An important discovery is set to provide new possibilities in dealing with the Mediterranean fruit fly and the olive fruit fly, two insects that are particularly harmful to crops. After more than 40 years of research, the factor responsible for masculinization in these species—leading to the development of male insects—has been isolated. The masculinization factor (Maleness-on-the-Y, MoY) is a small gene located on the Y chromosome of flies in the Tephritidae family, controlling the sex determination pathway in these insects.
… The Laboratory of Molecular Biology and Genomics of the Department of Biochemistry and Biotechnology at the University of Thessaly made a significant contribution to this research achievement, which was announced in a publication in the reputable journal “Science”.
… The director of the laboratory, Professor Konstantinos Mathiopoulos, says: “We are not far from discovering how to use this ‘switch’; I estimate that it will be found within six months to a year. Based on this, we could proceed to mass production of male Mediterranean fruit flies or olive fruit flies, which would then be sterilized and released into the environment. These males would mate with wild females. However, the eggs produced would be sterile. In this way, the populations will be controlled—significantly reduced—and crop damage will be limited.”
One could read something like this in a relatively large report in the mainstream “Kathimerini” newspaper on September 12, under the promising title “Genetic switch for insect reduction – the gene that determines the sex of the mosquito and the Mediterranean fly has been isolated, with the participation of Greek researchers.” Genetic engineering (in simple terms: the construction of genetically modified organisms in laboratories/factories and their release into the natural environment) is taking its exams in the hunt for problematic insects. And it aims to pass them with “ten out of ten,” if not by the criterion of its results, certainly by doing public relations. In other words: mass selling, through the media, the announcement of its future successes.
But are there such successes? And if not, what are the real consequences?
are genetic engineers gangsters?
Almost 4 years ago, an unexpected epidemic of microcephaly in newborns erupted in Brazil (primarily) but also (to a lesser extent) in nearby Latin American countries, which was attributed to the mutation of the Zika RNA virus. To make things even worse, research that identified this mutation found that it was due to the virus’s animal tendency to better adapt to its “host environment”, the biological species, that is, that carries it. This “host” is the Aedes aegypti mosquito. Which…
We wrote about this among other things: 1
Microcephaly is a developmental disorder of the nervous system that results in restricted brain (and skull) growth. It manifests either prenatally or after birth (in the baby’s first years) and is attributed to various factors (usually, in modern times, genetic, such as damage to a chromosome). It is an old disease and had not been associated with the Zika virus until recently.
On the other hand, the Zika virus has been known since the 1950s and is considered responsible for transmitting dengue fever, yellow fever, as well as a form of encephalitis. This (Japanese encephalitis) is caused by a virus (Japanese encephalitis virus) transmitted by two species of mosquitoes endemic to eastern and southeastern Asia (less so in sub-Saharan Africa): Culex tritaeniorhynchus and Culex vishnui—for the curious. Given that the Zika virus, which first emerged some years ago in the Caribbean (and from there began spreading to Central and South America), belongs to the African subgroup of the virus, its association with microcephaly cases seems to hold from a “historical” perspective. Nevertheless, there are also estimates attributing its American emergence to its Asian strain.
In any case, the recently known cases of Zika infection reported mild to very mild symptoms of a moderate form of dengue fever, symptoms that were managed with rest. Even if, in retrospect, the virus may be associated with causing some form of encephalitis, the mass outbreak of such side effects alone in 2015 is a serious issue. And not only from a social perspective…
A very recent publication (late November 2015) of research on the “genetic identity” of Zika in its recent, particularly devastating emergence, attributes the fact (not of the mass brain disorders in embryos but the fact) that it spreads easily from person to person (and, consequently, from pregnant women to embryos) to a “change” in the composition of one of the bases of its RNA. If we are not mistaken, such changes are called mutations.
And here questions begin that are unlikely to be answered in a way that is so “straightforward” as to leave no serious suspicions. Genetic mutations (of specific viruses) are possible in a “natural” way, anyway. However, in the case of the increased pathogenicity of Zika in embryos, as well as its transmissibility from human to human (which was not happening before), a “non-natural” event intervenes. In 2011, the small British biotech company Oxitec sold to the Brazilian government a genetically modified mosquito (of the Aedes aegypti species), which had an additional “lethal” gene that “killed” the eggs (of the species), so that the mosquito population in Brazil would gradually decrease, and thus the risk of dengue transmission… in view of the Olympic Games, in the summer of 2016, in Rio de Janeiro.
Is it possible that the genetic mutation of the host of the Zika virus (the mosquito) caused a mutation in the virus itself? The usual process of “jumping” DNA segments from one organism to another (and in this case from the mosquito to the virus) does not apply here, since Zika does not have DNA. However, the aforementioned research identifies a “change” in the RNA of Zika that is not “borrowed” DNA from humans (other hosts) but rather an adaptation to the environment of the “host” in order to improve the “circulation of the virus.” As a process, something like this is natural, since every living species (and the viruses within them) biologically “deal” with how they will survive and multiply.
This is a complex and unpredictable process of “interactions” between living organisms, which does not involve the narrow version of genetic material exchange. Therefore, the question we posed earlier (and which others may also be posing at this moment, here and there on the planet) can be specified as follows: is it possible that the significant reduction of the “natural” host of Zika (the Aedes aegypti mosquito) caused a mutation in it so that it could better “utilize” another host, the human host, and that this “change” also caused its high pathogenicity?
It was clear (to us and not only) that the mutation/castration of the mosquito and its release into the natural environment did not go by the book. More correctly: that it had (or could have…) unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences.
On September 10, 2019, the results of a study by biotechnologists from Yale University regarding the evolution of this species, the mosquito Aedes aegypti – in Brazil, were published in the journal Nature: Scientific Reports no. 9. The study did not concern the Zika virus or any other virus that has this particular species as a host; it did not concern possible genetic mutations of these viruses… It concerned only the genetic and population evolution of the mosquito, which had become a target of, if not complete eradication, certainly a 90% reduction, through genetic modification. The findings of the study are overwhelming. We reproduce its summary presentation: 2
In an effort to control mosquito-borne diseases such as yellow fever, dengue, and Zika, a genetically modified variety of Aedes aegypti mosquito was developed by the commercial company Oxitec Ltd, which included a dominant lethal gene. If its lethality were complete, releasing this variety could reduce mosquito populations without affecting their DNA. Approximately 450,000 males of this variety were released weekly for 27 months, from June 2013 to September 2015, in the city of Jacobina in the state of Bahia, Brazil.
We mapped the genotype of both the modified variety and the target population before the releases, recording approximately 21,000 unique nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). By taking genetic samples from the target population 6, 12, and 27–30 months after the release, we found clear evidence that parts of the modified variety’s genome had been incorporated into the target population. We discovered that rare but viable hybrids of the modified variety and the Jacobina population were not only born but can also reproduce in the wild.
The modified variety was created from a natural variety that thrives in Cuba and has also spread to Mexico. Thus, now, the Aedes aegypti of Jacobina is a mixture of three species. It is unclear how this might affect disease transmission or impact other efforts to control these dangerous vectors. These findings highlight the importance of having local genetic monitoring programs in place when such releases occur, in order to detect any unintended consequences…
What, then, did the Yale study recently discover and announce?
First: After a brief, temporary reduction in the target mosquito population, their numbers rebounded to where they were before the biotechnological “attack.” This was achieved 18 months after the end of the campaign; which means that the mosquitoes “found” a way to circumvent the technology meant to exterminate them.
Second: Contrary to the predictions of the biotech manufacturers of the genetically modified mosquito, that it is “sterile” and cannot reproduce, exactly that happened! It reproduced! This is proven by the transfer of DNA from the mutated to the normal mosquito population.
Third: These mutations of the normal Aedes aegypti ranged from 10% to 60% of their population, depending on the area where samples were collected.
Fourth: Contrary to the promises of the biotechnologists of Oxitec Ltd, instead of an “effective reduction” of mosquitoes, a new, mutated, “monster” variety was created!
Fifth: It is unknown what consequences this new “monster” variety will have on disease transmission (that is, on the aggressive mutation of viruses). However, what is clearly more likely is that they, too, will become more aggressive; in the sense that they will evolve into “original” versions against which the human immune system will not be prepared. That is precisely why the Yale finding speaks of dangerous hosts. It does not mean that the “monster” mosquitoes will grow fangs; it means that the viruses will also be affected in a chain reaction.
It is also unknown how this new “monster” variety will “respond” to future biotechnological efforts to suppress it…
Yale researchers reasonably speculate (though they cannot prove it) that at some point during the increase of sterilized male Aedes aegypti, the females of the species developed some kind of selectivity in their “preferences,” avoiding them in favor of non-sterilized males. Such an occurrence could be considered natural: releasing a few thousand “eunuchs” into a population of any species that already has a functional female/male balance does not necessarily mean they will inevitably become “mates.”
Of course, it is very difficult to scientifically detect such selectivity in mosquitoes, which would however be justified by the species’ “instinctive” tendency to reproduce. And it is, we assume, impossible to scientifically investigate the “mechanisms” behind it, so as to prevent them: “blind” females for sterilized males, so that biotechnologists can make their money!
The results of the Yale study did not prove a “scientific failure”! They did not prove a “biotechnological collapse”! They proved a deliberate, premeditated crime – even if they don’t call it that! And it is a deliberate, premeditated crime, because it is well known among biotechnologists that it is IMPOSSIBLE to predict the genetic changes and exchanges caused not only between “individuals” of the same or relatively related species, but even between superficially unrelated species due to the “release” of genetically modified organisms into nature. Whether it’s plants, insects, or viruses – anything. It is unknown even for the most limited issue: what chain reactions are caused in the genetic code of any species if one point is “tampered” with… For these reasons (and under strong pressure from below, when commercial/capitalist interests are affected), such “releases” of modified organisms into the natural environment are prohibited in the EU!…
The advocates of cultivating genetically modified plants (i.e., the companies that produce them and their allies), since they could not ignore the infinite possibilities of genetic interaction that exist in the natural environment, claimed that since plants do not move, the chances of genetic contamination of other plants or organisms were extremely small. And that, in any case, “safety zones” could be created around genetically modified crops…
Reality could hardly be different! Not only because the air can carry the (modified) pollen of such plants very far away. But also because the same applies to insects that contribute to pollination.
Now it is insects that have become the favorite field of profit for genetic engineering. Even more unknown in their complexity, even more unknown in their interaction either among themselves or with other species, and additionally mobile. The industry manufacturing genetically modified insects seems to see great prospects… Oxitec responded that the Yale study includes numerous incorrect, hypothetical, and unfounded claims and statements about its mosquito technology. It simply seems to be desperately trying to avoid responsibility for the consequences of its “mosquito technology”: business is business.
yes! and they live among us!
Professor Mathiopoulos, however, has the “right,” the profitable opinion, the one with the many zeros. He belongs to that kind of professional technologists who always look forward to the money they will make from their “inventions.” See exactly what he supports in the “Kathimerini” report, defending his own game of creating monstrous insects:
“Abroad, mainly in Latin American countries, there are factories with hundreds of workers producing millions of sterile male insects, which are released into nature in order to control unwanted populations. Something similar could be done in our country as well,” notes the director of the Laboratory of Molecular Biology and Genomics.
However, European legislation does not permit this, as these are genetically modified organisms. “The use of insecticides causes great damage, indiscriminately. We believe that legislation needs to be revised,” insists Mr. Matthiopoulos, noting that the research effort continues.
When asked about the risk that releasing genetically modified insects could cause unintended consequences, disrupt the natural balance, or even lead to the extinction of species, Mr. Matthiopoulos responds that “we have already disrupted the balance with intensive cultivation, while the massive use of toxic insecticides has serious consequences.” According to the professor at the University of Thessaly, the rationale for species extinction has disappeared from modern concepts of integrated management. We are talking about reducing and controlling populations through a sterilization process that prevents the reproduction of modified insects…
We don’t know who pays the professor to say and do the things he says and does. (Most likely, all of us do). His opinion, however, is characteristic of a criminal cynicism: since damage has already been done by intensive chemical agriculture/livestock farming, we are free to continue it biotechnologically. Or, put differently: since murders are being committed anyway, we might as well do it our own way.
And for people like the professor to be able to “get their hands dirty,” European legislation needs to change, legislation that currently prohibits the release of genetically modified organisms of any kind into the natural environment. In the meantime, every such biohacker can find solace by focusing on other parts of the world. It seems that due to prohibitions here or there, Latin America, Africa, and perhaps Asian countries with more “relaxed” or even non-existent legislation are now being harshly treated as biotech El Dorados…3
precision interventions…
A few months before Yale’s announcement of its findings on the highly controversial release of genetically modified mosquitoes in Brazil, in early 2019, another biotechnology research team, from the universities of California San Diego and Berkeley, had published their own triumph in Nature Communications: the sterilization of insects via CRISPR. The research had been conducted on the ever-convenient-for-experiments species of Drosophila. The introductory abstract of the publication (which was titled: “Transforming insect population with precision guided sterile males with demonstration in flies”) said this:
The sterile insect technique (SIT) is an environmentally safe and proven method for suppressing wild populations. To further improve its usability, we present here an innovative CRISPR-based technology, which we call precision SIT (pgSIT). Mechanistically, pgSIT relies on a dominant genetic technology that simultaneously enables sex sorting and sterilization, allowing for the release into the environment of eggs from which only sterile adult males will hatch. Importantly, for applications in the natural environment, releasing eggs will reduce the difficulties of manual sex sorting and sterilization of males, thus decreasing overall labor and increasing the feasibility of large-scale interventions.
Here, to demonstrate the effectiveness of the method, we present systematic bioengineering via multiple pgSIT systems in Drosophila, which increased sterile males to 100%. Importantly, we show that pgSIT-sterilized males are capable and competitive. Using mathematical models, we predict that pgSIT will cause significantly greater population suppression than can be achieved with current self-limiting technologies. pgSIT offers the potential to transform our ability to control agricultural pests and disease vectors.
To ensure that the genetically castrated male Drosophila would not suffer any kind of bullying, a kind of “rejection” as we might say from the females, good biotechnologists sat down and also dealt with mating. In their publication, they assure that their males are just as capable and successful in flirting and mating as the wild-type ones.
What they did not deal with is that CRISPR/Cas-9, after the initial enthusiasm, is now considered an “unsafe” genetic engineering technique. Because “off-target” and uncontrolled changes in the DNA have already appeared at non-selected sites of the chain; consequently, neither the genetic consequences of the intervention in a gene nor the epigenetic ones that may follow can be predicted.
The “findings” and the certainty of geneticists are laboratory-bound. They have nothing to do with what will happen in the open, natural environment. The researchers from the two American universities are also gangsters. And it’s easy to find their motives: money. Through patenting their “discovery.” Not at all coincidentally: after the success (?) with the fruit fly, the same research team has set as its goal the genetic castration of the Aedes aegypti mosquito…
and in the depths of darpa…
A few months ago we wrote: 4
Apart from teaching robotic weapons the joy of cooperation and initiative, the American DARPA, the technological arm of the American military, wants to genetically (and massively) modify insects in order to deploy them – according to its announcement – for the protection of crops and the food chain of the American people. It is a matter of “national security” – as described by the program manager Dr. Blake Bextine:
National security is rapidly threatened by natural threats to the crop system, such as pathogenic factors, drought, frost, but especially by threats that can be caused by state or non-state actors. The “allied insects” program aims to reduce the consequences of such disasters by applying immediate targeted treatments to affected plants…Not at all convincing for intelligence above any ethno-militaristic bottom. The program provides for genetic modification (via crispr/cas9) and infection of insects with also genetically modified viruses – which will be transmitted, for therapeutic (says the doctor) reasons to crops.
But the thing screams: it is about the construction of biological weapons – and their “carriers”, the “allied insects”. Bextine does not completely deny it: Every time a new and revolutionary technology is developed, there are both defensive and offensive capabilities… But we deal with the positive tendencies of enhancing crops… he stated to the washington post.The research departments of at least 4 American universities (the Boyce Thompson Institute and the universities of Penn State, Ohio State and Texas at Austin) have been funded to proceed. As is known, “one is not allowed to go against scientific progress,” and anyway “we must be careful whose hands these means are in.”
If, ultimately, these bio-weapons are used in Africa and/or Palestine, will the “hands of the wicked” be revealed?
The presence of the technological arm of the American military in the issue of genetic modification of insects (and viruses) would be considered expected. However, it should not be separated from the supposedly “innocent” and “beneficial” efforts of various biotechnologists trying to save the world; and achieving the opposite. For three reasons at least. First, because the release of genetically modified organisms into the natural environment, despite whatever successes with specific industrial / mutated plants, remains always an extremely toxic issue in the public sphere of proto-cosmic societies. It is easy for even the most unrelated person to assume that such a move has warlike / destructive purposes. Second, as a consequence of the first, the supposedly “peaceful” uses of genetically modified organisms (such as, let’s say, the legendary Aedes aegypti) are the necessary smoke screen for the legitimization of genetic engineering. And third, because the academic and other research groups dealing with this field of genetic engineering (in this case insects) communicate with each other, without setting “ethical” obstacles from one to the other.
Superficially, the darpa program (and its funding) aims for the opposite of what the Brazilian Oxitec program sought: while the latter genetically modified mosquitoes to limit the spread of certain viruses, darpa intends to genetically modify various insects to generalize the dispersal of viruses; which are also genetically modified, and spread for a “good purpose”: to enhance the resilience of plants… However, it is not only that both “purposes” use exactly the same know-how. It is that achieving one facilitates the successes or failures in achieving the other. Thus, for example, the mutant mosquito that Oxitec “accidentally” created could prove to be an excellent “host” for darpa’s modified viruses, and be reconstructed in the laboratory 5.
About a year ago, on October 5, 2018, German and French geneticists (from the universities of Freiburg and Montpellier and the Max Planck Institute) challenged darpa’s “peaceful” purposes in the “insect allies” program. In an open letter titled Agricultural Research or a New System of Biological Weapons? they wrote:
… We have the view that the knowledge that will be gained from this program will provide very few opportunities for protecting U.S. agricultural production or in emergency situations, either short-term or long-term… Consequently, this program could be interpreted more broadly as an attempt to develop biological agents for offensive purposes, as well as the means for their dissemination, which – if true – constitutes a violation of the Biological Weapons Convention…
It is far from our noses… But does anyone believe that it is possible for a part of the planet to be protected from these disasters when other parts are their paradise, and when the techno-scientific-disaster makers “experiment” freely and unhindered wherever and however they want?
Ziggy Stardust
cyborg #16 – 10/2019
