Genetic modification to eradicate populations of organisms carrying detrimental diseases that pose as a threat to humans, sounds like an ethical solution to prevent the further spread of diseases such as malaria. Historically, malaria spreads fast and wipes out portions of the human population around the globe. It is not a simple disease to treat, especially in poverty-stricken communities. What if CRISPR as a genetic drive system could help prevent malaria from spreading further? Should we take advantage of this genetic modification system to preserve human life?

Andrew Hammond and several other scientists, summarize the potential of CRISPR technology to the extent that it meets the bare minimum for the development of a gene drive needed to target female reproduction in mosquito and other insect populations. They state in the article that the findings that have come out of the research of CRISPR technology have the potential to expedite the development of gene drives so that they can gradually eliminate mosquito populations to the point where the post-CRISPR population will not support malaria transmission.

The status quo often teaches us to find the quickest solutions to the most prevalent threats, however in the ecological sense, eliminating populations of insects through artificial modification can bring consequences to the overall ecosystem. Although we are a completely different species from mosquitos altogether, we still coexist with them and infections that occur in nature are exactly that, natural. Eliminating mosquitos with CRISPR technology modifying the female mosquito ecosystem, will gradually over time, mess with the immune system of human beings. This is just a first stem to immune systems in human beings growing to become more sensitive the more we try to use science to make the world to be what we think is perfect for our species. CRISPR technology, if used sparingly and for the right reasons, can save populations of people, however it has the power to “substantially reduce mosquito populations”, which in fact messes with the natural occurrence of that species’ reproduction in nature.

To conclude, CRISPR technology is an awe-inspiring discovery that will definitely benefit human beings, however I believe that the focus, in terms of preventing malaria, should be on advancing repellant products for humans (creams, repellent sprays, etc.), instead of outrightly messing with the natural course of nature. Science technology should benefit the immunity of humans and the growth of humans, instead being used in the ecosystem on a large scale with potential consequences for living things everywhere.

Plants are the number one source of food for consumption to all herbivores in the environment. Herbivores naturally do not think twice before consuming certain plants that they believe adhere to their natural system, therefore they are generally unaware of the defenses plants exert to purge them. Research scientists H.M. Appel and R.B. Cocroft at the University of Missouri found out that plants can actually feel the vibrations of insects feeding on them. They also found out that the vibrations caused by insects chewing on plants versus birds caused plants to exert different chemical defenses than when plants could sense vibrations through the wind or insect song.

The main focus of Appel and Cocroft’s experiment was to really focus on the ecological significance of plant responses to vibrations rather than simply observing that plants react to vibrations, which has been an apparent conclusion that has been drawn from experiments on plants, for a long time. The goal of the experiment was to focus on acoustic energy, a unique observance of sound in an ecosystem. When one thinks of the term acoustic, word association of the term is often paired with music, however, one of the goals of the experiment was to communicate how acoustic energy should not just be put in a box with music, but that it is present in several other sources in the natural environment. As mentioned earlier, an early emphasis in the article was on vibrations, or rather, acoustic energy induced by insects. Appel and Cocroft explicitly state that, “We suggest that the vibrations produced by chewing herbivores are an important source of acoustic energy for plants. If plants can detect and use this conspicuous, reliable and rapidly transmitted source of information about herbivore feeding, tissues far from the site of attack could use feeding vibrations to respond quickly to the threat of herbivory.”

Appel and Cocroft went through a few experiments to validate this apparent fact of the ecosystem. In the first experiment, they studied leaves only after they were fed on to just solely focus on potential defenses they might have elicited after sensing vibration. In their second experiment however, they observed reaction of the plants that had never been fed on before in order to separate out “priming from direct effects of chewing vibrations on plant responses.”

The plant that Appel and Cocroft Chose to experiment with was the A. Thaliana plant, and they were grown in individual pots in order to be experimented with each individual goal of the study. The 4 caterpillars that were used for the experiment were of the P. rapae species and the vibrations of them chewing on the plant was recorded “at 24.5 ± 1 °C with laser Doppler vibrometry.”

After all the different variations that Appel and Cocroft chose to take with their experiments, they communicated their results which were that aliphatic glucosinolates were higher in the plants that had experienced herbivory previously than in the plants that had never felt a single vibration in their life.