Scientists develop STD that could wipe out mosquitoes
The fungus, Metarhizium, is sprayed on male mosquitoes and produces neurotoxins that kill females, while also making the mosquitoes more susceptible to insecticides.
Scientists have also been able to genetically alter male mosquitoes to produce venom proteins in their semen that can reduce the lifespan of females.
Mosquitoes, while serving as a food source and pollinators, are the world's deadliest animal, responsible for transmitting diseases like malaria, West Nile virus, and eastern equine encephalitis.
Bioethicists and environmental philosophers have raised concerns about the ecological impact of potentially eradicating mosquitoes, considering their role in ecosystems and the broader biodiversity crisis.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
12 hours ago
- BBC News
Nasa's Mars Orbiter is on a roll
Computers, phones and consoles can sometimes get a bit out of date and need an update - and Nasa have been 'rolling out' one special update, up in nearly 20 years in space, Nasa's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) has finally learned how to roll over. Scientists say the skills will mean it can look deeper and further on its hunt for water and other liquids on the red planet. But it's not as easy as just giving a command - a regular roll has to be planned weeks in advanced with only one or two large rolls performed once a year. What is the Mars Orbiter? The orbiter has been circling Mars since original mission was to search for evidence of water on Mars' surface, but after it completed that two-year mission, Nasa decided it was doing such a good job they extended has now spent years doing things like monitoring how Mars changes through the seasons, and searching the planet for places for human-made objects like the Perseverance rover to land. How does the Mars orbiter roll? Teaching the orbitor to get better at rolling isn't as simple as you might could always move a bit side to side but not too much because it has lots of different scientific instruments on board. These don't all point the same way, so when MRO moves to focus one instrument on one thing, the other instruments can go out of whack. Experts have compared it to turning your head to look at something while trying to hear or smell something, somewhere else, at the same time. So to do a successful and useful roll the computer had to given a complex set of instructions to follow so everything could still work plan isn't to do too many of these stunts in but it shows that even after more than ten years in space, Nasa are still finding new jobs for their travelling machines, far off in the solar system.
Daily Mail
15 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Drug taken by millions of women could raise breast cancer risk in young women, study finds
Giving younger women certain types of hormone replacement therapy could raise their breast cancer risk, concerning research today suggested. The treatment, also known as HRT, was first linked to the disease more than two decades ago, with debate about its safety causing confusion and concern for millions of women ever since. Most studies examining the risk have been explored in older women, who take it to help menopause symptoms. In the young it is often taken after gynaecological surgery or during perimenopause. But US scientists have now discovered that oestrogen plus synthetic progesterone HRT increased the risk of breast cancer in women under 55 by a tenth. Yet, oestrogen HRT alone appeared to decrease the risk by almost a sixth. Experts today, who labelled the findings important, said they should now influence a clinician's decision whether to prescribing the drug to certain women is the best course of action. They did, however, caution that the risk of developing breast cancer due to HRT remains 'small' and is 'outweighed by the benefits'. Writing in the prestigious journal Lancet Oncology, scientists at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, based in North Carolina, said: 'The findings can be used to augment clinical recommendations for hormone therapy use in young women, for whom guidance was previously scarce. They added: 'Oestrogen [only] hormone therapy use appears to decrease breast cancer risk and oestrogen plus progesterone appears to increase breast cancer risk.' Back in 2018, fewer than 1.3 million NHS patients were being prescribed HRT, a safe and cheap medicine proven to effectively combat the most debilitating menopause symptoms. Today this figure has doubled, with about 2.6 million women now on the medication, which replenishes the female sex hormones oestrogen and progesterone that are lost during the menopause. There are different types of HRT available which contain different hormones—some are oestrogen alone, others contain progestogen while a third type contains both—and can be taken in the form of gels, patches or pills. Previous research has suggested women who have already been through the menopause have an increased risk of breast cancer taking oestrogen plus progesterone HRT, due to longer exposure to the hormone. In the fresh study, scientists examined data drawn from previous studies of 459,476 women aged 16 to 54 years old. Two per cent of this group (8,455) developed young-onset breast cancer, which means the disease was diagnosed before they were 55 years old. Some 15 per cent of women involved in the study reported using HRT, with oestrogen plus progestin HRT and oestrogen HRT being the most common types. They found that oestrogen appeared to reduce the risk of young breast cancer by 14 per cent while oestrogen plus progestin therapy increased risk by 10 per cent. Responding to the findings, Dr Kotryna Temcinaite, head of research communications at the charity Breast Cancer Now, said: 'This large scale study offers useful insights for women aged under 55. 'These results are largely in line with what we already know about taking HRT for menopausal symptoms and its effects on breast cancer risk—for most people, the risk of developing breast cancer because of taking HRT is small and is outweighed by the benefits. 'The risk is higher the longer you take it, and the risk is higher with combined HRT compared to oestrogen-only HRT. 'Taking HRT is a very personal decision and, as such, it's vital that everyone has the information they need on the benefits and risks, discusses them with their GP or specialist team and is supported to make the choice that's right for them.' Separate research has previously linked HRT tablets—which are less commonly used in the UK—with an increased risk of blood clots and strokes. One in seven women in the UK are diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime around 56,000 a year—making it the most common cancer in the UK. The figure stands at roughly 300,000 annually in the US. Around 85 per cent of women diagnosed with breast cancer survive more than five years. Earlier this year, however, a shock NHS survey found women are avoiding mammograms because they are worried about being topless, think it will hurt, or haven't found a lump. Figures show that currently a third of women asked for screening do not attend. That rises to almost half of women who are invited for the first time.
The Independent
16 hours ago
- The Independent
The surprising job AI won't replace any time soon
As AI systems expand their already impressive capacities, there is an increasingly common belief that the field of computer science (CS) will soon be a thing of the past. This is being communicated to today's prospective students in the form of well-meaning advice, but much of it amounts to little more than hearsay from individuals who, despite their intelligence, speak outside of their expertise. High-profile figures like Nobel Prize -winning economist Christopher Pissarides have made this argument, and as a result, it has taken root on a much more mundane level – I have even personally heard high school careers advisers dismiss the idea of studying CS outright, despite having no knowledge of the field itself. These claims typically share two common flaws. First among them is that the advice comes from people who are not computer scientists. Secondly, there is a widespread misunderstanding of what computer science actually involves. AI and the myth of code replacement It is not wrong to say that AI can write computer code from prompts, just as it can generate poems, recipes and cover letters. It can boost productivity and speed up workflow, but none of this eliminates the value of human input. Writing code is not synonymous with CS. One can learn to write code without ever attending a single university class, but a CS degree goes far beyond this one skill. It involves, among many other things, engineering complex systems, designing infrastructure and future programming languages, ensuring cybersecurity and verifying systems for correctness. AI cannot reliably do these tasks, nor will it be able to in the foreseeable future. Human input remains essential, but pessimistic misinformation risks steering tens of thousands of talented students away from important, meaningful careers in this vital field. What AI can and can't do AI excels at making predictions. Generative AI enhances this by adding a user-friendly presentation layer to internet content – it rewrites, summarises and formats information into something that resembles a human's work. However, current AI does not genuinely 'think'. Instead, it relies on logical shortcuts, known as heuristics, that sacrifice precision for speed. This means that, despite speaking like a person, it cannot reason, feel, care, or desire anything. It does not work in the same way as a human mind. Not long ago, it seemed that 'prompt engineering' would replace CS. Today, however, there are virtually no job postings for prompt engineers, while companies like LinkedIn report that the responsibilities of CS professionals have actually expanded. Where AI falls short What AI provides is more powerful tools for CS professionals to do their jobs. This means they can now take concepts further – from ideation to market deployment – while requiring fewer support roles and more technical leadership. There are, however, many areas where specialised human input is still essential, whether for trust, oversight or the need for human creativity. Examples abound, but there are 10 areas that stand out in particular: Adapting a hedge fund algorithm to new economic conditions. This requires algorithmic design and deep understanding of markets, not just reams of code. Diagnosing intermittent cloud service outages from providers like Google or Microsoft. AI can troubleshoot on a small scale, but it cannot contextualise large-scale, high-stakes troubleshooting. Rewriting code for quantum computers. AI cannot do this without extensive examples of successful implementations (which do not currently exist). Designing and securing a new cloud operating system. This involves high-level system architecture and rigorous testing that AI cannot perform. Creating energy-efficient AI systems. AI cannot spontaneously invent lower-power GPU code or reinvent its own architecture. Building secure, hacker-proof, real-time control software for nuclear power plants. This requires embedded systems expertise to be mixed with the translation of code and system design. Verifying that a surgical robot's software works under unpredictable conditions. Safety-critical validation exceeds AI's current scope. Designing systems to authenticate email sources and ensure integrity. This is a cryptographic and multi-disciplinary challenge. Auditing and improving AI-driven cancer prediction tools. This requires human oversight and continuous system validation. Building the next generation of safe and controllable AI. Evolving towards safer AI cannot be done by AI itself – this is a human responsibility. Why Computer Science is still indispensable One thing is certain: AI will reshape how engineering and Computer Science are done. But what we are faced with is a shift in working methods, not a wholesale destruction of the field. Whenever we face an entirely new problem or complexity, AI alone will not suffice for one simple reason: it depends entirely on past data. Maintaining AI, building new platforms, and developing fields like trustworthy AI and AI governance, therefore, all require CS. The only scenario in which we might not need CS is if we reach a point where we no longer expect any new languages, systems, tools, or future challenges. This is vanishingly unlikely. Some argue that AI may eventually perform all of these tasks. It's not impossible, but even if AI became this advanced, it would place almost all professions at equal risk. One of the few exceptions would be those who build, control, and advance AI. There is a historical precedent to this: during the Industrial Revolution, factory workers were displaced at a 50 to 1 ratio as a result of rapid advances in machinery and technology. In that case, the workforce actually grew with a new economy, but most of the new workers were those who could operate or fix machines, develop new machines, or design new factories and processes around machinery. During this period of massive upheaval, technical skills were actually the most in-demand, not the least. Today, the parallel holds true: technical expertise, especially in CS, is more valuable than it ever has been. Let's not confuse the next generation with the opposite message.
