Commented on an article but expanding to a (very) quick take:
the absolute rabbit holes I’ve gotten into from “hmm, I should check about diseases in dogs to keep an eye on” to “wow, mosquito borne diseases are very high” to ” oh my goodness, why do I have so many papers saved on impeding the ventral nerves in mosquitos to test blood hunting mechanism inhibitions...” have nearly all converted to genetically engineered mosquitos with Ago2 gene disactivation or susceptibility to infection symptoms. The fears of genetic engineering to evade diseases by almost the flip side of making the vector susceptible strikes me with the same ethical, biological and genetic risks, plus the huge issues with bioweaponory and double use tech.
Seems as if the media stories of non technical nature of 30 mainstream sources (e.g. BBC news, Times, Guardian) from all sides of the spectrum are favourable of genetic engineering to prevent spread but make no mention of the information hazards or dual use. Wonder if that’s just journalism doesn’t favour nuance but also perhaps maybe some intentional silence....
Commented on an article but expanding to a (very) quick take:
the absolute rabbit holes I’ve gotten into from “hmm, I should check about diseases in dogs to keep an eye on” to “wow, mosquito borne diseases are very high” to ” oh my goodness, why do I have so many papers saved on impeding the ventral nerves in mosquitos to test blood hunting mechanism inhibitions...” have nearly all converted to genetically engineered mosquitos with Ago2 gene disactivation or susceptibility to infection symptoms. The fears of genetic engineering to evade diseases by almost the flip side of making the vector susceptible strikes me with the same ethical, biological and genetic risks, plus the huge issues with bioweaponory and double use tech.
Seems as if the media stories of non technical nature of 30 mainstream sources (e.g. BBC news, Times, Guardian) from all sides of the spectrum are favourable of genetic engineering to prevent spread but make no mention of the information hazards or dual use. Wonder if that’s just journalism doesn’t favour nuance but also perhaps maybe some intentional silence....