Scientists Create Spermless Males to Fight the Spread of Malaria
Interesting new research in malaria prevention, which has shifted more towards mosquito control due to the emergence of resistant strains of the parasite. Scientists had thought for a while that controlling the reproduction of the mosquito would be an effective means of fighting the disease, but there was no good way to accomplish this. Producing viable, healthy, sterile males may be a feasbile means of mosquito control.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
Do any of you have a problem with this? Is this playing "god" too much, messing with the reproduction of another species?
Females Can Control the Evolution of Male Handsomeness
Is there such a thing as too good looking for a guy? Does this work with humans? If a guy is too good looking, will he not attract as many women?
51 comments:
When I was younger I would ask my mother my there are so many bees, all they do is sting people, but later on I learned that they do have a use. Bees are what make the flowers bloom by pollinating them. Now in the case of mosquitoes I don’t think they have a similar aspect to them that make them useful. All they do is bite, annoy and worst of all infect people with diseases such as malaria. A few less mosquitoes in the world would be great. On the other hand, removing mosquitoes might mess up the food chain, but in the end I think the benefits would definitely outweigh the risk. To those who believe it is wrong from a religious standpoint, all I can say is the number of lives it would save completely overrules the dilemma.
When I read this I didn’t really get the message that if someone is too good looking its makes them less attractive. The message I got is that at one point you can look any better and if you do then it won’t make a difference on how attractive you are. The frog that clucks 55 isn’t less attractive then the frog that clucks 50 time, they are both equally attractive. So no I don’t think that being overly good looking makes you unattractive, unless of course being that good looking makes you intimidating to the opposite sex.
I’m kind of paranoid when it comes to mosquitoes not only because their bites become annoyingly itchy, but I have heard for so long that they can also transmit malaria through their bites. It’s so innovative of Entomologist Flamina Catteruccia and her graduate student Janis Thailayil to use gene manipulation in order to reduce the number of the malaria transmitting mosquito, Anopheles gambia. By targeting the zpg gene in the Anopheles gambia, they were able to make the males sterile while at the same time keeping them fit enough to compete for the female mosquitoes attention, tricking them into mating with a sterile partner. The successful results of the experiment gives me hope that scaling this technique on a larger population will reap dramatic benefits in reducing the number of malaria transmitting mosquitoes.
Alasdair Wilkins introduces the new idea that females actually take part in guiding the evolution of males; females act as a cap to the level of attractiveness males can exhibit. This makes sense, especially in the world of neotropical túngara frogs; at one point, the “chuck to whine ratio” reaches its attractiveness limit to females and they can no longer tell the difference. In a wider sense, there’s no need for other species to evolve to become more attractive to the female population because at a certain point, it doesn’t make a difference.
I am sure that the discovery presented in that first article will bring up a lot of controversy. Personally, I acknowledge this profound use of spermless mosquitoes as an advancement in medical science.
I think medicine thus far, as I have understood it, has primarily focused on treatment and prevention. What Catteruccia does goes far beyond that by suggesting that malaria research should not only be geared towards prevention and treatment, but also be directed at eliminating the disease entirely. If her research is actually utilized throughout the malaria infested world, then millions of lives would be saved.
That being said, we have to recognize the biological repercussions of essentially killing out these mosquitoes. In the Arctic Tundra, there are enough mosquitoes to create thick clouds. Scientists hypothesize that without mosquitoes there, the number of migratory birds in the region would halve (without substantial food). Many fish species would have to change their diets (feeding behavior is deeply, genetically imprinted in those fish) – some may become extinct. Many other types of animals would lose a primary food source. As larvae, mosquitoes make up substantial biomass in aquatic ecosystems globally and act as filter feeders. When other insects drown in the water, midges chew up their carcasses and the mosquito larvae feed on the waste products, making nutrients such as nitrogen available for plants. In this case, eliminating mosquitoes might affect plant growth. Among all of this, plants would lose pollinators.
But maybe other species would overtake the roles that mosquitoes play. Other sources of food can be found and the need for mosquitoes may eventually die out. We must ask ourselves if mosquitoes provide the benefits that humans derive from nature.
There are, as I listed above, ways that mosquitoes contribute to their environments. But does that make up for sucking blood from one person and mainlining it into another, spreading pathogenic microbes along the way? We would save lives by eliminating mosquitoes, and thus have more people. Countries in sub-Saharan Africa would be able to divert their funds to other necessities and focus more on development. Do the costs of a larger population offset the benefits of a healthier one?
There are sure to be immediate reactions to the loss of mosquitoes in the areas where they are prevalent, but according to what I’ve read, those ecosystems will get over it with something (better or worse) taking over.
On a different note, I don’t feel that making mosquito spermless is not tampering with “god’s plans for the world.” There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to save our species. And if that involves the destruction of another, then so be it. We have to think pragmatically when assessing something so delicate. It was much easier when it was the restraints of the perfection of the method, and not the limitations of intent that determined our decision.
First of all, I LOVED those links to David Beckham, Brad Pitt, and Taylor Lautner!! <3 Haha.
Dr. H, I think the questions that you pose are not really what the article is suggesting. What I got from it was that there is a cutoff for females after which they can’t differentiate between levels of attractiveness. Not so much that they don’t find anyone above that cutoff attractive. So while it’s pointless to be more attractive than that cutoff, it can’t hurt.
Being completely not scientific, if guys are too good looking, then they may not attract as many woman because they seem unapproachable or intimidating. Women wouldn’t automatically go for David Beckham because they would not feel good enough for him.
I don’t think (or at least this article doesn’t propose) that this is applicable for other species. But I suppose there should be no reason why not.
Whatever the case, it is essentially pointless for males to have that additional attractiveness if it doesn’t affect females for mating purposes (or perhaps even turn them away). So it makes sense that males would evolve to not be “too attractive.”
My first reaction to the article was a fascination for entomologist Flamina Catteruccia and Janis Thailyail. They found a completely innovative way to possibly eliminating the spread of malaria once and for all by targeting a gene called zpg and creating male mosquitoes with no sperm. Although it may seem like this would eventually result in the extinction of Anopheles gambiae and thus affect the food chain, there are around 2700 species of mosquitoes. Therefore, stopping the spread of malaria seems to outweigh eliminating just one species of mosquitoes.
It's pretty cool how female frogs are attracted to the most appealing calls! Well, there's no other way to judge I guess, since all frogs appear exactly the same to me. However, I don't really believe that females control the level of attractiveness for males. Male frogs will still make more than 50 chucks, even if it may not matter.
As for humans, I don't think there's such a thing as "too good looking". In opposition to frogs, many humans look mainly at appearance for attractiveness. However, attractiveness varies depending on the person .. like the saying: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". The links you posted of the "too good looking" celebrities don't really appeal to me, honestly. Therefore, I don't believe in someone being too attractive, but rather how they're attractive to a person. Going off topic, of course personality will come into play once you get past the first impressions and physical aspects.
For the first article, I was a little disturbed that scientists were genetically altering mosquitoes to halt their reproduction. I mean, I hold no love for the little bloodsuckers, but messing with life so much as scientifically move for a way to hinder the reproduction of a species is a bit drastic and may have unforeseen, adverse effects on the natural environment. For example, the manipulation of any population of organism is bound to disrupt whatever natural food chain they are a part of. Since mosquitoes start out as aquatic larvae, a lowering of their population would surely affect aquatic ecosystems. Not only that, but I fear for the mosquitoes that would evolve in response to such a manipulation of genetic structure. Maybe the females would evolve into asexually reproductive organisms, which would be a problem as only female mosquitoes feed on blood, thus spreading malaria, with the males digesting plant nectar instead. There has been a precedent of an organism that usually reproduces sexually spawning offspring in an asexual way before, as shown by the link below in the case of a shark in a Virginia aquarium. It stands to reason that the mosquito could follow suit, and then what would we have? An army of female vampire bugs?
http://articles.boston.com/2008-10-10/news/29269000_1_shark-tank-shark-pup-mahmood-shivji
For the second article, I found the whole females controlling male handsomeness concept interesting, but do not think it could be applied to humans. While reading the example with the túngara frogs, the entire time I was thinking, why is this so female centered? Do the males have no say in selecting mates, only being able to croak out a sound advertising their availability? Admittedly, I’m not that well versed in the typical mating habits of the animal kingdom, but in regards to humans, I know choosing a mate is as much of the guy’s decision as the girl’s. In addition, for humans, what’s considered attractive to one may not be the same for another. For example, some like bulging muscles, while others prefer intelligence, spontaneity, or aptitude. Therefore a simple mating call would not be all it would take for a girl to go and marry a guy… hopefully.
For the first article, i believe that what the scientists are doing is perfectly acceptable. Some people may think that creating spermless mosquitos is playing "god" or being "unfair" to the mosquitoes but in reality...they're mosquitoes. Humans are WAY more important than mosquitoes. Malaria is a dangerous disease that kills many humans each year and if it is stopped itll be very helpful tot he human. not to mention, other dieseases could be prevented to because as time goes on new and newer diseases emerge. Some may say how would we like it if someone messed with our reproduction but at the time being we are the most intelligent creatures on Earth and there is no other species that can do that to us. Therefore, i feel that making spermless mosquitoes is perfectly acceptable.
For the second article, maybe in other species there is such thing as too handsome but i feel that handsome is not the right word. perhaps it is sex appeal? different animals interact in different ways and each species perception of "handsome" is also different. For humans i believe there can be no such thing as "too handsome" because as they say, 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and while some people might think one person is gorgeous, another could think that they are hideous. Thats why human mating is so interesting since there is specific reason or time for it
Mosquitoes are the reason why I hate summer (that and the sweltering heat). Not only do they leave your body covered with itchy red bumps, but they also can spread Malaria, which has become a huge problem. I think that making male mosquitoes spermless is an innovative and effective way to keep the mosquito population in check. Cases of Malaria would be decreased and many lives would be saved. A small problem that may come up would be a change in the food chain. Many animals eat mosquitoes, such as frogs, dragonflies, spiders, and certain species of birds. However, these animals don't exclusively eat mosquitoes and might have to resort to eating more of another food source. Still, a change in the food chain should be looked at when actually going through with this plan. Also, while I was reading this article, I couldn't help but wonder what this method of fighting Malaria could do to the human population. There could be a chance that the earth would become even more overpopulated than it already is. It may seem a little inhumane to think that way, but it is something that is possible. Overall, I think it would be a good idea to mate spermless male mosquitoes with female mosquitoes. The consequences of tampering with the food chain and the overpopulation of humans, I believe, are outweighed by the advantages.
The second article was an interesting read. Females controlling male attractiveness in certain species is true. The frog example showed that having the ability to make 55 chucks by a "really handsome" frog compared to 50 chucks by a "handsome" frog when the female only comprehends up to 50 chucks makes the "really handsome frog" the same as the "handsome" one. The extra handsomeness is useless. As for humans, it is completely different. I don't think there is such a thing as "too good looking" for a guy. It is all based on the preference of the woman. For example, if there are two guys and one of them is more good looking than the other and the woman will settle for either one (even though one of the guys is "better looking" than the other), it makes the "better looking" guy's "better looks" useless. This comes back to the frog example. The female can render the one male's handsomeness useless if she can be satisfied to a certain extent where anything above that isn't really considered.
1st article:
For one, I think that producing unfertilized males are a good idea. Malaria has been, and continues too, cause many deaths in the world. By producing spermless males, less offspring would be produced, resulting in a fewer amount of mosquitos that carry malaria. Some people may say that it is not right to do this because, eventually, the mosquito population will die off. If the circumstances were different I would understand. However, mosquitos are not beneficial to nature in any way. All they do is bite and take the blood of other animals. I, and probably everyone else, could say that no one likes to get bit my mosquitos. Mosquitos are just annoy people and do not do any good for anything. The world had no effective use for them so, if they do die off, I do not think that the ecosystem and the food web would shift at a great degree. Apart from that, it is interesting to see how scientists go about doing this and how mosquitos will react to it.
2nd article:
First of all, my favorite part was the pictures. I absolutely LOVED them! Now back to the article. I never actually thought about a guy being too good looking or too appealing. However, the article does have a point. it is true, for almost all species, that the male tries to "woo" the female, so, in a way, it is true that the female plays a part in the evolution of male handsomeness. I guess that it is true that, to a certain point, females no longer appreciate or notice how handsome or good looking males are. However, being too attractive or too good looking is not always a good thing. If a male is over the top in his looks, female may feel intimidated by them and afraid to approach them. The better looking guys look after a certain point, there would be a decrease in the amount of females trying to approach them. This is probably because they feel as if they are not good enough for them and are afraid to even take a chance, worried that they will be turned down. Being good looking is not a crime and it wont harm anyone, but it is not necessarily the best way to get the attention of females. This does not mean that the male will not attract females, it just means that the amount of females that would actually approach them would decrees. Females have certain standards and if their standard are not that high, it is not likely that they would go for the most handsome guy. There are also many other factors, especially in humans, that attract females, not only looks. In conclusion, a males appearance is only a small part of the reason females are attracted to certain males over others.
Article 1:
First of all, I always thought that mosquito bites were just annoying and irritating. I never really thought about the fact that mosquitoes could be as deadly as any other insect that preys on humans. I knew Malaria was spread mostly through the bites of mosquitoes, but I didn’t know that the percentage of deaths were as high. I believe that the scientists are doing a great job trying to figure out how to prevent deaths that occur from Malaria. I thought it was interesting how the scientists figured out a way to make a spermless male that still attracted female mosquitoes. I was surprised by the fact that scientist were able to figure out a way to reduce mosquitoes’ fertilization. I hope that scientists could discover a way to end Malaria so there is one disease that we humans can be safe from. Even though we have injections that could be taken to prevent any sicknesses caused by Malaria, there are many people in this world that do not get the same medical care.
Article 2:
Every species is different in some ways and alike in some ways. One thing alike about most species is the fact that the male tries to “woo” the female. At some point the “wooing” reaches a certain point were it becomes unnecessary. If there were limitations set towards the male then I have to agree with article and say that the females could be the reason behind those limitations. One thing that confuses me is the fact that I never really thought that a male could be too handsome. It never really crossed my mind and because of that I found this article a bit unusual. I never really heard anyone talk about a male being too handsome, but this could be the one difference between species. I believe that every species has their own way of feeling attraction towards the opposite sex and that the species has their own limitations set for them by the female.
I actually think it is so cool that science has come to the point where we are able to genetically deny a species from reproducing. Though this sounds cruel at first, it can be used humanely as a control over species that are excessively destructive. The mosquito, being a pest, was the perfect place to start, especially since they are not only a minor nuisance here in New Jersey, but are a legitimate health threat in some 3rd world countries. This research should be fine-tuned and perfected on stink bugs, since they are easily the most aggravating creatures to ever live on this planet or any others for that matter.
After reading the second article, I feel the need to question-is there more to life then being really, really, ridiculously good looking? It seems that with frogs there is a limit to how much attraction one female can handle. I suppose a comparison to this would be that some people choose to devote their lives to attaining perfect fitness of the body, and body build to show off the full potential of human strength. But at the same time, not many people compete or even care about these events because looks aren't the only thing. With the human brain comes complex emotions and thoughts that overrule the pure physical desire to mate, so it seems animals have followed suit.
The discovery made by Catteruccia and Thailayil is a major breakthrough in preventing the spread of malaria once and for all. The entomologists targeted the zpg gene in mosquitoes, which resulted in spermless mosquitoes that were still capable of attracting females. Since female mosquitoes can only mate once, the female would mate with a spermless mosquito but produce no offspring. As mentioned in the article, it is difficult to deploy this on a large scale, since scientists can not capture every male mosquito and sterilize them, but possibly in the future we will be able to see the number of deaths from malaria drop significantly. I looked on the internet to see if there were any benefits to mosquitoes and I found that they do have some benefit to the eco-system. Mosquitoes lay their eggs in water which acts as food for several other species. While ordinarily I would say that messing with the reproduction of a species is wrong, it could stop the spread of a disease that causes millions of deaths each year.
The second article talked about how females can control the evolution of male handsomeness, as in the case with the frogs. The level of attractiveness for a male túngara frog is based on their call, which is a combination of a “whine” and “chucks.” If a male’s call has more chucks they are found more attractive, but females have a certain limit on how many chucks they can appreciate. While this applies to the frogs, I do not think it really applies to humans. Human attraction is usually based on appearance and personality and that can not be controlled or have a limit. The level of attractiveness of a male is based solely on personal opinion. I also think that men can not be “too good-looking,” but females could be intimidated by them and feel inferior to them because of their level of attractiveness.
1st article
Society has been manipulating the genes and traits of animals for our own gain long before this article was posted. Only instead of making cows and chickens fatter, we're trying to save lives. Mosquitoes are universally considered a bother. It's hard to empathize with a seasonal pest which carries such a virulent and deadly disease. I could be wrong, but I don't see mass protests forming in defense for mosquito rights.
2nd article:
Was it wrong for me to read the girl's comments first? :D When I think about it, females really do have majority control over evolution. They are the ones who ultimately choose who they mate with and continue the species.
Both the optimist and the pragmatist in me disagree with the notion that girls choose their partners only on looks. The optimist in me believes in the goodness of women, that women are above petty factors such as attractiveness, such as romance. The pragmatist points out other factors some women use to select partners, such as wealth or status.
Either way, the fact that even after several thousand years of recorded history, humanity is not solely made up of handsome people debunks the notion. Though it could be argued that evolution takes generations, and in terms of history as a whole, recorded history doesn't provide enough data.
I am very impressed by the brilliance of Catteruccia and Thailayil for thinking about producing spermless mosquitos. They did not truly ruin the mosquitos's mating process because the males are still capable of competing with each other to mate with the female mosquitos but the females will not be able to produce offspring. This is a genius way of fighting the spread of malaria and preventing the deaths of so many people. I also believe that this process is acceptable and natural and not at all playing "God". It is just a part of their evolution. There might be some consequences without mosquitos around but as humans, we will surely think of a way to adapt to the changes.
The mating of frogs is pretty fascinating and also a little complicated. Whoever has the most appealing whine and right amount of chucks attracts the women. The right amount of chucks matters because too much chucks is unattractive to female frogs. This translates to human handsomeness, too handsome means untracttractive. I don't believe that there is such a thing as too handsome men unattracting women. I think it is just handsome men are intimidating to women.
I often find it absolutely intriguing how all of life emerges from different permutations of four nucleotide bases, but I think even more interesting is the fact that humans can manipulate these same genes to better mankind in countless ways. This is an idea so fundamental, "tackling a problem at its root" so to speak, but nevertheless intriguing. While in this application, gene alteration is performed on mosquitos in order to sterilize them, gene therapy that utilizes acetylation and methylation can be used to inhibit the expression of oncogenes and to promote the expression of tumor suppressor genes, providing humans with a possible cure for many kinds of cancers. The manipulation of gene expression to benefit humans is an emerging idea that offers immense potential to curb the
While from a scientific perspective, controlling the reproduction of mosquitos via controlling their gene expression is certainly a remarkable idea, in practice, it poses some ethical concerns. Is it right for humans to interfere in the reproduction of other species? Is it fair to manipulate gene expression of any non-human creature in order to benefit humans? At the root of this ethical dilemma is a fundamental question, "Is it okay to consider the interests of the human race over other species?" Many would readily say yes, for humans have special intellectual capabilities that have allowed them to solve several world problems, and to waste that potential in order to take a more ethical standpoint is to do humankind a disservice. Others would say it is unethical to play with other species in order to protect our own, and humans playing "god" absolutely selfish. I happen to be a proponent of the former opinion. While it is unethical to mess with another species too much, I believe not exploring these kind of remedies for problems that plague our society is a huge disservice in itself. As humans continue to find solutions through science for diseases, they are working to improve human lives everywhere, a promise that is too good to let go just because of a minor ethical dilemma.
I will post about the second article in a bit! The first article was great in that it sparked a question that emerges every now in then in a world that is constantly advancing scientifically.
Genetically altering mosquitos is just one of the many advances that scientists are making in today's world. Mosquitos are seen as bothersome pests that have a very minimal, if not any, benefit on the environment. All they do is suck on the blood of other animals and leave red, itchy bumps. In addition, mosquitos also carry malaria, which is responsible for a high number of deaths every year, especially in third world countries. Catteruccia and Thailayil targeted the zpg gene in male mosquitos, which left them spermless. Since female mosquitos only mate once, mating with a spermless mosquito will result in no offspring being produced. This would control the mosquito population, and therefore help prevent the spread of malaria.
The second article dicussed how females could control the evolution of male handsomeness. It used the túngara frogs as an example. Male attractiveness is determined by the number of "chucks", however there is a point where the number of "chucks" no longer matters. Even though this is true for the species, I do not think this applies to humans. There are several factors that determine whether or not a female finds a particular male attractive, such as personality or intellegence. I also do not believe in such a statement as a male being too attractive. However, females could be intimidated by a male's attractiveness.
The first article about preventing further breakouts of malaria by creating a sperm-less male mosquito is brilliant. It seems that major a health concern could possibly be resolved once and for all. To add, I, for one, cannot find the purpose for their existence. However, I also don't believe that its a healthy practice to tamper with nature as far as attempting to wipe out a species. Of course, I have a limited knowledge of a mosquito's role in our ecosystem, but I can only see this decision playing out in one of two ways: nothing detrimental happens, similarly to the extinction of Dodo birds, or there is some sort of drawback (Dhruv's explanation about bees). That being said, the idea of wiping out mosquitos to end malaria obviously seems beneficial and necessary at the moment. In terms, of a mosquito's rights, I have no comment other than that it is a ridiculous argument that I don't wish to delve into!
Article two about being too handsome doesn't apply to human beings as far as I'm concerned. Although animals, may have a limit or a "limited liking" towards the efforts form the opposite sex to seem appealing, people are not all the same. Attractiveness to an individual could suit an infinite number of likings from a body type to personality. In this respect, the human system is simply to too sophisticated to have any means of a single aesthetic standard for good looks.
The first article was very interesting. The method of targeting zpg in order to make mosquitoes spermless can save millions of lives. Although that is true, I believe that trying to control the mosquito population will affect human population drastically in a negative manner. Humans also need to keep their population in check and as of now many countries are overpopulated. Humans also need to keep their population in check because, if not, we'd use up the earth's resources without giving any chances of replenishment. I'm not saying a agree or disagree with this idea, but who says a larger population of humans is a good thing?
The second article made me think about this translates to humans. It's interesting how the female frogs can't differentiate between a frog that chucks 50 times compared to 55,but I can't say humans are the same. Some girls find a funny guy to be attractive and others find a not so nice guy to be attractive. Unlike these neotropical túngara frogs, humans have different preferences of what personalities they find attractive. And knowing that, I don't think female humans have really controlled the male evolution of anything.All of the frogs would be more attracted to a male frog that could chuck 50 times compared to a male that could chuck 25 times. If this were translated to humans, one female might like the fact that the frog that could chuck 25 times can jump higher and another female frog might like the male frog that could chuck 50 times because it's not looking for anything in the frog besides how many times it can chuck. It is safe to say that because of these different personality traits in humans, males can't be "too handsome." Even if he was ridiculously good looking, he'd probably be cocky about it and that would make him less attractive. It might be fine with the frogs, but it doesn't work out so well with humans.
Well I cannot think of one person who is fond of mosquitoes. They are annoying and leave those itchy red bumps all over your body. They aren't good for anything that I can think of. Today in science, many genetic tests are being done to animals that suit our liking. No one is happy with what God gave us. However, I am glad that Entomologist Flamina Catterccia was able to find a way to make the male Anopheles gambiae mosquito sperm less. It is a tremendous breakthrough that prevented the female mosquito to produce offspring, thus preventing the spread of malaria in humans. This time we are saving lives by altering a species. One negative aspect about this finding is that it may affect the food chain or the grand circle of life. The mosquito is not naturally declining in numbers but we are forcing them to. I think that may be the only negative to this experiment.
Let's face it; females dominate all relationships (sorry guys). We can manipulate men into doing anything we want them to do to please our needs. Probably because they know that they will get the one thing they want in the end, sex. Girls want a guy who is attractive so guys will do what it takes to become attractive. However, is there such a thing as being too attractive? Some female frogs think so. There is almost a limit on how much a male frog can attract a female frog. Males chuck and whine to get the females' attention. The more a male chucks, the more a female would want to take him home. But there is a limit on how much these chucks work on the female. The article explains how a frog with 55 chucks isn't as attractive as a frog with 50 chucks because say the female maxes out of 50 chucks. So, why do all that extra work for nothing. I found this article more amusing because in many species the female rules over the male, it's just how things are meant to be.
Not exactly being the biggest mosquito fan, I totally agree with this article. I think that mosquitoes are good for nothing but stinging people and spreading diseases like malaria. In my opinion the extinction on the mosquitoes might be somewhat risky considering it can mess up the food chain. Although it may affect the ecosystem at first, later on other species will make up for it. I think the idea of sperm less mosquitoes can help our species a lot and this may help eliminate malaria and save many lives.
The next article was kind of interesting. There comes a point where the female frog can’t differentiate between the ratios of “clucks” to “whines”. The level of attractiveness has a cutoff point after a while. In conclusion, for a male to be more attractive than another male won’t affect the female in choosing who she wants to mate with.
This article pertaining to controlling and possibly eliminating the spread of malaria was not only interesting but also very relatable to ours lives. Mosquitoes are annoying insects that leave their victims with an itchy, red, mark that irritates the skin for several days. Mosquito’s bites are not only annoying, but they are potentially dangerous because they have the ability to spread malaria. In my opinion I think that if scientists have found a way to stop the spread of mosquitoes, it would not only help the annoying factor, but also thousands of lives would be saved. I think that the idea of sperm less male mosquitoes is a step in the right direction to stop the deaths in the world due to malaria. This new finding definitely will find controversy because some believe that stopping reproduction of any life form is going to disturb the life cycle and no species should be eliminated. However on the larger scale eliminating this species of mosquitoes would effectively control the spread of malaria, which would in fact save thousands of lives.
I found the second article interesting and the fact the female frogs may direct the evolution of the males caught my attention. Also in the article it pointed out that, in the case of the neotropical túngara frogs, once a male reaches a certain level of attractiveness, the females are no longer able to tell the difference. For example 50 chucks and 55 chucks would be the same to the female frog. The male frog that had 55 chucks would be no more appealing than the male frog with 50 chucks.
I do not think that the concept of “too attractive” applies to humans because a majority of humans base their feeling on more than just looks. Beauty is different in everyone’s eyes, and cannot solely be limited to one form of attractiveness. I do not think that the idea of “too handsome” is effective when describing humans, because humans see the bigger picture, they look outside the realm of beauty, and can form their opinions of the opposite sex based on other factors.
I find it interesting that by sterilizing male mosquitoes the population reproduction and population size can be affected. What is great about this is that every year more male mosquitoes would have to be sterilized. This would allow for more control over how many mosquitoes are sterilized and from year to year. This would prevent the practice of sterilizing males to control population size from getting out of hand. Since, the process is still inefficient on the large scale level though it might take a few years to make it an effective means of mosquito population control.
As to the second article I believe that while it is applicable to most animals it’s not as applicable to humans. When animals mate usually they choose a mate based on what their instincts tell them is attractive. For many species choosing a mate is based purely on physical traits and so evolution is affected. For humans on the other hand not all attraction is based purely on the physical. A lot of things that people find attractive are based on the environmental influences. (Of course then there is a nature vs. nurture debate but that is beside the point.) This would mean that some traits that are found attractive are not passed through DNA and so have no effect on evolution. While there is still some control over evolution it is not as big for humans as it would be for a frog.
For the first article, I found Flamina Catteruccia to be extremely innovative as to reduce the spread of malaria, which does have a high mortality rate, by targeting the gene zpg in order to create spermless male mosquitos yet keeping them physically capable of mating. Although this mosquito control could help the human race, I believe messing with the reproduction of another species is wrong. For now it might seem like just a simple breakthrough in science that could be beneficial to us but it could lead into tampering with more species. I believe it is messing with not only the food chain, but nature’s course.
Humans are attracted to each other by looks and personalities, I find it interesting how neotropicaltungara frogs are attracted by the mating calls. Tungara frogs and other species can help guide the evolution of males, but this is not true with humans. In the human race, females can only guide the evolution of males to a certain extent in which males try to find ways to be more attractive or ways to “woo” the female. Personality and looks can not have a limit. This is why I believe there is not such thing as too good looking for a guy because it matters to how one perceives what good looking or handsome is.
The one topic that I always find interesting is genetics. When I read the title of the article, I was expecting a case study of sperm-less males released into the ecosystem. To me, the most interesting part of the article was when they discussed how the two scientists had created the sperm-less mosquitos. It fascinates me that how the scientists know which particular genome to affect. Also, they have figured out a way out inhibit the genome. It must have taken months of research just to find out this piece of information. With this done, I am curious on how they are going to create a large supply of sperm-less mosquitos.
Another interesting fact that I know is that sickle cell anemia gives resistance to malaria. I believe another possible cure is to find out whether it is possible to make sickle cell anemia a harmless disorder in humans.
The next article was also as interesting as the first. The idea that females can control the handsomeness of males can be seen after some careful thought. The male with the larger plumage or the brighter male will be able to mate more often and thus be able to pass on the genes. However, two males with very similar qualities have an equal opportunity in mating because their characteristics are so similar. This control of physical characteristics is easy to follow. I find interesting that the females can also control the mating call of males. I previously had assumed that mating calls were random from time to time depending on the mood of the male. However, what I have gathered from this article, the mating call is tied to the genetics of the male. This is the most interesting part of the article, to me.
Article 1:
It is truly fascinating how the advancement of genetics has enabled us with such controlling powers over the reproduction of species, such as the mosquitoes. It can be both good and harmful to the environment. It is beneficial in that reducing the reproduction of mosquitoes it can prevent a spread of malaria. But as it may seem helpful it is very unreasonable in that it is disrupting the flow of nature by essentially dictating the amount of mosquitoes produced. Also the process of sterilization is not productive and efficient on a large scale basis. But perhaps in the future there might be a more proficient way of creating spermless male mosquitoes and fighting malaria.
Article 2:
It is very amusing to think that females in every species share a common interest. That interest being the handsomeness of males. For example instead of mating calls with tungara frogs, the feathers of the male peacock symbolize their "handsomeness" and are the main criteria of inspection for the females in choosing the most attractive mate. I believe it ironic how makes believe they are the powerful of the sexes when females are the ones who control the evolution and the future generations of the species.
I'm back with my comments on the second article, which I thought was the more relatable of the two. It is not too surprising that females dictate the evolution of males and that males tend to evolve more to suit females' interests than vice versa. This trend in the evolution of the frog species discussed in the article is not out of the ordinary. Take for example the peafowl, a prime example of how males fight for the attraction of females. Male peafowls, or peacocks, fight for the attention of female peafowls, or peahens by exhibiting their plumage. Darwin theorized in his works that the peacock's plumage is a result of sexual selection--that more attractive phenotypes in males causes a greater number of offspring and hence a passing down of those sexually favorable genes. Darwin wrote a whole book about sexual selection called "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex," indicating that it is not a particularly novel idea but rather one fundamental in the study of evolution.
What I did find surprising is that beyond a certain point, there seemed to be little positive correlation between the level of a particular attractive feature and the ability of a male frog to attract a frog. Instead, there seems to be a threshold value, beyond which increases in attractive features produce negligible benefits in terms of mating. This is quite interesting, and trying to apply it to human life, as many posts before this did, it makes sense in that humans are more categorical about attractiveness than quantitative. In other words, people fall into categories such as "very attractive","attractive", "average", "unattractive", and "ineffably unattractive." Within those categories (or similar ones), the degree of prettiness or handsomeness, for the lack of better terminology, is irrelevant. It seems with the frog species in this article, the same is true; there is a minimum value of clucks beyond which it doesn't become any more attractive to the females. It's in the extremely attractive category, and that is all that matters. Cool stuff.
I'm not a big fan of mosquitoes, and I highly doubt that anyone else really loves mosquitoes. Unless of course you are a mosquito fanatic and you happen to love and extol the way that mosquitoes have the ability to suck blood out of other animals without them feeling it, and how their bodies' acids or venom react with their victims and give them raised bumps that we call mosquito bites, and blah blah blah, etc. I'm having mixed feelings about this whole creating spermless mosquitoes. Honestly, it's a boon to society, especially for the people who live in areas where medicine and vaccines are not easily accessible. In this case, Catteruccia was able to modify the males so that they were still able to compete with those which still had sperm and could aid the females in reproduction. Whereas previous experiments resulted in the handicapping of the tested males, this experiment enabled the scientists to alter a specific gene and thus lessen the spread of malaria carrying females. Of course, this is only effective in the small groups that the scientists utilized in their experiment, and cannot really be effective in the actual world, but it is a step closer to getting rid of malaria.
However, on the other hand, even though the alteration of the males would benefit humans and lessen the amount of malaria carrying mosquitoes and mosquitoes in general, if it could be implemented on a large scale, would it be messing too much with another species? If we were to humanize it, wouldn't it be something like castrating or somehow genetically altering people with AIDS, with incurable diseases, or people who are so deranged that they do not deserve to live in society so that they cannot reproduce? This is not against those people, but isn't it similar to the way that we treat the mosquitoes that carry malaria? I personally have no problem with it, because it is on such a small scale. It is necessary sometimes to make changes for the betterment of society, and someone can always make the argument that "progress" is always for the good of society, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Whereas this experiment has not tampered too much with the bug's make up other than its reproductive system, making drastic changes is unnecessary.
As for the second article...I think that females have always had a hand in the evolution, or grooming of males, although not in such a primal sense, in the way that frogs exemplified it. However, I don't think that a guy can be too good looking. Of course, looking good is all a matter of genes environmental effects. But looks, in most (I hope) females are not the determining factor in whether or not women decide to date a certain man. And i do not think that they are in danger of being attacked by predators because they are too good looking, unless some crazy maniac who is ugly or very very handsome/pretty decides that all the pretty people must go. If anything, they may have a better chance of surviving. But humans are different from animals, and thus we have different scenarios and different ways of proceeding through life.
"Now, scientists from Imperial College London have tricked female mosquitoes into wasting
their one go at fertility by swapping out normal males with spermless ones."
That's just cruel. These scientists are dabbling in some serious mosquito rights issues
here :/ ASPCA would not approve. LOL. In all seriousness, this is quite a creative and potentially effective idea for preventing the spread of malaria. Hailing from Bangladesh, I can attest to the nasty effects malaria can have on people, especially in less developed areas. (in many cases resulting in death)The coolness of these developments is that they don't rely on any sort of vaccine or potentially hazardous pesticides. If scientists could cultivate a substantial amount of spermless male mosquitoes to be introduced into wild populations, their numbers could be greatly reduced or obliterated, effectively preventing the spread of malaria. Of course, the environmental repercussions must also be considered, in terms of negative effects on other local species, but the chance to save many lives IMO outweighs the cons. Plus, everyone hates mosquitoes. (does anything really rely on them, anyway?)
As for the second article, it was pretty humorous seeing how the idea that females have controlled male attractiveness for ages could be scientifically backed up. If it's true that at a certain point, female túngara frogs no longer care how many times the male chucks, it indeed makes sense that an accomplished 55+ chucker would have no evolutionary advantage over one that could, say, chuck just 50 times but spit acid into a predator's eyes. This would also explain why the male human population sadly hasn't evolved to all look like Sirs Beckham, Pitt, and Lautner :/ Cool stuff :D
Article 1:
I think it's great that we may have found a way to fight mosquito. The only thing I have to say is that I believe that mosquitoes may find a way to fight back against this, kinda like a loop hole in a loop hole. So long as DNA exists there is always the possibility that mosquitoes will be able to fight this. Maybe once they realize they haven't laid any fertilized eggs the females may grow a need to have continue having sex till they do drop some fertile eggs (its a possibility.)
Article 2:
I have never thought women being in control of how handsome men can be. It does make sense, say a generation of women have a thing for tall men, next thing you know there will be a generation of 6 feet elementary school kids (you never know.)
The creation of spermless mosquitoes is undoubtedly incredible - again, amazing research has enabled scientists to push new boundaries. But as Dr H brought up, playing "god" is a dangerous thing. There is a fine line between conducting research in the name of science, and abusing new findings to help humans control whatever they want. While the reason behind the development of spermless mosquitoes is to help fight against the spread of malaria, who knows what else people may want to apply new research to? What will tinkering with the reproduction of another species lead to next? While I do not want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, I am worried that so many more new discoveries like this may lead people to cause more harm than good if too much power and foolish god complexes come together.
The second article explores the attraction cap that female túngara frogs have over males, but I do not believe that this theory would transfer well to human behavior. I remember reading in the biology textbook that facial symmetry plays a part in judging the physical attractiveness for both men and women (which, if I recall correctly, is why the textbook reasoned that Jude Law is rather good looking). I do not believe that either party would affect the natural symmetry of each others face; but no matter how symmetrical one's face may be, it is still true that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.
Adding onto my reaction to the second article, I think it's safe to say that the attraction cap theory cannot be applied to humans. Obviously, being a human helps with this outlook; beauty is an abstract word and humans are complex beings. We perceive beauty in different ways from each other as a result of personal or cultural differences. Camille S points out that facial symmetry is used to judge a person's attractiveness, yet she also points out that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. We also can't overlook the fact that personality also plays into how attractive we find a person, it's not only physical beauty. Therefore, no one can be "too attractive" because chances are an over the top, outrageously attractive person to one is just ordinary, or even unattractive to another.
I thought the first article is a prime example of how important it is that we advance in genetics. It was my favorite article out of the two articles this week. I think what scientist are doing is amazing. To think that you could genetically alter mosquitoes to prevent malaria is a great breakthrough that will save many people’s lives. I also can see where the controversy comes in on this article though. Many people think that this is altering nature. I can see their point of view but I believe that right now what we need to do is focus in on the human population then I’m sure as science advances further, we can find a way that would benefit humans and mosquitoes.
The second article was humorous to think that females in every species look for males that are “handsome”. I think it’s pretty cool how females have control over how handsome they want their mate and that some mates good-looks can be overkill. Females really do have control on the future of the species.
Mosquito are one of the few things which I consider truly good for nothing. If I had the choice I would wipe out all of them and that would be the end to malaria forever. After reading the second article, I guessed that maybe the scientists should try and determine the special characteristics that female mosquitoes desire and genetically modify the just those characteristics in the spermless males. This would solve the problem of the males being too weak. However, in my opinion the wipe out solution seems a bit more easier and less problematic.
It's fascinating how Catteruccia and Thailayil found a way to save people's lives by targetting the zpg gene in male mosquitos. By producing spermless male mosquitos, the whole objective was to reduce the spread of malaria. Their process is totally harmless, and I don't see any kind of drawback to it. "Playing God" is something we might have to see passed, if it's worth all those human lives. I don't think anyone would really care for the mosquitos if they are being used for our benefit.
As for the second article, I don't think we should compare humans to frogs, because every kind of species is different and has their own standards for handsomeness. That being said, within our own species, human females have their own standards themselves for what's handsome and what's ugly. No one will probably understand this, but I always thought that it's looks that start a conversation, however it's personality that keeps the conversation going. So it's really not just looks that can measure someone's attractiveness.
If they are truly able to find a way to sterilize a majority of these insects that carry malaria, there might be a decrease in the illness in humans. This sounds great but there could be negative side effects since these insects are a part of a food chain. Their absence could instigate adverse effects for other animals and the environment. I don't think the scientists are playing the role of God, but they seem to be messing with a cycle that shouldn't be altered. If they regulated the decrease of the Anopheles gambiae mosquitos so that there would not be a drastic change or alteration in the ecosystem, I think that it would be a brilliant way to decrease the increasing number of humans infected with malaria today. Even though it's brilliant, it's also very selfish. Scientists always try different methods for the benefit of humans, but it's hard for them to think twice about an animal as trivial as a mosquito. They're a part of the ecosystem, for all we know their extinction can lead to a greater threat on Earth or the elimination of other animals that depend on that particular mosquito. I think the scientists that are attempting to eradicate the Anopheles gambiae need to reevaluate the possible consequences of sterilizing the male population. It seems that their simple solution could create a greater consequence in the future.
The second article was interesting, since I generally thought that most animals go for the best candidate to mate with, the optimal choice being the most attractive whether by sight or sound. It's surprising to find out that even highly attractive animals can be considered unattractive to some degree. I think that this principle can apply to humans as well when they try to find a partner. Sometimes a male is too attractive, which makes females feel as though he is out of their league. There's also a chance that when a male looks to handsome, it appears as though he's almost fake. The other day my cousin and I were by the pool and we saw a man who looked like he was on steroids. We thought he seemed okay but he definitely looked too good to be real. Sometimes when looking for a mate, we look for handsome traits that are genuine and not too overdone. It seems even animals tend to look for a partner that is relatively good looking but not too good looking, as exemplified in the túngara frogs. Then again, for humans it's much more than how handsome a male is. Females tend to also take into account how well they connect with a person and whether they have a good personality. If it was based on just looks alone, it would be a lot simpler for humans, but there are so many other traits that determine if a guy is attractive or not. It varies from person to person based on what they value the most, so it can't be all based on a males physical features alone.
I think the scientists who thought of tricking female mosquitoes into wasting their once in a lifetime opportunity to mate are geniuses. It might seem cruel to rid the female mosquitoes of their one-night thing, but everything would still go towards our sake. Their findings has the potential to completely eliminate Anopheles gambiae (well in the very long run), carriers of the death-stricken disease.
I understand how this could stir up some debate but I really don't think that this is a question of morality at all. According to Darwin's theory, evolution is all about survival of the fittest/natural selection. And we, the 'fitter', found a way to eliminate the lesser, and so the fittest will prevail. Some might think that it's not right for humans to temper with the natural flow of other species because it's "unnatural" or it would mean that we would be "playing God". But We, humans, are as much part of nature as other species, so it would only make sense to go through with this "tricking"-female-mosquitos if it means reducing the the risk of getting malaria and ultimately, saving the lives of millions and strengthening the human race.
I think the very famous statement "too much of anything" applies to the second article. If there's this super duper handsome man walking around the mall, I think the reaction from women would be somewhere along the line of " :O ", as in just gaping and staring, nothing more and nothing less. As some of my fellow classmates implied above, most women would deem it impossible to ever be with that good looking of a guy because of they'd be intimidated. So yeah, I guess females do have a slight control of the evolution of male handsomeness.
I know that when I went to India, my doctor always prescribed us medicine to take before, during, and after our trip just in case we contracted malaria. As more and more strains of malaria are becoming resistant to vaccines, it will be tougher for us to defend not only ourselves, but the millions of poor people around the world in tropical areas. Although people might argue against controlling the reproduction of the mosquito, there are many more pros than cons. This way we can decrease the spread of malaria in the human population, which can potentially save many people. I believe that it is alright to go ahead with controlling the mosquito population since it is being done to benefit the human race. However, once we choose this path, there is no way we can come back. If new research can prove that the mosquito is essential to the environment, only then should we leave it alone.
For the second article, I believe humans should not be compared to frogs. While there is certainly a similarity between females of each group who find either the sounds or sight of the other gender attractive, it is not the same. Humans also look for personality and other connections, and are usually turned off by inner flaws even if a man is extremely handsome. Females can control who they choose and these choices will reflect on generations in the future. A man who is too attractive is not a favorable for many women; many view it as a "too good to be true" situation and believe that this sort of a man would only come with his own plethora of problems.
Article 1
Humans have a habit of controling things in the world in fact it would be fair to say that humans control the world. But I do like the idea of us controling the mosquitoe population. Even though they are a part of our eco system they do a lot of damage because over a million people die of malaria. Its a serious decises and many people have it. I remember when i lived in india, I went to a hill station and was infacted with malaria when i was about 7 or 8 years old. I was lucky enough to survice thanks to vacines but now a days malaria is becoming resistance to all these vacines like Quine sulfate which is what i was priscribed with. The fact that malaria is spreading quickly and this is a very good way to keep the mosquetoe population under control and prevent malaria from spreading.
Article 2
This article is talking about frogs in spesific not so much humans. I do not think that this article or this method, applies to humans because there is a lot more involved when it comes to liking one another. There is a whole process which we go through and as for talking about handsomeness, i would have to say most females would consider some certain guys good looking no matter what (guys shown in the links). I do not agree with this article because frogs are a whole another species from us and their mental thought process cannot be used to determine ours.
I've always found it interesting to see how many crazy, ridiculous things the male species can do to "woo" their female companions. I know that with humans men try to dress their best and simply look their best. It was really intriguing to read about a different species that does something completely different to attract females.
I find it sort of disturbing to read about how scientists are taking other living organisms and taking away their abilities to reproduce. Our race has been tampering and damaging other animals and plants almost forever. However, although this may be disturbing to me, it is still a great discovery that should be used towards the fight to defeat malaria
Maybe I've been brainwashed by watching too many environmental specials on National Geographics and Discovery, but I'm generally against manipulating the environment and its inhabitants. I'm sure there is some kind of unseen consequence of introducing these spermless mosquitos. What if they mutate or something like those crazy African killer bees, or perhaps more realistically, lead to the endangerment of Anpheles gambie? As much as I hate mosquito bites, messing with another species could devestate the food chain. From what I collected from some light internet browsing, mosquitos do pollinate some types of plants as well as allow tadpoles and minnows to grow from feeding on mosquito eggs. If this species of mosquito does have such an effect on its ecosystem, a drop in the population would have a domino effect on all the other animals.
I don't think this theory can properly be applied to human males. Humans are so much more complex than a chucking frog or a colorful bird. In general, I think most people aren't looking for the most attractive girl or guy in the room when they're looking for a girlfriend or boyfriend. It's the emotional connections, experiences, dates, etc. that lead up to "relationshiphood" that's important rather than the physical traits. There's also each girl's preferences when it comes to a guys physical traits as well as their cultures' ideals for "handsomeness" to consider. Personally, I like asian guys, but other girls may like guys with brown hair or dark skin. "Handsomeness" is totally subjective and can't be measured like a frog's number of chucks.
The fact that we are advancing one step further in tackling a horrible disease such as malaria is very exciting. The idea of creating spermless male mosquitoes is a great idea in my book! Personally, I despise mosquitoes more than anything in the world. The thought of an insect biting me without me knowing, and then using my own blood as nourishment to birth more baby bloodsuckers gives me a major case of the heebie-jeebies. Plus, though the United States is nearly malaria free, it is daunting to think that the little insect causing me to itch is causing millions of others in the world to die. In fact, according to nothingbutnets.net, every 45 seconds a child in Africa dies of a malaria infection. I even remember watching an episode of the Most Extreme that placed mosquitoes as the number one most deadly insect on this planet. For these reasons, I think it is a wonderful idea to trick the female mosquitoes into wasting their one chance at mating and fertilizing eggs. The one concern that I have about scientists playing “god” with the reproduction of the Anopheles gambiae is that mosquitoes are a part of the diet of many animals, such as bats. If the mosquito population were to suddenly crash, it would possibly damage many food chains in the environment. But if other species’ populations can still be sustained while the spread of malaria is lessened, I think that this could be a scientific breakthrough.
I find the thought that females can technically control the evolution of male handsomeness to be interesting, and pretty scary for that matter! Still, although this idea of females putting a cap on male mating traits because of “overkill” might be true in species such as the túngara frogs, I don’t think that this applies to humans. This is simply because with humans, there is no set formula for attraction. While frogs may simply attract a female by the number of times they croak, in humans there are a lot more factors that go into finding a mate. Like everyone, I believe that though looks are one thing, personality has a lot to do with whether you are attracted to someone or not. So even if someone’s face may be perfectly symmetrical, it doesn’t mean that they are attractive on the inside. My eight grade science teacher even told us that the number one thing that girls look for in a guy is someone that can make them laugh, not who is the most attractive. (Though looks still play a big factor.) As for a guy being overly attractive, I also agree with everyone in saying that this would only be a turnoff for girls if they were intimidated and thought that they weren’t good enough for that guy. Even so, that good looking guy might be a complete jerk and therefore turn down potential girls as well. The phrase “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” forever holds true!
The first article was a great example of survival of the fittest, which is "the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life." In this case, the human race has once again triumphed over other animals such as the Anopheles Gambiae mosquito, when Catteruccia and Thailayil found a way to stop the spread of malaria: spermless (yet healthy!) males. As the idea of stopping the spread of malaria and saving countless amounts of lives sounds beneficial for humans, there are still several factors that cause controversy over the topic. Personally, I don't consider this as "playing God" at all, but as Camille S. said, more harm than good may be done when humans abuse the power to control the reproduction of another species. Another thing to consider is what would happen if these mosquitos are gone from the environment. Although many have said that they are good for nothing, I'm sure they have some role in nature and removing them would cause a domino effect that may damage other species. As long as a consequence for tampering with nature is inevitable, I don't think it would be a smart idea to release spermless mosquitos on a larger scale.
When it comes to túngara frogs, males attract females by the number of chucks and whines they can perform. However, at a certain point, the females can no longer differentiate between 50 chucks and 55 chucks. This is the reason why female frogs control the evolution of male handsomeness; males have no reason to evolve into frogs with more chucks, because it doesn't make a difference when competing for a mate. As for humans, I don't think there is anyone that is too attractive. Humans are complex beings and everyone has their own definition of beauty. Personality also plays a role in attractiveness, since physical beauty is only skin deep.
Malaria is the cause of many deaths around the world and the fact the scientists created a way to fight it is remarkable. Targeting the zpg gene and generating spermless male mosquitoes. Although it's only a small step and cannot be deployed on a large scale, it is still groundbreaking what Catteruccia and Thailayil were able to do. Since mosquitoes can only mate once, and mating with a infertile male will cause a control in population and no offspring. If this technique can be perfected and used on a larger scale can save so many lives.
It's hard to compared humans and frogs because human females look for other things in addition to looks, such as personality, while female frogs look for whines and chucks. I find it interesting though that attractiveness is a factor in evolution, I never even thought of something like that before.
In most cases, I would be opposed to any human interference in the proliferation of another species. "Playing God" can seem harmless at first, but it can quickly spiral out of control. It is incredibly difficult to determine when it is appropriate to interfere with natural processes, and for that matter, if it is even appropriate at all. However, I feel that the sterilization of mosquitos as mentioned in the first article would be less harmful than it would be beneficial. Mosquitos are certainly not in danger of extinction, and they can be found all over the world. The only problem I see with controlling the mosquito population through sterilization would be the implications it may have for the future. If it is acceptable to control the reproduction of one species, how long will it be before scientists begin looking into this practice with other more complex organisms? How will scientists know when to stop interfering with nature?
After reading the second article, I had trouble imagining how being ridiculously attractive could ever affect a human male negatively. After some further consideration, I would say that this is indirectly applicable to humans. Although there is no limit on a human female's perception of attractiveness, an incredibly attractive male can be very intimidating. Females may decide against approaching the attractive male entirely to avoid rejection, or they might be uncomfortable with the amount of attention he receives from other females.
Mosquitoes, being one of the most annoying creatures ever created, have failed to gain favor from humans. They not only are highly irritating, perpetually aggravating by nature, and completely injurious in their functions, but also a valid danger to humans in third world countries. Through sterilizing male mosquitoes, science is able to ultimately control the reproduction of these helpless species. Practically speaking, this innovation can lead to the means of controlling and ultimately one day ending malaria. However retrospectively, if one were to view this experiment through a more moral approach, this practice can prose an ethical dilemma. My concern with the practice of genetically tampering with the reproduction of the mosquito, is not so much in terms of the actual mosquito populace but more so the fundamental concept; if we are able to interfere with the reproduction of species inferior to us, then what would stop us with hampering with every species that generates a dilemma for our race. Although this concern is not directly applicable to the actual testing itself, I still feel that humans should restrain their intervention with other species. Though we are superior in intellect and more influential in maintaining the equilibrium of the world, we still carry a sense of responsibility and dependability for the well being of species less significant. It is excellent that we have built the foundation for a future remedy from malaria, however if no ceiling is put to the level of interference permitted to humans, I fear we will completely terminate all mosquitoes and unintentionally alter the entire food chain and natural equilibrium between humans and adjacent species.
Though, like frogs, we are species who have distinct definition for what is in general attractive, as humans the overall dynamic of attraction is far more complex then that of other species. Beauty is not simply the symmetry of one’s face or the level of resemblance to the publicized attractiveness; beauty can be identified more through the use of a sixth emotion rather than sight. Wow, I seem to be completely trailing off without actually answering the prompt…
I found it highly remarkable the whole concept of how female frogs have an intuitive cape which abridges the ability to differentiate between levels of attractiveness and desirability. Presumptuous perhaps, but I feel that this attraction cap theory is completely applicable to us humans. This ceiling exists obviously in a different form than that of frogs and other species. Possibly it may be that overall level of attraction; the “line” or list of prerequisites in which once a person passes is placed into a general category and thus labeled as “attractive”. It’s difficult to verbally articulate what I want to get across, but I think everyone knows the feeling. It’s the subjective line between absolute acceptable attractiveness and questionable attractiveness. This category in which the struggle between “good looking” and “better looking” does not pertain can be compared to attraction of the female frog to the frog with the fifty second croak and the one with the fifty third croak. “Good looks” and the actual act of attraction are completely different themes. That which the article focuses on is not the attraction between humans but rather the innate cape on the female’s distinction between the levels of desirability. Paralleling human attraction to that of a frog’s attraction is difficult however existing in certain cases.
I found the first article to be the more interesting of the two. Though I despise mosquitoes with a passion, I think we should be more careful with choosing how to limit the mosquito population. Eliminating a major portion of a population of any species can have serious effects on the ecosystem. Also, even though this method seems to be working, I cannot help but wonder what if overtime the use of sterile mosquitoes wears off. "Life" found a way to exist from nothing more than simple elements and I don't think scientists can keep new life from being created for too long. I dont think it is playing with god, instead I feel we need to limit our own population. I read not to long ago that humans have actually overpopulated the earth and are putting an enormous strain on it. I believe that many problems in the world can be solved if we cut down on our global population.
I think that the second article brings up an excellent point of how handsomeness plays a key role in finding a mate, but I think it applies for the most part to the animals. I believe that humans no longer follow this notion since the start of civilization, most notably with the creation of money. I believe that money and wealth along with other qualities have influenced women over their choice of mates for the last couple thousand years and I believe that unless us humans no longer have money, physical qualities will play less and less of a role in selecting a mate.
I found it interesting that Flamina Catteruccia and Janis Thailayil found such a genius way to prevent the spread of malaria by targeting the zpg gene! It's amazing that the female mosquitoes choose equally between the male mosquitoes with sperm and the sperm less male mosquitoes. I do not believe they are playing God so much because this is a tactic to keep the human race safe and save lives! That is always okay, in my book. Plus, I don't care for mosquitoes, anyway.
I feel like females DO mess with the attractiveness of males! Mentally, of course. I mean, in the ancient times, women were drawn to big belly men draped in fine cloth and jewelry. Now when we see guys walking down the street like that...well...some ladies might like that, but society as a whole? Not so much. Skinny guys back in the ancient times were seen as poor and weak. Now fashion magazines have skinny guys modeling all over and are portrayed as the sleek and hip. Times have changed, and so are the way we look at men.
On the other hand, I don't believe a guy being TOO attractive, although a guy being very attractive opposed to an average guy can take an emotional toll on a woman. If Taylor Launtner went to my school, I'd be far too nervous to talk to him...I mean look at him, he's precious. Most girls don't make the first step to talk to a cute guy because of the fear of being rejected. If that's what you mean by "too attractive", then yes, a guy CAN be too attractive in a sense of girls actions towards him. The average Joe might be a bit easier to talk to since he's not this giant hunk and it doesn't matter if you get rejected by him...he's average! I wonder if this actually makes sense to guys...probably not.
For the first article, I found what Catteruccia and Thailayil were doing about the mosquito problem full of many advantages. Getting rid of malaria in mosquitoes would be an amazing thing to do for those countries affected by the disease. Many countries are struggling to survive and if there was a way to stop the spread of malaria it would only help them. Creating a male that cannot produce sperm is an interesting idea. Obviously this would make it so that the women mosquitoes could not reproduce. It was also interesting how they made sure that the affected males were still fit enough to compete with other males. The scientists knew that in order for this method to work, the females still needed to be attracted to them. Hopefully in the near future they come up with a way to perfect the sterilization of the males. I really like the idea of scientists doing this. They could help out a lot of people that really need it and prevent the spread of a deadly disease.
The second article, “Females can control the evolution of male handsomeness” was very insightful. It’s interesting to learn that males develop certain traits and try to become as handsome as possible for females. Like what Dana said earlier, “females dominate all relationships.” This article proves this statement. Even in a species of frog, the males have to develop beauty or sound to impress the other gender. The Females control how much the males evolve and can choose which males are good enough to mate with. This is an interesting concept because it shows that women really are dominant in the relationship. However, the question of being too attractive does reveal itself. There is a moment where being the most attractive male is taken too far. I believe that the article is true in saying that there’s only so much we can handle. HOWEVER, being extremely attractive NEVER hurt anyone. I agree with Deepa on the thank you for the pics of Beckham, Brad Pit, and Taylor. It was greatly appreciated. :)
Malaria affects millions of people around the world mostly in underdeveloped nations in Africa, Asia, and South America. Fighting malaria is important, but it is also important we do not cause more damage from the ways we fight this disease. The proposed method mentioned in this article, by targeting the zpg gene to alter germ cell development to produce sterile male mosquitoes, can cause problems later on. Mosquitoes are organisms part of an ecosystem, and they to play a role in the balance of an ecosystem. They are a main food source for some organisms and are responsible to some degree of pollination. This proposed method if used on a large scale, will drastically reduce the population of mosquitoes, which can cause problems to other organisms who rely on mosquitoes for food and create a domino effect. We have to look at the big picture, and also at the risks of using such methods. Mosquitoes are not the only cause of malaria, they just carry the disease. What actually harms humans is the parasite itself, and we should target this instead of mosquitoes which are only half responsible for the outbreak of malaria.
Frogs are too different then humans to be even compared to them in any way. We are much more complex than frogs when it comes to out emotional and sensitive side. We dont just look at one thing when we determine if this person is attractive or not. Personality is a key factor.
Ever since, I've always pondered on how mosquitos exist and what they are really use for here on Earth. They've been here long before men. I've heard that they play an important role on the food chain and an ecological niche for the environment. If they were extinct, I guess this would affect the entire ecosystem enormously. Yet again, knowing that this so called "Anopheles gambiae" mosquito carries malaria and causes over a million deaths worldwide every year can give me a frightful concern. But after reading this article about the milestone they've discovered gave me a relief, but the only problem is leaving these mosquitos "weak and being unable to compete for female attention." I get the idea of the whole save lives thing, but I think messing with life of another species can be "risque" and cause controversy. Hopefully, they can make a big improvement on this malaria research.
As though I appreciate the links in your post, i think they are not as attractive to me. People have different interests in a boy. I find it very interesting how there are different ways of how different species find others attractive, such as us humans are attracted to looks and frogs are calls. It's fascinating how there's a limit on male mating calls. As to humans, males can go overboard on their appearance. I've found that a very good looking guy won't appeal to as many women because the guy would not be approachable or would be "too good" for us. There's no use in trying to be too attractive. In other words, I agree with the title of the article as females are the ones to control evolution. As I heard this quote somewhere before, "Women inherits the Earth."
In the first article, If we decide to control a the population of a species we are essentially killing them. We should just accept it and move on. If we were to try to control the mosquitoe population we would drive ourselves crazy. Say somehow the mosquitoes escape their containers, then since their genetics might've been altered to control their reproduction who knows what they could be capable of doing. In the second article, sometimes women think a man is too handsome so they dont believe and make themselvesw believe that he has some type of flaw. This way they r can prove to themselves that he really isn't all that great to look at even though he is. Also, nowadays the world is highly driven by money and other superficial things. This causes a mans handsomeness to not be so important anymore.
Post a Comment