Latest Malaria-Fighter: Spermless Mosquitoes

This week, another solution takes the stage.<a href="">otisarchives2</a>/Flickr

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

By 1951, the US had eradicated malaria stateside with the help of a few smart doctors and a healthy smattering of good, old-fashioned DDT. But today, many parts of the world are still fighting vigorously against a disease that kills nearly a million people every year—most of them children in Africa—and the mosquito species that carries it. The weapons at their disposal include nets, a sticky insecticide sprayed onto the interior walls of homes, and even lasers.

This week, scientists in the UK might have hit on another, surprisingly simple eradication technique: reduce the size of the mosquito population. I know what you’re thinking: “Well, obviously.” But the new research suggests that, rather than trying to kill mosquitoes themselves, we should prevent them from ever coming into being in the first place. To do that, the scientists injected a batch of mosquito eggs with a compound that turned off the gene behind sperm production; when males were hatched, they produced no sperm. No sperm, no larvae, fewer mosquitoes. The added bonus is that female mosquitoes typically mate only once in their lives, and the study found that the absence of sperm did not seem to change that behavior.

“Targeting fertility is a good way to proceed and it’s a good alternative to what’s already there,” study co-author Flaminia Catteruccia of Imperial College London said.

Because the turned-off gene is unique to mosquitoes, she said, there’s no risk that the sterility could be passed up or down the food chain. Moreover, there’s little chance that such an artificially deflated mosquito population would disrupt ecosystems (for example, by depriving mosquito-eaters of a food source), because malarial mosquitoes are only a few species out of several hundreds. Indeed, she said, the ecological impact of sterilization would be less severe than that of insecticides.

Catteruccia cautioned that in its current form, the method is too laborious to be effectively deployed in the field. Each egg had to be injected individually, and a complex fluorescent marking system was in place to double-check that the procedure had been successful in each male. For obvious reasons, the sterility is not passed down from one generation to the next, so releasing sterile males would need to be a continuous process. The next step, she said, is figuring out how to embed the sterilization in females, who would then pass it on to all their male progeny, lessening the burden on technicians in the field. She was optimistic that with proper funding, a viable field system could be available by 2020.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend