Scientists hope to control mosquitos populations with mutants

Started by Hydra009, July 14, 2014, 05:05:45 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mermaid

DDT resistance was pretty widespread among mosquitoes and other target pests before its banning. They still use it in some countries, but pyrethroids are used more because they are cheaper, are effective, and they do not persist in the fat tissue of mammals pretty much forever.
A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life’s realities â€" all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. -TR

AllPurposeAtheist

So do you think if these companies such as whoever sells Offâ,,¢ found a way to eradicate mosquitoes completely they would market such a product and cut off their revenue stream? I seriously doubt it. It's nice to think they care more about humanity than profit, but millions of dollars of reoccurring sales of insect repellant trumps eradication of disease carrying insects.
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

Mermaid

Actually, APA, I work for such a company and do that type of research. This is a very common theory that also entails curing diseases--that vaccines and cures are stifled in favor of the more profitable suppressants. My rebuttal: Scientists have families and ethics, too. We get cancer and diseases just as much as the next guy. The very scion of science is ethics. Without it, there is nothing.

I find it pretty amazing that so many people forget that. Big companies work in tandem with universities all the time and publish their results in public-access scientific journals.

I don't want to tell you to trust me because you don't know me from Adam. But I can say this: If there were a way to eradicate diseases and their vectors, it would not be kept quiet. Take that information or leave it.
A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life’s realities â€" all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. -TR