Most scientists are attempting to build a public consensus around using gene drives as a public health measure. It might be possible, though, for a single rogue scientist to introduce a self sustaining gene drive that could eliminate malaria, without seeking permission from any people, governments, or organizations.
I think it's difficult to weigh that sort of question without actually being the scientist in possession of the technology, believing it is safe and will be effective.
History probably gets written based more on whether it works out than on whether the decision was really morally sound based on what they knew about the safety.
Would you need to believe it's effective, or just safe? I think as long as you have justifiable high confidence in safety then you should take a shot even if it may not be perfectly effective, or might fail entirely.
If you don't believe it's effective, then why bother wasting any time on it? Water is safe, but not effective at treating malaria, so why aren't scientists spraying water on people with malaria? Exactly.
If you think it's 30% likely to work and 99.9% likely safe, you're in the case where you believe it's safe and you don't believe it will be effective (different from believing it will not be effective). I'd suggest this may be a good risk, depending on how unsafe it would be in the worst case.
I think so. If I were really rich, I would seriously look into this and try to recruit scientists. Hard to say if I would actually do it since I would need to gather information first.
The question is paradox, if wanting to do so is prerequisite to becoming able to do so. Secondly, the knowledge required to do so is prerequisite to determine some of the consequences. Third: other details outside of the specific field can only be understood by a larger group, so acting rogue would be flying blind. Specifically, I'm implying effects on the ecosystem, about which I at least have little idea.
The malaria that infects humans is only transmitted among humans so the ecosystem effects are fairly predictable and limited to the change in environmental impact attributable to the human populations currently impacted by malaria.
Prosperity tends to lead to both environmentalism and consumption, so the impacts will likely be a mix of positive and negative.
This doesn't target the pathogen, but the mosquitoes transmitting it. So the ecosystem effects are fairly different from those you implied. Although, I wouldn't know what those effects might be either way.
To answer the GP more concretely: It is far easier for me to ignore the crisis far away than to risk the tiniest chance of problems close by. Yes, that's deplorable.
There was a radio play (from ~20-25 years ago), where this is more or less the plot. Scientists find a cure to violence and unleash it on the world.
It was a chemical that makes everyone friendly. But what they didn't figure out was that it also makes you really stupid. So the scientists avoid the rain (because that's what transmits it), but after a while they all give into being stupid.
Some psychopath or group of psychopaths have already done this. If you try to research the disease, it goes into conspiracy land full of junk information so much that you won't be able to determine if the disease exists or not, by modifying the signal to noise ratio of useful information vs junk. Google Morgellions disease, you can't tell if its real or not. (I can't tell either) This is a purposeful psy-op campaign used by intelligence agencies called "poisoning the well". so this is a double-tap campaign: introduce a crazy disease, and increase fear/doubt/uncertainty about the science around it so people can't figure out if it is real or not.
Most scientists are attempting to build a public consensus around using gene drives as a public health measure. It might be possible, though, for a single rogue scientist to introduce a self sustaining gene drive that could eliminate malaria, without seeking permission from any people, governments, or organizations.
If you could do it, would you?