My personal view? There is not enough emphasis given to the danger of unintended consequences.
The tragic state of our economy is a working example of rash, ill-thought-out policies that make the Rudd-era ‘napkin costings’ look like fastidious accounting.
Even smart people get caught up in the excitement of discovery. However, of all the industries charged with important decisions, science has the potential to do the most good and the most damage. There is no need to lecture anyone about gain of function research on viruses, we all know how that turned out for Wuhan, but there are more subtle developments within this space that deserve a conversation.
Ecosystems are complex and evolution, by its very nature, is hyper-reactive to change. Attempting artificial interventions, or ‘playing God’ as it is more colourfully known, has gone wrong many times in the past.
The Four Pests campaign during Mao’s Great Leap Forward [off a cliff] sought to exterminate rats, flies, mosquitoes, and sparrows. The Smash Sparrows campaign is credited with causing an ecological crisis that contributed to the deaths of up to 55 million people through starvation.
At the time, the socialist dogma was not to save the world, but to change it. Man must conquer nature served as the campaign slogan and was tightly linked to both Chinese patriotism and the fabricated supremacy of Maoist socialism in the same way that modern climate change latches on to the saviour complex.
This Maoist policy is held up as a lesson on unintended consequences within biological systems.
Australia is no stranger to ecosystem experiments. The cane toad is a good example. They were introduced in 1935 as a form of pest control to help with the production of sugar cane. It resulted in them becoming one of the worst pests around. Australian entomologist, Walter Froggatt, lobbied against the introduction of cane toads. He is now honoured with the Froggatt Awards which are given to those who make significant contributions to protect Australia from invasive species.
Despite Froggatt’s lobbying, cane toads enjoyed that hallowed status of scientific consensus. Their introduction was championed by the most senior scientific body, the government, and the Prime Minister. Biological solutions to pests were seen as superior to chemical control. Poor Froggatt was said to be harbouring an ‘incurable bias’, was accused of being ‘decidedly pessimistic’, and effectively side-lined for standing in the way of progress.
Fast-forward to 2025 and we are continuing to experiment with biological systems in service of the greater good.
Queenslanders were surprised to learn that genetically modified mosquitoes, courtesy of Oxitec Australia, are set to be released into the wild in an attempt to reduce mosquito-borne diseases.
The project is currently seeking approval from the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.
Professor Brett Sutton, who most of you will remember, is serving as Director of Health and Biosecurity at the CSIRO. He spoke to the ABC recently, saying:
‘It’s a bit like the TGA for our medicines, but it’s looking at genetically modified products, and it needs to go through the same type of rigorous process.’
Earlier, he added:
‘Oxitec Australia offers a unique opportunity to help combat the growing threat of invasive and exotic pests, some of which are on mainland Australia’s doorstep like Aedes albopictus.
‘Factors like climate change and growing pesticide resistance will only bring greater challenges to the health of Australians and our region via vector-borne diseases.
‘By investing in new and innovative solutions that complement existing control programs, we can reduce the public health impacts of these exotic and invasive mosquito species.
‘This technology platform could also be used to develop solutions for a wide spectrum of pests that threaten livestock and crops and our food systems.’
According to the CSIRO press release:
‘The new venture leverages Oxitec’s proven biological Friendly platform where genetically engineered male mosquitoes carry a self-limiting gene that ensures only non-biting males survive, reducing pest females and overall mosquito numbers through sustained releases … subject to government and regulatory approvals, Oxitec Australia’s first solution will be a “just-add-water” product using the Friendly Aedes aegypti mosquito technology. This innovative product allows for the production of Friendly non-biting male mosquitoes in a short time following the addition of water.’
The CEO of Oxitec described the launch as ‘bold’.
‘In collaboration with Indigenous communities, leading scientific institutions, industry partners, and farmers, we’re committed to transforming how pest threats to health, food security and ecosystems are addressed.
‘In doing so, we aim to not only protect lives, livelihoods and biodiversity, but also empower Indigenous communities to take the lead in addressing their pest challenges.’
Keep in mind that these types of mosquito interventions are not new, nor are they without criticism. It is also true that successful biological trials elsewhere in the world are not necessarily an indicator of success in Australia.
Even if the project operates exactly as intended, we can never fully predict what will happen to the wider ecosystem as a result. Will new diseases rise up to replace those that are eradicated? Will the disease shift to a different carrier, a native one, perhaps, that cannot be removed? If predators are robbed of these tasty insects, what are they going to eat next? Something endangered, maybe?
Oxitec says it ‘uses good insects to fight bad insects’, but it is doubtful nature makes this distinction.
While the research team has worked with Indigenous leaders, as this announcement enters the mainstream, should all Queenslanders be given the opportunity to consent or decline these experiments on their ecosystem? There is no mechanism to do this, but maybe there should be.
The public messaging from government about the environment is that it is a shared natural asset, and yet the decisions for its future sit in the hands of a few.
There is a Change.org petition but so far, not a great deal of media attention.
We live in a world where the threat of infectious disease cannot be ignored or left unattended, but the means by which we choose to fight these challenges remains up for debate.
There are so many organisations, scientific bodies, research groups, and government projects operating in this space that the average Australian has no idea what’s going on and no control over the process.