DAKAR, 19 February (IRIN) - Anopheles gambiae may meet its match in Medea.
Scientists hope a synthetic gene known as Medea can wipe out the most common mosquito species that spreads malaria in sub-Saharan Africa. Scientists are trying to pinpoint the malaria-transmitting gene in mosquitoes and engineer genetically-modified mosquitoes (GMM) that lack the deadly gene. The hope is that GMM will prevail in a survival-of-the-fittest struggle between disease-carrying mosquitoes and the genetically-modified variety.
Medea is an acronym for "maternal-effect dominant embryonic arrest", with reference to the Greek myth of a woman who murders her children.
In a recently published analysis of GMM research, scientists from the University of California wrote that the creation of a gene that could reduce mosquitoes' ability to spread malaria "is not far away". But given some 400 million infections annually - mostly in sub-Saharan Africa - GMM cannot provide an "all-in-one" solution, according to the scientists.
--
R Koppenleitner
mailto:RKoppenleitner@t-online.de
Dear Colleagues
I am encouraged by the widespread interest in malaria ... and the significant increases in funding that have been achieved.
But I am less impressed by the way the money is being used. Maybe $1.5 billion in 2007 and perhaps more in 2008 ... but feedback about progress rather limited, and from what one can see achieved not by the big spend on research and distributing bednets, but by the much small expenditures on interior residual spraying (IRS) and especially IRS using DDT as well as source control.
In terms of cost effectiveness IRS using DDT and source control are way better than other interventions in almost all malarial settings.
I do not want to get in the way of research into advanced science ... but at the same time the spend on advanced research must be weighed against the value of using these moneys for malaria control using effective available interventions.
I am always concerned about the question of sustainability. From my perspective good health is a valuable outcome of good development ... and sustainable where there is viable economic activity when the focus is on disease prevention rather than merely focusing on cure. Part of disease prevention is easy local access to affordable healthcare ... that is having health infrastructure near the community where people live, and having enough staff and materials to do the basic work including reliable diagnosis and treatment. Sadly this infrastructure is missing or compromised in most poor parts of the world ... and disease wins.
Part of an intelligent or smart malaria management program should be accessible health infrastructure ... and a system for surveillance and making early intervention to stop the spread of malaria around the community. This is basic work ... not rocket science ... but very effective when it is done as part of the malaria management program.
It seems that there is a strong correlation between access to health services and good health ... which should not be a surprise. However, I sense that this is not much of a driver of the way funds are being allocated.
Sincerely
Peter
--
Peter Burgess
The Transparency and Accountability Network: Tr-Ac-Net in New York
http://www.tr-ac-net.org
Community Analytics (CA)
Integrated Malaria Management Consortium (IMMC)
917 432 1191 or 212 772 6918
mailto:peterbnyc@gmail.com