This part unveils an in-depth view on a current scientific controversy around the globe. The paper has the objectives to inform its audience as well as engage with methodologies of primary and secondary sources and evaluate their conclusions to support a stance the writer has taken upon. Malaria is a life-threatening disease that continue to plague most tropical countries. Hence, the eradication of infected mosquitoes is of high importance to both health sector and human lives. Through this paper, I was able to effectively introduce the concept behind the use of genetically modified mosquitoes in eliminating malaria as well as the viewpoints of those in agreement and opposition.
Original:
Introduction
For many years, vector-borne diseases such as malaria have gravely impacted human mortality and morbidity. Malaria is a mosquito-borne infection primarily caused by Plasmodium parasites. According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an individual contracts malaria through an infective female Anopheles mosquito bite after ingesting Plasmodia or malaria parasites from an infected person (Burke, 2019). These parasites then mix with the mosquito’s saliva and are injected into the bloodstream of the next victim. Overtime, the parasites mature in the liver before infecting the individual’s red blood cells (Burke, 2019).
Malaria consists of two types: acute and chronic malaria. Acute malaria manifests through irregular but severe fevers and is more fatal. Untreated acute malaria affects a person’s hearing, speech, vision, strength, and cognitive abilities (Brentlinger, 2006). On the other hand, chronic malaria exhibits lower risks but can still cause underlying conditions for the infected. But nevertheless, both types can lead to heart failure, deaths, decreased weights in newborns, reduced work capabilities, limited cognitive functions, and blood-borne infections in patients due to their anemic conditions (Brentlinger, 2006).
The eradication of mosquito-borne diseases has been an ongoing battle and issue for the public health. The lack of effective malaria vaccine, absence of sound healthcare plan & infrastructure, and resistance of mosquitoes due to extensive use of malaria pesticides have restricted the control over malaria (Rafikov et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2012; Resnik, 2014). With this in mind, global health advocates urged and prompted scientists to take on a biotechnological approach by utilizing genetically modified or transgenic mosquitoes to exterminate the burden of malaria (Rafikov et al., 2009). The new paradigm expounds on the idea of replacing existing wild type mosquito populations with transgenic populations (Enserink, 2001). However, this alternative strategy of genetic manipulation has been met with ethical concerns and disagreements from the public and scientific field.
Effectiveness of Transgenic Mosquitoes
The concept of gene manipulation has long existed even decades ago. Due to constraints implemented by United Nations in the 1970s on a pesticide called DDT (Enserink, 2000), several laboratories undertook a strategy of gene introduction to impede parasitic transmissions in mosquitoes (Catteruccia et al., 2003). The “better mosquito” conceptualization was a futuristic approach to counter the growing concern of mosquito infestation through extermination, reduce transmission of vector-borne diseases, and learn how malaria parasites interface with its host.
According to Resnik (2014), changing the genetic codes of mosquitoes to become resistant to diseases was the most plausible way to control mosquito-borne illnesses like malaria. Due to the fact that its permanent modification in the mosquito population would not damage the existing ecosystem notably. Hence, the substitution of wild type mosquitos with genetically engineered was initiated through a step-by-step process: locating the gene in question, finding feasible techniques to alter the gene, and testing engineered mosquitoes in the real world (Enserink, 2000). Moreover, the genome engineered fruit fly, Drosophila, also inspired scientists to explore the concept behind gene alteration in so-called transposons which are mobile chromosomal segments that help incorporate new genes into a genome (Ensenrik, 2000, 2001).
In 2001, the scientific community was finally able to develop a technique to genetically engineer mosquitos to express a gene which reduces their potency to infect (Enserink, 2001). Through the efforts of a team from the European Molecular Biology Laboratory based in Germany, the gene which encodes green fluorescent protein (GFP) in Anopheles stephensi was successfully modified. However, it was through Marcelo Jacobs-Lorena’s experiments that scientists were able to conclusively determine the effectiveness of altering a gene in dissipating parasitic transmissions in mice and making its vector less effective (Enserink, 2001). Their team gathered this particular evidence by inserting a gene resistant to Plasmodium parasites because of its peptide component called SM1 (Enserink, 2001). According to Enserink, SM1 is responsible for hindering mosquitoes’ gut and salivary glands which ultimately terminates the replication of Plasmodium in mosquitoes. Furthermore, Mark Benedict of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also reported to have generated transgenic Anopheles gambiae by inserting GFP into the said organism (Fig. 1), indicating the much-awaited creation of a malaria-resistant Anopheles gambiae which could obliterate malaria in multiple societies (Enserink, 2001).
Concerns with Transgenic Mosquitoes
Despite the constructive reasonings behind the potency of genetically modified mosquitoes, others feel obliged to rethink and retrace the ethical concerns surrounding these control strategies. The lack of regulation in field trials (Resnik, 2014), protection of human communities surrounding test sites (Enserink, 2001), consideration for other insects that maintain ecological equilibrium (Rafikov et al., 2009), and treaty with substantial supervision (Ostera and Gostin, 2011) are some anxieties expressed by the public and other researchers.
Mistrust from the public and researchers was set in motion when Oxitec (private company) released genetically engineered male Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in 2009 and 2010 into an island in the Caribbean (Resnik, 2014). Though the field trial produced significant results such as manifestation of infertility among these transgenic mosquitoes and reduction of 80% local Aedes aegypti, some researchers were disappointed and even angered by the absence of professional collaboration in the methods and findings of the study as well as the inadequacy of the circumstances – there were still numerous angles and ecological impacts to study and consider before the releasement of these insects (Resnik, 2014). Furthermore, there were regulations regarding field trials of transgenic arthropods as they should be contained in laboratory or caged environments during observation and/or experimentation (Alphey et al., 2002). As a result, field trials were questioned of its ethical, legal, and social purpose for the public health and environment (Resnik, 2014). Likewise, the neglect for the welfare of people in the affected communities with the release of transgenic mosquitoes was nonexistent. In addition, people were not informed of the possible consequences of these biotechnological advancements (Resnik, 2014).
On the other hand, individuals were bothered by the unavailability of appropriate and timely regulations with gene alterations of mosquitoes and its respective experiments. Around 2003, the Cartagena Protocol was created and agreed upon by 168 countries to ensure a safe and secure environment of exchange and usage of modified living organisms (Ostera and Gostin, 2011). Unfortunately, the current technical aspects are no longer effective and hence why a new agreement should be made to guarantee that scientific evidences and ethical values are conscientiously checked and accepted. According to Alphey and others (2002), control strategies should definitely include public health specialists as well as scientist from disease-endemic countries. Since human health and ecological concerns are closely interconnected, their respective well-beings should also be considered upon reaching a decision with regards to genetic innovations such as the releasement of modified mosquitoes and the construction of the legal framework in assisting affected nations (Alphey et al., 2002).
Conclusion
Countless years of trying to understand and solve the issue concerning vector-borne diseases such as malaria have left the people divided. According to a survey conducted by Okorie et al. in 2014, approximately 33.9% of participants believed that transgenic mosquitoes would generate insignificant effects on the battle with malaria. While 15.8% agreed to the idea that genetically engineered mosquitoes should not be released due to their unknown risks to both human health and environment. In contrast, a great number of participants concur that transgenic arthropods are better as they do not have the ability to transmit diseases (73.2%) which they believe would subsequently improve their living conditions (56.1%). Though the survey indicated that more people supported the altercation of genetic codes of mosquitoes, in reality 83.5% of participants were still skeptical of the release of these modified arthropods in Nigeria. As seen by the mentioned arguments and survey, one cannot help but sympathize with each point of view as both offer pragmatic and convincing ideas and facts. By the same token, each side also presents engaging questions about the true essence and concept of biological modifications.
Revised:
Conclusion
People have been left divided on the issue concerning vector-borne diseases such as malaria. While some may agree to utilizing genetically modified mosquitoes in the overall elimination of malaria. Some are still hesitant due to its adverse health effects. In 2014, a survey conducted by Okorie et al. showed that approximately 33.9% of participants believed that transgenic mosquitoes would insignificantly impact the battle with malaria. In addition, 15.8% agreed that genetically modified mosquitoes have immense risks for both human health and environment. In contrast, 73.2% of participants concur that transgenic arthropods are better as they do not have the ability to transmit diseases by which 56.1% believed they would subsequently improve living conditions. Though the altercation of genetic codes of mosquitoes seem to be accepted by many, in reality 83.5% of participants were still skeptical of the release of these modified arthropods in Nigeria. Overall, one cannot help but sympathize with each point of view as both offer pragmatic and convincing ideas and facts. By the same token, each side also presents engaging questions about the true essence and concept of biological modifications.
