Nature thinks we could safely wipe mosquitoes off the face of the earth.

I am no fan of mosquitoes personally, but pollination is the key thing. Esp. now with the shortage of bees. There may not seem like a direct link to humans.<p><i>Without mosquitoes, thousands of plant species would lose a group of pollinators. Adults depend on nectar for energy (only females of some species need a meal of blood to get the proteins necessary to lay eggs). Yet McAllister says that their pollination isn't crucial for crops on which humans depend.</i><p>But mess with one part of the ecosystem and risks that it will affect things globally go way up. I'm surprised Nature isn't more circumspect about this..

I have often thought the same thing. I have no "moral" or any qualms about this. If we have eradicated smallpox why not the mosquitos or the AIDS virus. However, let's not go too fast on this:<p>First, if you read the article, there's considerable disagreement among the scientists on what the effects of the disappearance of the mosquitos would be.<p>Second, fiddling with super-complex systems without having even a rough estimate of the possible effects may be disasterous. Typical example is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species_in_Australia" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species_in_Australia</a>, where success is mixed.

This seems a spectacularly foolish idea. Believing that we understand the emergent complexity of any ecosystem to the point that we can predictably alter it is a fallacy we've repeatedly disproven, and yet this is talking about altering the ecosystem of the entire planet.

Reversal test: If mosquitos didn't exist in the wild and some species of plants were dying off, would you be willing to reintroduce them to save the plants? Remember, around 250 million people get malaria every year. 1 million of them (mostly children) die from it.<p>Based on the evidence available, I think the benefits of eliminating mosquitos outweigh the costs. If some plants have to die to save lives and reduce suffering, I'm fine with it.

What could possibly go wrong? We've done so well engineering complex ecosystems that there's certainly no possibility of unintended consequences. For a great example of success take a look at rabbits in Australia (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia</a>) and perch in Lake Victoria (<a href="http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/lake_victoria_sick.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/lake_victoria_sick.php</a>).

I've completely changed my mind about mosquitoes. I now think they provide a really important, fairly unique ecosystem role and it would be a disaster to get rid of them.<p>What is it? Well they help recycle the food chain. Those that feed on us are taking energy from the top of the food chain (us) and they then are at the bottom of the food chain. The amount of animals that directly feed from mosquitoes is vast - insects, birds, fish, bats - who then also are part of the food chain themselves.<p>It's a great role, for a bottom of the food chain animal to feed off the top of the food chain one - especially an animal (ourselves) that causes such ecosystem problems.<p>If we get rid of mosquitoes what happens to the animals that feed of them? They need to eat something else, something that isn't getting part of its nourishment from the vast, untapped population of top of food chain animals.

Headline is misleading. "Nature" doesn't have an opinion, it's asking a question and reporting the responses of relevant experts.

In 2009 the first case of dengue fever in America since 1934 (also called breakbone fever due to the pain): <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/07/22/dengue.fever/" rel="nofollow">http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/07/22/dengue.fever/</a> and there have been 28 cases since.<p>The reason is that DDT is wearing off and we are getting more mosquitoes.

the naturalistic fallacy is getting out of hand. I think it's entirely obvious how much the blind idiot god of evolution sucks. or did you want to give up your eyeglasses and allergy medication?

You would think a site called "Nature" would provide a less human-centric point of view: "The elimination of Anopheles would be very significant for mankind."<p>"A stronger argument for keeping mosquitoes might be found if they provide 'ecosystem services' — the benefits that humans derive from nature."<p>Just because we (might) have the means to eradicate them doesn't necessarily mean we should.<p>Though the article ends with a quote about how the niche could be filled by something better or worse, most of the article claims that the other organisms that would fill the niche would make things better. There is a pretty big possibility that things could become a lot worse (say, instead of spreading malaria, the replacements spread ebola).

I hate nature's flying dirty syringes as much as anyone else, but most of the proposed solutions are either localized to a certain area, or species-specific, or both. Why wouldn't we just start with the disease vector species, then check to see if their eradication had an environmental impact?

It seems only cute animals deserve to be saved, and disease carrying ones eliminated. Whereas I hate mosquitoes as much as anyone, but they do have their ecological place. Pandas on the other hand...are suspect.

Naive suggestion: would it be practical, to experimentally do this on one island? For instance, eradicate all mosquitoes on Madagascar.

Has nobody at Nature ever read "A Sound of Thunder"? Seriously?<p><a href="http://www.lasalle.edu/~didio/courses/hon462/hon462_assets/sound_of_thunder.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.lasalle.edu/~didio/courses/hon462/hon462_assets/s...</a>

"the ecological scar left by a missing mosquito would heal quickly as the niche was filled by other organisms."<p>Would the replacement(s) be more deadlier? I don't think anyone or any simulations can answer that.

Shouldn't we focus on getting rid of malaria rather than getting rid of mosquitoes? Their bites are not particularly worse than many other creatures, it's just the malaria that's the problem.<p>I'm not sure what the best way to do it without wiping out mosquitoes is, but there has to be a way.

Two words: population control.<p>There are too many of us now for them to keep up though.

The idea is solid and although I'm not completely sold yet, it's definitely worth more exploring. But my question is, why is this article written by an intern?&#62;?!?!?!?

I once called someone I don't like a "human mosquito" because she added no value whatsoever to the world. Good to know that insult is now backed up with science.