Scientists make breakthrough in controlling mosquito populations: 'This approach has ... important implications'
A team of scientists from Burkina Faso and the United States exposed a group of adult male Anopheles coluzzii mosquitoes — a major malaria vector in West Central Africa — to fungal spores. Some males were exposed to a wild-type fungal strain, while others were infected with a transgenic strain expressing insect-specific toxins.
News Medical Life Sciences summarized the study, explaining that up to 89.33% of the females died within two weeks after mating with a male that had been treated with the transgenic fungi. Meanwhile, around 68% of the females died after mating with a male treated with the wild-type fungi. But the males didn't remain infectious forever; scientists found that the effects started wearing off after about 24 hours.
Do you worry about getting diseases from bug bites?
Absolutely
Only when I'm camping or hiking
Not really
Never
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
The new research could serve as an important tool in the fight against mosquito-borne diseases like malaria, which killed over half a million people in 2023, according to the World Health Organization. Meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that an estimated 400 million people are infected with dengue virus each year, with 21,000 dying.
According to a number of scientists, these statistics are only expected to increase as our planet continues to overheat. For instance, the Stanford Report asserted that warmer temperatures, changes in rainfall, and human activity are enabling the spread of mosquitoes to new locations. The publication pointed out that in 2023, Florida and Texas experienced their first locally transmitted malaria cases in 20 years. And European health officials recently announced at least 19 cases of Oropouche, a mosquito-borne virus that had previously never been recorded on that continent.
The new fungi study is far from the only breakthrough when it comes to controlling disease-carrying mosquito populations. For example, one team of American scientists recently discovered that adding soap to certain mosquito-killing pesticides made the formulations 10 times stronger. And a recent analysis of the world's first malaria vaccine found that it reduced death among young children by 13% over the course of a four-year pilot program.
Nor is this the first time that scientists have experimented with fungi to kill mosquitoes. However, the authors noted that the traditional application method has been via direct contact of spores with indoor resting mosquitoes, which has its limitations.
"Many malaria-transmitting mosquitoes feed and rest outdoors," the researchers stated. "To target these, we have developed an alternative application method that exploits the lethality of transgenic fungi as a sexually transmitted mosquito disease. This approach has both a wider interdisciplinary significance and important implications for preventing mosquito-borne diseases."
Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
What Most American Women Don't Know When It Comes to Breast Cancer Screening
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. More than half of American women may be confused about when to start having regular mammograms to screen for breast cancer. This is the finding of a survey by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center, which revealed the greatest uncertainty among younger women. Women with an average risk of breast cancer should start getting screened every two years from age 40 onwards, according to the latest guidance issued in April last year from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, an independent panel of medical experts. Mammograms enable doctors to detect cancer early, before symptoms become visible. Regular screening has been shown to decrease the risk of dying from breast cancer. Stock image of a woman undergoing a mammogram. Stock image of a woman undergoing a mammogram. peakSTOCK/iStock / Getty Images Plus "Confusion can arise when medical guidance about detection of treatment changes, as it has in recent years with mammograms," said Annenberg Public Policy Center director Kathleen Hall Jamieson in a statement. Recommendations have previously shifted from 40 up to 50 and then back down to 40 again. Confusing matters is how some medical groups offer different guidance. The American Cancer Society, for example, suggests that women start screening between 40–44, have mammograms annually from 45–54, and then every other year after that. Jamieson added: "Our data suggest that the recommendation that such screening ordinarily start at 40 years old is not yet widely enough known." A plot showing the results of the survey. A plot showing the results of the survey. Annenberg Public Policy Center The survey—which was conducted back in late April this year on a sample of more than 1,653 U.S. adults—found that only 49 percent of respondents knew that women are recommended to start having mammograms every other year from the age of 40 onward. Meanwhile, 10 percent said that screening should begin at age 20, 21 percent said age 30, 9 percent said age 50 and 11 responded that they weren't sure when they should start. (Each number is rounded to the nearest 1 percent, which accounts for why these figures do not add up to 100 percent.) Breaking down responses by age, the survey results suggest that there is a greater uncertainty on this topic among younger women. Specifically, only 37 percent of women aged 18–29 knew the correct age to start screening. In contrast, 72 percent of women aged 40–49, 63 percent aged 30–39 and 59 percent 50–74 knew that the current recommended age is 40. Alongside this, 16 percent of women aged 18–29 and 11 percent aged 30–39 reported that they were not at all sure when to begin regular screening; this figure was just one percent for women aged between 40–49. Among the 18–29 age group, the most commonly reported incorrect age for when to begin mammography was 30 (selected by 27 percent of women); this is a decade earlier than recommended. However, the most common misconception among those aged 30–39 (that is, approaching the recommended starting age of 40) was 50 years old—a decade later than current recommendations. Do you have a tip on a health story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have a question about mammograms? Let us know via health@ Reference Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. (2025). ASAPH W24 mammogram items.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Health Insurance CEO Pulls Back Curtain on Prior Auth Reform
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. This is a preview of Access Health—Tap here to get this newsletter delivered straight to your inbox. To commemorate the Fourth of July weekend, I have an American story for you. It's got all the Stars and Stripes: entrepreneurial spirits, bootstraps mentalities and the familiar drag of bureaucracy. For the past several months, I've been working on this feature story about how patient advocacy groups are changing the pace of health care, working to find and fund cures for their loved ones' rare diseases (and, in some cases, their own). What I found was a community of ordinary people doing extraordinary things—not because they had the time, training or resources, but because they had no other choice. Parents, spouses and patients have taken on roles once reserved for pharmaceutical executives and lab directors, plunging headfirst into grant writing, data sharing and even drug development. These patient advocates are becoming increasingly important to the field of rare disease research, Dr. Dominique Pichard, director of the NIH's National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences' (NCATS) division of rare disease research and innovation, told me. Less than 5 percent of known rare diseases have an FDA-approved treatment available. Research efforts tend to focus on impacting the most lives with the fewest resources, as grant funding is competitive and hard to come by. But this means that many rare diseases are left untouched. Conditions that impact fewer than 200,000 Americans are difficult to lobby for—and those that do garner attention still face challenges when looking to establish expert advisory panels or fill a clinical trial. That's where patient advocacy groups come in, compiling data, educating providers and serving as connectors between small populations and large research institutions. In some cases, their efforts have helped fast-track clinical trials. In others, they've secured the first-ever FDA-approved treatment for a rare disease. But while their success stories are remarkable, they also raise bigger questions: Should patients be expected to do this much? Should finding a cure for a devastating condition depend on how many calls a parent is willing to make or whether they can raise $5 million? "[This work] is really important, but it has also created a pressure on families," Pichard said. "They feel like selling their assets, quitting their jobs and learning science is the only way [their] child can get a cure." This piece explores that bittersweet tension between the promises and pressures of patient-led progress. I hope you'll give it a read this holiday weekend, and maybe share it with someone who, like the advocates featured, refuses to take "no" or "slow" for an answer. Essential Reading The FBI has uncovered $14.6 billion worth of fraudulent claims submitted to Medicare, Medicaid and other government health care programs , the agency said on Monday in conjunction with the Department of Justice (DOJ). The investigation resulted in 324 defendants being charged, including 96 medical professionals. , the agency said on Monday in conjunction with the Department of Justice (DOJ). The investigation resulted in 324 defendants being charged, including 96 medical professionals. Now, the DOJ, FBI and HHS say they are collaborating to create a health care data fusion center that will help them identify, investigate and prosecute health care fraud. that will help them identify, investigate and prosecute health care fraud. And yesterday, the entities announced a DOJ-HHS False Claims Act Working Group, in which HHS will refer potential False Claims Act violations to the DOJ. Read more about the working group, its members and its goals here. Microsoft AI unveiled new research demonstrating AI's abilities in sequential diagnostics. The company's new model-agnostic MAI Diagnostic Orchestrator (MAI-DxO) achieved 85.5 percent diagnostic accuracy—outperforming generalist physicians, who reached the correct diagnosis 20 percent of the time, on average. The company's new model-agnostic MAI Diagnostic Orchestrator (MAI-DxO) achieved 85.5 percent diagnostic accuracy—outperforming generalist physicians, who reached the correct diagnosis 20 percent of the time, on average. The study has its limitations. Microsoft's panel of 21 U.S. and U.K. doctors had a median of 12 years of experience but were not allowed to use search engines, language models or other sources of medical information when interacting with SDBench. These tools are common in physicians' practices, with about 1 in 5 using generative AI and about 7 in 10 using search engines on a regular basis, according to recent research—so the human participants may have achieved higher diagnostic accuracy if allowed to access their typical suite of online resources. The report received mixed reviews, generating significant hype in the digital health care space but receiving pushback from skeptical physicians. I spoke with Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman and Health Vice President Dr. Dominic King about the research ahead of its release. Get the exclusive scoop here. The Joint Commission has launched "Accreditation 360," a project it says will set a "new standard" for health care accreditation —using data analytics to fine-tune its focus on benchmarking and outcomes. The reforms include an updated accreditation manual, a new certification program, and moves to improve transparency and streamline processes. The organization has removed 714 requirements from the hospital accreditation program. Read all about The Joint Commission's dive into the digital era here, featuring exclusive insights from President and CEO Dr. Jonathan Perlin. —using data analytics to fine-tune its focus on benchmarking and outcomes. The reforms include an updated accreditation manual, a new certification program, and moves to improve transparency and streamline processes. The organization has removed 714 requirements from the hospital accreditation program. Read all about The Joint Commission's dive into the digital era here, featuring exclusive insights from President and CEO Dr. Jonathan Perlin. Read all about The Joint Commission's dive into the digital era here, featuring exclusive insights from President and CEO Dr. Jonathan Perlin. The Senate voted to advance President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill (H.R. 1) on Tuesday, approving nearly $1 trillion in proposed Medicaid cuts that would revoke health care coverage from at least 11.8 million Americans over the next decade. (H.R. 1) on Tuesday, approving nearly $1 trillion in proposed Medicaid cuts that would revoke health care coverage from at least 11.8 million Americans over the next decade. The House Rules Committee advanced the Senate's proposed changes, andat the time of writing on Wednesday afternoon, House Republicans were gunning to approve the final version by July 4. In an opinion piece for The New York Times, Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, wrote: "This Republican policy bill is effectively a partial repeal of the Affordable Care Act to help pay for tax cuts, and should it reach President Trump's desk, it would represent the biggest rollback in federal support for health coverage ever." Pulse Check Paul Markovich is the president and CEO of Ascendiun. Paul Markovich is the president and CEO of Ascendiun. BCBS Paul Markovich is the president and CEO of Ascendiun, the nonprofit, ultimate parent company of Blue Shield of California, Blue Shield Promise Health Plan, Altais and Stellarus. He previously served as CEO of Blue Shield of California from 2013 to the end of 2024 and currently sits on the boards of the Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) Association and America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). On Tuesday, I connected with Markovich to discuss last week's prior authorization reforms, born from a roundtable with health insurance companies and backed by HHS and CMS. Editor's Note: Some responses have been lightly edited for length and clarity. AHIP and BCBS were involved in these reforms, and you sit on the boards of both. From your perspective, when did these conversations about changing the prior authorization process really begin? They've been going on for probably the better part of a year behind the scenes with both trade groups. The plan was to develop these criteria and then go out and publicly announce them, but we [decided] we would love to get some positive feedback and support from the federal government. In particular, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is a pretty big customer and client on this one. So we went to them and said, "Look, this is what we've come up with. This is what we're planning on doing. A, How do you feel about it? And B, Would you be willing to say you feel good about it in public?" And they said, "You know what? We really like this, and before you go public, let's talk about this in more detail, and go out effectively together and talk about these changes." That ultimately led to the announcement, but it was very much conceived and driven by the trade associations for the health plans. The prior authorization process has been debated by physicians, hospitals, health plans and even the government for a number of years. What about this particular moment made it time to act and lean into reform? It was really clear this was our top pain point with patients, with the physician community and hospitals as well. This was the thing that was causing the most frustration and friction in the system. There was the sense that the status quo was problematic, and that at some point there would probably be a solution, or solutions that were developed. Then the question would be, who was going to develop them, and where was [reform] going to come from? Was it going to come from the federal government, state governments? All of those were possibilities. And I think we all just recognized we can do a whole lot better than this, and we need to do a whole lot better than this—and we can either construct something that we feel would be impactful without being detrimental, or we can wait for someone else to develop a solution which might be impactful but could also be detrimental, depending on how it's crafted. There have been various events along the way, various ups and downs in the political process, but eventually, this was too painful of a point to be left alone. One of the reforms laid out in the pledge is the standardization of electronic prior authorization submissions. What has been holding up the digitization process, and what will be the greatest challenge going forward? One of the biggest barriers to getting there—and it is going to be our biggest challenge going forward—is establishing and adopting standards for the real-time digital exchange of the information. And I know this from personal experience, because I've been a champion of creating a comprehensive digital health record for every American for many years. We managed to get a law passed in California that requires the sharing of data from physicians and hospitals to health plans: so we have actually created for our members a comprehensive, real time digital record in California, but it's in part thanks to that law and the requirement to share the data. But what ends up happening most of the time in prior authorizations is the health plan will say, there are certain best practices in health care that have been researched, that clinicians agree upon. There's a consensus about what the model of care should be in this situation, and what [the provider is] proposing to do is not consistent with that. But typically what happens is you [as a health plan] don't have all the information on the member. It's there in the medical record somewhere, but it hasn't been sent to the plan in a format that they need to say, "Yes, I can match this up. This patient has this diagnosis. Yes, their test results would indicate that they need this procedure or this drug. It's consistent with medical protocols." So typically, we're missing information, and then a series of time (days, sometimes ) that goes by where we're faxing requests for information. That's been the biggest challenge in the pre-authorization process. When we announced as a plan back in the fall of last year (before these industry announcements) that we were going to a real-time digital solution for prior authorization, we did a little spoof video with me bashing the fax machine to smithereens, which you may find entertaining. To me, that's the biggest thing, Alexis. It's getting standards and protocols down, getting that data available. How is it that the health plan can access that information on the patient, from the physician and hospital, and more broadly, from all of the care that they've had in their history of care? If we have access to all of that, there's absolutely no reason why these prior authorization decisions can't happen as quickly as your prior authorization decisions do on your credit card, and that's what we're shooting for. But what needs to happen is that digitization of the data and that real time sharing of it—and there's been challenges with that, historically. C-Suite Shuffles Oregon Health & Science University tapped Dr. Shereef Elnahal to serve as its sixth president after a lengthy national search. Previously, Elnahal was appointed by President Joe Biden as undersecretary for health at the VA. tapped to serve as its sixth after a lengthy national search. Previously, Elnahal was appointed by President Joe Biden as undersecretary for health at the VA. Debra Jaeger is the first chief revenue officer at Mount Sinai , based in New York City. In the role, she'll be responsible for integrating revenue cycle operations across the health system, reducing variation in processes and eliminating silos. is the first at , based in New York City. In the role, she'll be responsible for integrating revenue cycle operations across the health system, reducing variation in processes and eliminating silos. Rich Liekweg is retiring from his role as CEO of BJC Health System on October 1. Liekweg joined the St. Louis-based health system in 2009 and assumed the top role in 2018. He was instrumental to the health system's growth and oversaw its 2024 merger with Saint Luke's Health System in Kansas City. Nick Barto, current president of BJC, will succeed Liekweg. Executive Edge Dr. Jeffrey Giullian is the chief medical officer of DaVita Kidney Care. Dr. Jeffrey Giullian is the chief medical officer of DaVita Kidney Care. DaVita Dr. Jeffrey Giullian is the chief medical officer of DaVita Kidney Care, which provides kidney care and dialysis services across the nation and works to transform the experience of the more than 35 million people in the U.S. that live with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Giullian has been busy at DaVita, which is growing its value-based care arrangements and expanding access to kidney transplantation. (Last year, more than 8,200 DaVita patients received a kidney transplant, the company's highest number of annual transplants to date.) He also lives a full life outside of work, serving in an advisory capacity at the University of Colorado and the Denver Business School, and preparing to be an empty-nester when his daughter begins college at UCLA this fall. For this week's Executive Edge, I connected with Giullian to learn how he juggles it all: "Prioritizing health and wellness is something I take seriously—not just because of the demands of my role, but because I believe it's foundational to showing up as my best self, both professionally and personally. One of the ways I stay grounded is through running . It's a consistent part of my routine that gives me space to reflect, recharge, and maintain physical and mental clarity. . It's a consistent part of my routine that gives me space to reflect, recharge, and maintain physical and mental clarity. "I also try to be intentional about how I spend my time outside of work. With my daughter preparing for college, my wife and I are focused on making the most of this chapter as a family. That means carving out time for meaningful experiences, even amid a full calendar. I've found that when I align my personal time with what matters most—family, movement and purpose-driven work—it becomes easier to maintain energy and perspective. "Wellness, to me, isn't just about physical health. It's also about staying connected to a sense of purpose. When I feel aligned with the work I'm doing and the values I hold, I'm more energized, more present and more resilient in the face of challenges. That sense of purpose acts as a compass. It helps me make decisions about where to invest my time and energy, and it keeps me grounded when things get busy. Whether I'm contributing to meaningful change in health care or showing up for the people who matter most in my life, I've found that fulfillment comes from knowing that my actions are part of something larger." This is a preview of Access Health—Tap here to get this newsletter delivered straight to your inbox.
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Trump's science cuts are great news — for other countries
Of all the questionable things President Trump has done recently — such as starting trade wars with traditional U.S. allies, threatening to invade friendly countries and pushing for bills that would balloon the U.S. deficit — one of the most important, yet least discussed, is his defunding of U.S. science programs. Since the start of his second term on Jan. 20, Trump has set in motion the most sweeping cuts to scientific research in modern U.S. history, including public grants for research into Alzheimer's, cancer and other major diseases. In addition to cutting research funds for leading U.S. universities, such as Harvard and Princeton, Trump's 2026 budget has led to the planned layoffs of thousands of scientists at some of the world's leading scientific institutions. Many U.S. scientists are now moving to Canada and Europe, where leaders in France and other countries have already opened their doors —and their budgets— to America's scientific refugees. A White House document proposing the 2026 budget calls for a 57% reduction for the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), which supports basic research in science and engineering, from $9 billion to $3.9 billion. It also calls for a 40% cut in the funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world's biggest public funder of biomedical research, from $47 billion to $27 billion. To put these figures in perspective, Trump's 'Big, beautiful bill,' which was close to being passed by Congress at the time of this writing, included $45 billion in new funds to build detention facilities — critics call them 'concentration camps' — for undocumented immigrants. As I have shown in previous columns, most current immigration detainees are not violent criminals, but hard-working people seeking a better life. Already, the NIH has canceled more than 2,400 research projects, the respected journal Nature reported on June 27. Trump's budget cuts to U.S. science are 'unprecedented,' and could have 'catastrophic effects,' Nature said in an earlier report on May. 15. The Trump administration says the NIH, NSF, NASA and other government-funded scientific institutions were rife with waste and politically-motivated 'woke' programs, and needed to be made more efficient. Many grants were awarded under non-scientific diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) requirements that the Trump administration has now terminated, administration officials say. But most scientists say that, while there's probably some degree of waste in any large organization, Trump's budget cuts are a catastrophic overreaction. The administration is killing research programs that could save millions of lives in America and around the world, as well as crippling U.S. innovation in cutting-edge industries. Rep. Bill Foster, D-Illinois, the only member of Congress with a PhD in physics, told me in an interview that 'Trump is wrecking American science.' He added, 'I understand why you would have to cut things, including science. But this is done in a very sloppy and, frankly, stupid way.' Trump's budget cutters have simply looked for science programs that had the terms 'diversity,' or 'inclusion' somewhere in their paperwork, regardless of their merit, critics say. In many cases, such words were just included pro forma in top-quality scientific research programs. Foster told me he already knows of cases in which professors working on five-year research programs have just learned that their last year of funding is being cut off. They have had to lay off their research teams, leading many scientists to seek jobs abroad. 'Right now, America is bleeding scientific talent,' Foster told me. While much of the U.S. scientific leadership was built thanks to European scientists who moved to America in World War II, such as Nobel laureate Albert Einstein, the reverse trend is taking place now, he added. Indeed, French President Emmanuel Macron and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen recently announced a $566 million plan at Sorbonne University to lure U.S. science refugees. The program is officially called 'Choose Europe for Science.' In an obvious reference to the United States, Macron said at the announcement ceremony that 'Nobody could imagine a few years ago that one of the great democracies of the world would eliminate research programs on the pretext that the word 'diversity' appeared in its program,' according to a New York Times report. When I asked Foster why he thinks Trump is crippling America's scientific programs, he said, 'I think he's trying to achieve popularity with his base, which comes largely from rural areas.' He added that people living in rural areas may not be fully aware of the benefits of science, and are more likely to blame intellectuals and scientists for the country's problems. Maybe so. But whatever the reason, crippling U.S. science will have dire consequences. America will pay not just in lost discoveries, but in lost lives, lost leadership and a diminished future for generations to come. Don't miss the 'Oppenheimer Presenta' TV show on Sundays at 9 pm E.T. on CNN en Español. Blog:
