 billion. But in late January, the Financial Times reported that the nonprofit might only receive around $30 billion, "but a final price is yet to be determined." That's still a lot of money, but many experts I've spoken with think it drastically undervalues what the nonprofit is giving up. Musk has sued to block OpenAI's conversion, arguing that he would be irreparably harmed if it went through. But while Musk's suit seems unlikely to succeed, his latest gambit might significantly drive up the price OpenAI has to pay. (My guess is that Altman will still ma
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
When we built a calculator to help meat-eaters offset the animal welfare impact of their diet through donations (like carbon offsets), we didn't expect it to become one of our most effective tools for engaging new donors. In this post we explain how it works, why it seems particularly promising for increasing support for farmed animal charities, and what you can do to support this work if you think it’s worthwhile. In the comments I’ll also share our answers to some frequently asked questions and concerns some people have when thinking about the idea of an ‘animal welfare offset’. Background FarmKind is a donation platform whose mission is to support the animal movement by raising funds from the general public for some of the most effective charities working to fix factory farming. When we built our platform, we directionally estimated how much a donation to each of our recommended charities helps animals, to show users.  This also made it possible for us to calculate how much someone would need to donate to do as much good for farmed animals as their diet harms them – like carbon offsetting, but for animal welfare. So we built it. What we didn’t expect was how much something we built as a side project would capture peoples’ imaginations!  What it is and what it isn’t What it is:  * An engaging tool for bringing to life the idea that there are still ways to help farmed animals even if you’re unable/unwilling to go vegetarian/vegan. * A way to help people get a rough sense of how much they might want to give to do an amount of good that’s commensurate with the harm to farmed animals caused by their diet What it isn’t:  * A perfectly accurate crystal ball to determine how much a given individual would need to donate to exactly offset their diet. See the caveats here to understand why you shouldn’t take this (or any other charity impact estimate) literally. All models are wrong but some are useful. * A flashy piece of software (yet!). It was built as
Omnizoid
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
Crossposted from my blog which many people are saying you should check out!    Imagine that you came across an injured deer on the road. She was in immense pain, perhaps having been mauled by a bear or seriously injured in some other way. Two things are obvious: 1. If you could greatly help her at small cost, you should do so. 2. Her suffering is bad. In such a case, it would be callous to say that the deer’s suffering doesn’t matter because it’s natural. Things can both be natural and bad—malaria certainly is. Crucially, I think in this case we’d see something deeply wrong with a person who thinks that it’s not their problem in any way, that helping the deer is of no value. Intuitively, we recognize that wild animals matter! But if we recognize that wild animals matter, then we have a problem. Because the amount of suffering in nature is absolutely staggering. Richard Dawkins put it well: > The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In fact, this is a considerable underestimate. Brian Tomasik a while ago estimated the number of wild animals in existence. While there are about 10^10 humans, wild animals are far more numerous. There are around 10 times that many birds, between 10 and 100 times as many mammals, and up to 10,000 times as many both of reptiles and amphibians. Beyond that lie the fish who are shockingly numerous! There are likely around a quadrillion fish—at least thousands, and potentially hundreds of thousands o
Recent opportunities in Global health & development
63
· · 1m read