Bill Gate’s recent proposal to help fund malaria research had me thinking that the most effective way of restricting this devastating disease could be something quite different…and possibly just as worrying in itself.

So we’re pretty much done with this years TED and there have been some interesting little “debates”. Is hard-core porn an acceptable substitute to sex education? Probably not. Should robots be used in war and to what extent? Probably yes, probably for everything and probably it would have been regardless of TED. But how about the current funding of Malaria research? It was an interesting topic especially as it was brought up by none other than Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates.

In reality this was probably more of a publicity stunt for Mr.Retired Millionaire allowing him to retain his charitable image with the public; yet regardless of the motive donating that level of funds for research such as this is always worthy. If you want more details about TED and the debates that raged along side it, head over here: BBC News

In reality this blog is about something a little different. It’s about the cure for Malaria; or at least a possibility of one. Now I’m not claiming a great deal of knowledge into the areas of Malaria and may well have some of my facts completely wrong but from my viewpoint this is the basics:
* Malaria is a virus transmitted within mosquitoes that can cause death, intense pain and a whole lot of other effects.
* Once contracted it sticks with you for life, no matter how long that is and can resurface at any time.
* It can be treated and it can be prevented. We have relatively good forms of inoculation but only in pills so treatment can be expensive and is required to be maintained for life in malaria hot zones.
* Hundreds of thousands of people contract malaria each year. A large proportion of them die as a result.
* There are some natural immunities caused by genetically altered haemoglobin in the blood yet these can lead to just as many issues as contracting malaria would in the first case and so are not an answer.
* The disease is transmitted when mosquitoes “bite” due to the opening of the blood stream and can rapidly take hold.
* Mosquitoes get nothing out of being carriers.
* Eradication of the insects is not an answer. It would screw up ecosystems for a start but it is also completely impractical and, further, would appear to also be impossible.

That said there seems little we can do but keep striving away for a cure. Unfortunately mosquitoes reproduce very quickly so even if we did manage to create a cure it would be a  constant battle against viral mutation.

Thus it seems quite hopeless. However there is another route that I feel (again stressing my minimal knowledge) could provide a silver lining of sorts. It is certainly not without issue; morally alone it will be hard to push for. Morally? Something that could save thousands of lives each year? Yes, unfortunately morality will come into this. I personally believe our best bet is genetic modification.

Now don’t get me wrong, I am no proponent for this course of action. I hate the notion of GM crops yet I can also see that GM techniques and products could seriously help the human race and I feel combating malaria is one of these instances. So how would it work?

My idea is probably a little far-fetched right now but I would suggest genetically altering mosquitoes so that they cannot carry the malaria virus. Period. This would result in complete eradication and should leave little gap open for mutation to resurrect it. Now that alone won’t be enough. Mosquitoes breed rapidly and so even a large placement of GM insects would not necessarily destroy the non-GM populations; there would be room for both. No, we must also employ natural selection. Make the GM insects slightly faster, slightly stronger; not record breaking stuff just an edge over competition. With the short lives of the insects I honestly believe in just a few generations you could be looking at a large percentage of GM over regular mosquitoes. If releases were done intelligently and with plenty of prior research I honestly think it could be the answer to many bug-borne diseases. Whats more even if some areas retained malaria, case numbers would be down so much charitable organisations could actually help everyone left that contracted the disease.

Like I said this line of thought is not without possible complications. The science is almost there but it would take a while of experimenting to achieve the desired result. The effects on current ecosystems would have to be monitored very closely to make sure the scheme had no negative impact and of course the possibility of inter-breeding leading to some freakish super malaria is ever present. But honestly I would think this is the more logical approach even if it seems very “sci-fi” and heavy handed. The human population in malarial areas is ever increasing (as are the areas themselves, what with global climate change) and we simply cannot protect that many people in the worlds poorest regions. Eradicate the virus by removing the host, though, and you could save thousands of people each year.

Oh and of course, whilst we’re at it we could make mosquito bites less itchy for ourselves *wink*

“The art of medicine consists of amusing the patient while nature cures the disease.” ~ Voltaire

Advertisement