Misguided Science of the Day

"Perhaps doing so isn't such a good idea. Perhaps ecological awareness would suggest that the consequences of such a move are not entirely understandable by us."

Thanks for suggesting that unusual and innovative approach to decision-making.

If I had to put a name to that idea I might come up with something like, oh, I dunno, maybe a "precautionary principle" or some such...

Which reminds me to ask: Have you guys ever used Edward Tenner's book, Why Things Bite Back: The Revenge of Unintended Consequences, as a teaching text?

Good call. I do use select chapters from Tenner in my freshman course in technology, engineering, and society. It works well too with upper-level or graduate courses when used in conjunction with a more theoretically heavy work (and thus less accessible) like Ulrich Beck's Risk Society -- one premise of which is to argue that unintended consequences are the norm by this era of history.

Thanks. I'm not familiar with Risk Society. I'll look for it. I also find a lot of value in The Fifth Discipline, by Peter Senge. I might describe it as an exploration into the ways unintended consequences remain our social norm.

Best regards

Oh look at us, actually using this space to learn stuff --I don't know the Senge book, and will now go look for it. Thanks!

Yet, can we work on other ways to avoid getting malaria? Ways that don't involve genetic manipulation of species?

This is a bit disingenious. Humans have inadvertently caused genetic change in countless wild species by changing selection pressures. Extinction could be seen as the most drastic form of this change. If you think that it is acceptable to try to drive the malaria parasite to extinction, why worry about a minor genetic change in another species?

The attempted manipulation might be too dangerous and have unforeseen effects, but why should the method determine whether it is ethical or not? Would it be different if the malaria-resistant variant of mosquito was created by traditional selective breeding?

How have we avoided getting malaria in the past?

We haven't. Here in Northern Europe, malaria started declining only after the 19th century. This was probably due to a combination of societal change, medical advances and the malaria parasite being limited by the cold climate (once eradicated indoors, it probably couldn't persist in the wild). Getting rid of the malaria parasite in the wild seems preferrable to fearing every mosquito bite.

I disagree, windy, but only in part. I don't see the wisdom in trumping our awareness of the complexity of ecological relationships with intentional genetic alterations. I also don't find the argument reference to "what is natural" -- that is, genes get manipulated all the time, so what's the big deal? -- very compelling. There are very complex issues of human agency, deep philosophical issues, we'd need to examine in that logic. I also don't want to reduce of ethics to method, and didn't mean to do so in my questions above.

One other answer to adressing malaria, and you hint at this too, has been water management and our knowledge of how disease transfer works. As well, I think you're right to point to the societal context and how we manage and have managed our place in the world through increasing awareness of disease mechanisms. Science is a subset of that context, as it were, so that I hope we might think about the questions above by pursuing avenues of research that don't assume, a priori, that a reduction to just a techno-genetic fix is the best thing we've got. I think environmental determinism, just as well, is a danger, and -- contra Jared Diamond -- there's more to human history than the weather.

I don't see the wisdom in trumping our awareness of the complexity of ecological relationships with intentional genetic alterations.

I am not enthusiastic about deliberately releasing GMOs, either, but I think you are still barking up the wrong tree a bit.

The complexity of ecological relationships would potentially be as much of an issue if a malaria vaccine was developed. Vaccinating humans would also result in healthier mosquitoes, mosquito populations might increase, ecosystems change, and other mosquito-borne diseases increase. (or did you have some other ecological consequences in mind?)

Still, few people could oppose the vaccine with a good conscience. It seems that the concern is still somewhat related to the method: that genetic engineering is more dangerous - could it create an uncontrollable "super mosquito", could the gene spread on to other species?

I'm not saying that these can't be valid concerns! But I wouldn't put it in vague language about "ecological relationships" - again, why should we expect genetic alterations to have a greater impact on ecological networks than completely removing a species? And we are already set out to do the latter.

One other answer to adressing malaria, and you hint at this too, has been water management and our knowledge of how disease transfer works

Like draining wetlands? Using DDT? Wouldn't it be good if those things weren't necessary anymore?

we clearly agree more than we disagree -- seems we're starting down a false combative path in the replies. i don't mean for my reply to yours to seem off-putting. my point is that we not use the "it happens in nature, so it's okay" reasoning, which requires us to address a whole series of complex historical, technical, moral, and philosophical issues before we rest on it. i also, for example, can't think of genetic engineering as merely "a method." i think reducing the strategy of genetic engineering to method takes away our chance to debate its value for us.

but there are ways that don't introduce the same kinds of risks that fast-paced (as in, we do this in months & years, not centuries) gene manipulation -- and then dispersion of the engineered mosquitoes out of human control -- bring with them. last week, my son voted with his pre-school friends to donate their collection of money for mosquito netting in africa. in the years, decades, and centuries before he made that choice, shifting land management practices, home building structures, and community structures (how close, how many, with what proximity to water sources, and how are those water sources themselves managed, etc.) have been some avenues for addresing the problems. and those didn't usually end with draining wetlands. those are all kinds of socio-technical fixes too, i realize, and i just wanted to suggest, in my reply to your reply, that it makes more ecological sense to work on those factors before we presume a genetic fix will be triumphant.

and i'm with you -- so that, for me, showing concern about genetic techno-fixes does not mean i support DDT or draining wetlands. it would be nice, in classic understatement mode, if we didn't have to resort to that.