lifesong
This website has been declared inactive.
Don't waste your time here.
Updates will commence at a later date.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
-7:03 AM
Science and Technology
Malaria
A shift of perspective
Long since has the human race bemoaned its fate of being saddled with pesky, yet deadly, mosquitoes that herald malaria - and possible death. But using the forefront of new research, is it possible to turn this enemy into an ally?
Researchers at the John Hopkins University are experimenting with ways to turn the situation on its head, by harnessing the deadliness of the Anopheles mosquito against itself. Scientists have discovered a gene (termed SM1) that grants the mosquito immunity against the malaria parasite. Their plan is to breed mosquitoes with this gene, and turn them loose into the wild. Through preliminary tests, it has been determined that SM1 is not only protective, it also confers an evolutionary advantage on the mosquito.
But this remains in the realm of uncertainty. There are indeed many pros and cons on both sides of the coin. But after careful consideration, this writer retains the stand of opposing such genetic tampering.
Introducing a different species into the wild has always been a bad idea; tried and (unfortunately) tested too many times. Take for instance the dingo, brought from Britain and allowed to rampage in Australia. Countless native animals died as a result of the sudden presence of a predator, and it was years before a semblance of ecological balance was finally achieved. How, then, are we to be sure that the presence of breeded mosquitoes will not result in just such a form of disequilibrium?
The presence of 'natural selection' exists for an important purpose as well: to weed out certain genes that are detetrimental to the survival of the organism - as well as the survival of the ecosystem. Thus, it logically follows that the SM1 gene is only present in a certain percentage of the population for a reason. By releasing such mosquitoes into the wild without prior experience, is there not a strong possibility that we might have overlooked something, failed to discover something - something that might turn out to have even greater repurcussions?
Another point worthy of note is that such a solution could turn out to be a short-term one. The malarial parasite, threatened by a lack of hosts, may simply turn to another carrier to transmit itself (such as rats, fleas, ticks etc.) Even worse, it may mutate to become immune to the SM1 gene, thus becoming even more virulent. An example is the Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteria, which mutated after too much contact with penicillin, thus becoming far more difficult to combat. We have no guarantee, then, that the malarial parasite will not evolve to become deadlier - by the result of our human intervention.
The possible rewards of a potentially poweful solution are certainly enticing. But on this occasion, we should contemplate extremely long and carefully before opening this wonderful 'gift' - for we might just be tearing open Pandora's box.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
-12:38 AM
The politics of Climate Change
Gore's war
The Economist: March 24th 2007
Al Gore withdrew from politics ever since his failed attempt at presidency, and began concentrating his efforts on environmental conservation.
Recently, he spoke up in Congress, belaboring the government for dragging its feet on the issue of climate change. Mr Gore insists that America is largely to blame for the pollution that is slowly killing the earth, and is badgering the American population to do something drastic about it.
But someone else has the situation going for him too - and it is none other than Mr Gore himself. He is an extremely influential player, and is breaks the mould of a typical environmentalist. He has has powerful (and rich) friends, his film 'An Inconvenient Truth' was a major hit, even winning an Oscar. But even more than that, he has the sympathy - and support - of many Democrats, and perhaps a considerable number of Republicans as well, bearing in mind his advice not to invade Iraq, and his constant reminders on the issue of global warming.
Perhaps a main reason why Mr Gore has enjoyed much attention is the fact that he has been absent from the political arena, and is thus not perceived as having ulterior motives in demonstrating such environmental concern - unlike, say, a political candidate, who might use the issue of global warming to his advantage during the elections. Should Mr Gore decide to contest once again, his cautions regarding the dire state of the climate could lose their edge.
Another important issue to consider would be Mr Gore's comparative effectiveness as a president and as an environmentalist; his track record hints that he might not gain a huge percentage of votes should he try again. His record as an environmentalist, however, shows a path of much greater potential. His aforementioned characteristics confer him great opportunities that other environmentalists could only dream of.
