Pandas and Mosquitoes

Who cares of mosquitoes? The world could go ahead without them, wouldn't it?  Jens Hegg, PhD candidate in the Water Resources program at the University of Idaho, disagrees. His post, published on July 1, on Plos Ecology, is a cautionary plea for thinking twice before intentionally provoking mosquito extinction. Hegg's starting point is the actual possibility that novel gene editing technology could be used to eradicate these insects. CRISPR-Cas9 technology could be used to modify mosquitoes' genome by inserting an allele detrimental to the survival. Coupled with engineered genes drives this modification could rapidly spread, eventually leading to eradicate mosquitoes worldwide.

Hegg raises many objections to this strategy. He notices that "mosquitoes are pollinators of numerous species, so their niche extends beyond simply being an annoying, painful disease vector and food for fish and bats. Can their role as pollinators be taken over quickly and easily by other species?" Ecosystems   are indeed much more complex and intertwined than we may guess and it is very difficult – if not impossible – to predict the effect of the extinction of a species. Yet, I don't want to discuss Hegg's arguments, rather to draw the reader's attention on a (minor) aspect of this story. Why – asks Hegg –  aren't ecologists, ethicists and philosophers protesting against the hypothesis of eradicating a species? Why do people - who are ready to mobilize themselves to protect unknown, exotic, species of fish - ignore trivial mosquitoes?

Some time ago, I happened to have a dinner with a colleague, a famous philosopher, strenuous supporter of animal rights. During the dinner, the conversation unavoidably went around on vegetarianism. My friend admitted that in principle he did not dislike eating beef but he refused to do it for ethical reasons. To butcher a lamb – he argued – is morally intolerable as to kill a baby. We were in summer, in a region invaded by mosquitoes and other annoying insects. I candidly asked him "But do you kill mosquitoes, don't you?". My friend waited a moment, then, he told that  "yes, I kill mosquitoes" but –  was his argument – insects are not feeling pain and emotions as animals belonging to higher species.  I still wonder how an intelligent person – as he was – could provide such a stupid answer. Who could know what a mosquito feels? How could one be as arrogant as to suppose to know what an insect could, or could not, experience?

Speaking of animals, we are all victim of the "Walt Disney' Syndrome", as I call the psychological phenomenon according to which people are sympathetic only with "nice" animals. There are some animals that have a "good press" and some others  that have not. For instance, bees are pleasant, mosquitoes are unbearable; white-tailed deer are lovely, snakes are repulsive; field mice are enjoyable, sewer rats are disgusting. Tell someone that you killed a chipmunk and he will look at you as you were Dr Mengele. Tell the same person that you killed a rat and he will congratulate. Sometimes (few) there are good reasons for our preferences,  more often they are only biases. For instance, a stray cat could transmit as many infectious diseases as a rat, but use against stray cats the same (barbarian) systems that we use to eliminate rats, and you will be probably jailed.

The "Walt Disney'' Syndrome" becomes important when we have to communicate risks connected to zoonosis. Animals are not emotionally neutral, and they are perceived positively or negatively, according to many variables, including culture and religion (e.g. one of the difficulty informing about swine flu in Muslim regions was related to the idea of impurity associated to pigs).  Are we "scientists" free from these prejudges? I doubt. Suppose someone proposes to eradicate pandas in order to fight an (hypothetical) epidemics. Are you sure that the scientific discussion would be as serene and measured as the current debate about mosquitoes?