Perspectives of people in Mali toward genetically-modified mosquitoes for malaria control

Background: Genetically-modified (GM) mosquitoes have been proposed as part of an integrated vector control strategy for malaria control. Public acceptance is essential prior to field trials, particularly since mosquitoes are a vector of human disease and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) face strong scepticism in developed and developing nations. Despite this, in sub-Saharan Africa, where the GM mosquito effort is primarily directed, very little data is available on perspectives to GMOs. Here, results are presented of a qualitative survey of public attitudes to GM mosquitoes for malaria control in rural and urban areas of Mali, West Africa between the months of October 2008 and June 2009. Methods: The sample consisted of 80 individuals - 30 living in rural communities, 30 living in urban suburbs of Bamako, and 20 Western-trained and traditional health professionals working in Bamako and Bandiagara. Questions were asked about the cause of malaria, heredity and selective breeding. This led to questions about genetic alterations, and acceptable conditions for a release of pest-resistant GM corn and malaria-refractory GM mosquitoes. Finally, participants were asked about the decision-making process in their community. Interviews were transcribed and responses were categorized according to general themes. Results: Most participants cited mosquitoes as one of several causes of malaria. The concept of the gene was not widely understood; however selective breeding was understood, allowing limited communication of the concept of genetic modification. Participants were open to a release of pest-resistant GM corn, often wanting to conduct a trial themselves. The concept of a trial was reapplied to GM mosquitoes, although less frequently. Participants wanted to see evidence that GM mosquitoes can reduce malaria prevalence without negative consequences for human health and the environment. For several participants, a mosquito control programme was preferred; however a transgenic release that satisfied certain requirements was usually acceptable. Conclusions: Although there were some dissenters, the majority of participants were pragmatic towards a release of GM mosquitoes. An array of social and cultural issues associated with malaria, mosquitoes and genetic engineering became apparent. If these can be successfully addressed, then social acceptance among the populations surveyed seems promising

Mean wing length (mm) in females (dark bars) and males (light bars) from the 4 Genetic/Environmental treatments in the 2011 assortative mating experiment.

<p>For each gender, levels labelled with different letters differed significantly in pairwise statistical comparisons (Tukey test). Error bars are 95% confidence intervals.</p

Mean female and male body size, survival and insemination rate in relation to Genetic/Environmental treatment in the within-form mating experiment (1^st experiment).

<p>The insemination rate of females of each treatment exposed to Field/Field Mopti males.</p><p>Here the insemination rate of Field/Field Mopti females exposed to males of each treatment group.</p><p>Values in brackets are 95% confidence intervals and sample sizes are indicated in italics.</p

Nominal logistic regressions of the effects of Year, Genetic/Environmental treatment, and Enclosure on female and male survival in within-form mating experiment (1^st experiment).

<p>Square brackets indicate effect nesting.</p><p>Sample sizes were 900 females and 900 males.</p

Mean female and male body size, survival and insemination rate in relation to Genetic/Environmental treatment in the assortative mating experiment (2^nd experiment).

<p>The insemination rate of females of each treatment exposed to Field/Field Mopti males.</p><p>Here the insemination rate of Field/Field Mopti females exposed to males of each treatment group.</p><p>Values in brackets are 95% confidence intervals and sample sizes are indicated in italics.</p

Percentages (dark columns and left axis) and Log Odds estimates (light columns and right axis) of survival and mating rates in males and females from 4 combinations of genetic/environmental backgrounds after 2 nights under semi-field conditions in the 2010–2011 within-form mating experiment.

<p>A–B: Survival of treatment females and males; C–D: Mating rate of treatment females and males. For each gender, levels labelled with different letters differed significantly in pairwise statistical comparisons (Tukey test). Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.</p

General linear models of the effects of Experimental Year, Replicate, and Genetic/Environmental treatment on female and male body size in the within-form mating experiment (1^st experiment).

<p>Square brackets indicate effect nesting.</p><p>Sample sizes were 469 females and 304 males.</p

Percentages (dark columns and left axis) and Log Odds estimates (light columns and right axis) of survival and mating rates in males and females from the 4 Genetic/Environmental treatments after 2 nights in the 2011 assortative mating experiment.

<p>A–B: Survival rate of treatment females and males; C–D: Mating rate of treatment females and males. For each gender, levels labelled with different letters differed significantly in pairwise statistical comparisons (Tukey test). Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.</p

Survival rate of Field/Field Mopti form and Savanna form females and males mated to individuals of the 4 Gen/Env treatment groups in the assortative mating experiment (2^nd experiment).

<p>Values in brackets are 95% confidence intervals and sample sizes are indicated in italics.</p