Having only recently re-watched the superb Jurassic Park Spielberg film based on Michael Crichton’s book (of the same name), I was both intrigued and alarmed by the headline: Aussie plan to genetically engineer new super species of wild animals from Yahoo! news.
Connoisseurs of science fiction are wary of DNA experimentation and the scornful warnings about ‘playing God’ with nature, and yet a new collaboration could see unwanted foreign predators killed off and endangered critters given a genetic ‘boost’.
The introduction of the report reads:
The ability to modify or build resilience into ecosystems is increasingly desirable to confront a range of challenges including vector-borne diseases, agricultural loss, the spread of invasive species, and climate change. One important tool to address these are population-scale genetic alterations. These changes can introduce beneficial traits into a population (population modification) or eliminate a harmful population (population suppression).
Apparently, by splicing DNA, ‘minor edits’ could be used to insert DNA ‘mimicking’ natural mutation. For feral species, the purpose of this forced evolution would be to – for example – ‘impair the ability of mosquitoes to transmit pathogens’.
The ultimate point being to de-fang, so to speak, mozzies as carriers of infectious diseases. Some may find this solution preferable to poisoning the area to kill mosquitoes or taking vaccines against the diseases they carry. Every option comes with a risk, so why not make the pesky mosquito carry the burden?
Agriculture might be interested in this venture too. Consider the catastrophe of the varroa mite on the East Coast’s bee population where tens of millions of bees have been deliberately culled in a failed biosecurity program to stop the spread of the mite. The idea of manipulating bees to make them resilient has been listed as a possible project – plenty of farmers would rather this than watching their hives being destroyed.
Also on the wish list is the despised cane toad which could have its poisonous glands rendered useless allowing it to be preyed upon. No word on whether they’d try to make it less ugly.
For example, population modification could promote resilience of an endangered or threatened species by bringing currently beneficial genomic modifications to high frequency. It could also be used to introduce “anticipatory” sequence changes designed to provide a benefit in a likely future environment altered by climate change or the introduction of an invasive disease vector.
It wouldn’t be the first time scientists have attempted to artificially manipulate Australia’s ecosystem. Foreign pests are a consequence of older experiments in which species were brought into the country either for benign purposes, or to solve a different problem.
Some would argue that although the method of interference has changed, perhaps the lessons have not been learned. Or maybe we should be more hopeful this time. What do you think?
