“One Laptop Per Woman”: Increasing the use of technology to bridge the gender gap in developing countries

Development lies in the hands of women.

In many developing countries, women are typically in charge of the household and raising the next generation – both essential factors to the growth of a nation – but they are also increasingly taking on additional new roles in business and education. Technology is allowing women to be more independent.

The key to development is to promote female empowerment and leadership, which can be achieved through the increased use and access of technology. Information communication technologies (ICTs) can address challenges of gender inequalities in developing countries, including access to employment, income, education and health services.

Technology has introduced the concept of microfinance in the developing world, allowing women to be more independent. Currently, in Sierra Leone, women can only get loans with collateral from male relatives and it’s common to be pressured into sex by bank staff if there is no man around. Introduction of microfinance, credit, and technology has allowed women to take control of their own lives and finances. Transferring the money to the hands of the women may invest more of that money for the household and more sustainable practices for economic growth.

According to Manuel Castells, technology can also lead to the transformation of many power structures. There is a move from a vertical (top-down) approach dominated by men to a more horizontal approach where citizens, including women can participate. In other words, decision-making and leadership no longer needs to be so exclusive and limited to a network of managers and policy makers – roles that are traditionally occupied by men in developing nations. As more countries are embracing the use of technology, more women are able to gain access to education, take charge, and innovate to solve community problems. For example, a group of twelve women from villages in Sierra Leone are bringing solar-powered electricity to rural communities. They were all first trained at a college in India, and now use their knowledge and training to benefit their community. By spreading access of technology, it may be possible to train women from home making it easier and more cost-effective to train and implement this energy infrastructure.

And finally, ICTs allow women communicate, exchange views, organize themselves can have huge implications of economic and political progress. Just simply allowing women to engage in public sphere, exchange ideas with one another and allow conversation can lead to surprising results in development through all sectors. Recent studies in India and Bangladesh found that the creation of women’s groups led to a decrease in child and maternal mortality. The study surprisingly found that when women came together and were allowed to discuss frustrations and have a support group. Increased health can lead to a stronger community and increased economic growth. Using the findings from these studies and integrating it with technology can enhance these effects.

However, the introduction of technology does not come without many challenges. Currently, in Sierra Leone, only around 0.3% of the population are described as internet users and women are 43% less likely to own a mobile phone. There are still huge gender gaps and donors must face the cultural stigma of increasing the roles of women in these countries. Furthermore, and most importantly, implementing technology is expensive. Women may have the ability and knowledge to set up solar-powered electricity for their community, but they may not have the funds to get the supplies or ensure sustainability.

Development is empowerment. Empowerment begins with information and knowledge. This presents the future challenge – focus implementing ICTs to promote female empowerment.

References 

1. Bhandari, M. (2011, Aug 17) “The women bringing solar power to Sierra Leone.” Retrieved from < http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/aug/17/sierra-leone-barefoot-solar-engineers?intcmp=239>

2. Bhandari, M. (2011, Aug 30) “Using technology to close the gender gap in Sierra Leone.” Retrieved from < http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/aug/29/closing-gender-technology-gap-sierra-leone?intcmp=239>

3. Castells, M. (2002) “The Contours of the Network Society.” Foresight, 2(2): 151-157.

Costello, A. (2010, March 5). “Women’s support groups improve newborn survival rates.” Retrieved from < http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1003/10030801>

4. Shirky, C. (2011) “The Political Power of Social Media: Technology, the Public Sphere, and Political Change.” Foreign Policy, Jan/Feb 2011.

The New X-men Generation: how mutant mosquitoes will save the world

For my first blog post, I thought I'd bring back one of my favorite topics that I first read about last year. I heard about genetically modified mosquitoes on the news again recently, so I decided to expand and write a lengthy (blog post) but a short essay on this new technology. Enjoy! 

Brief points:

• There are several advantages of GMMs over traditional interventions of insecticides, bed nets and SIT.
• Among the various GMM methods, RIDL currently holds the most evidence of effectiveness so far. While RNAi and Wombachia are promising ideas, more studies in the laboratory and field are needed to evaluate its effects to different strains of dengue and possible resistance.
• In addition to considering biological factors, there are also social and economic aspects including cost-effectiveness, community acceptance, and long-term sustainability with capacity building to consider.
• For greater uptake within communities, more accurate information of its advantages and misconceptions should be addressed.

Background

According to WHO, around 50-100 million people are affected each year from dengue fever, one of the deadliest mosquito-borne diseases, primarily in tropical and sub-tropical regions¹. While many interventions have been carried out to fight against vector-borne diseases, they have been ineffective to completely eradicate it. However, today’s technological advancements have allowed the development of promising innovative methods, including one that targets the mosquito population with genetic modifying mechanisms. Scientists have described this new approach as a “quantum leap” which has the potential to revolutionize, and possibly eradicate, malaria transmission. The idea of this “mutant mosquito” gained widespread attention and popularity through a TED talk from Oxitec. Since then, many institutions particularly in the UK have developed on this idea creating waves in the scientific community.  

Genetic modification (GM) serves as an incredibly useful tool that has been the subject of unfair and biased criticism². Genetically modified mosquitoes (GMM) have several advantages to other techniques such as SIT (Sterile Insect Technique) and traditional methods of insecticides and bed nets. And while there are several ways in which to genetically modify a mosquito, such as the use of RNAi and Wolbachia, the RIDL (release of insects carrying a dominant lethal gene) technique seems to be the most effective and sustainable GM technique for the eradication of vector-borne disease. Oxitec, a biotechnology company, has used the RIDL technique to demonstrate short-term success in the Cayman Islands, Malaysia, and Brazil².

The traditional methods

Traditional methods of pesticides and larvicides have not been fully effective at reducing disease transmission and face many challenges due to resistance and unsustainable high costs³. The challenge is that mosquitoes have many breeding site options within a community, and targeting every source of water with chemicals is impractical and restricted due to potential human toxicity³. Furthermore, the Ae. Aegypti species, which primarily transmits dengue, is a day-biter making the use of bed nets generally ineffective⁴. In response to these challenges, scientists in the past have used a technique known as SIT. The SIT technique is an insect population control method where mosquitoes are sterilized by irradiation then released to mate with wild mosquitoes, which would hopefully produce fewer progeny⁵. One of the largest issues with SIT is the emergence of behavioural resistance due to decreased fitness of the irradiated males⁵. In some cases, females are able to identify the sterile males and avoid mating with them. So far, there have been no signs of resistance to the RIDL modified mosquitoes⁵. Because of this adaptation of the resistance among female mosquitoes, SIT is an unsustainable method.

The new approach

To improve upon these challenges, scientists at Oxitec are utilizing GMM strategies, which may be safer and more effective than SIT⁴. One of the most effective GMM techniques is known as RIDL. RIDL, also known as conditional lethality, modifies male mosquitoes not by irradiation, but by genetically modifying a mosquito to carry a dominant lethal⁶. When this transgene is activated – there are several activation methods - it can cause lethality in progeny. The most important advantage of RIDL over SIT is the ability to control the activation of the lethal gene allowing it to be sex-specific and to time lethality⁶.

Oxitec has developed two main activation methods:  

(1) The first approach is sex-specific which aims to create flightless female. A construct is developed to reduce the expression of a female-specific gene that is critical for flight in pupae. This construct is inserted into the strain of male mosquitoes⁷. Once these modified males are released and mate with wild females, the immediate progeny inherits this dominant female-specific lethal gene, and the mutation is expressed in a female mosquito progeny⁷. This results in F1 females unable to fly to find mates or bite human hosts⁷. The F1 males, however, remain viable and fertile⁴. This will decrease the overall reproductive potential of the wild population⁵. Instead of random mutations caused by SIT, males can carry and deliver female-acting transgenes into the population⁴.

(2) A second approach of RIDL focuses on stage-specific killing. This allows scientists to control age of mortality, either in pupae, or in adults, and targets both males and females⁴. One way this is achieved is by inserting mutations so that lethal genes are only expressed in the absence of tetracycline⁸. A RIDL transgene is created, which carries the instructions for the production of a protein called tetracycline transactivator (tTA), and is inserted into the a strain in Ae. Aegypti mosquitoes⁹. This transgene is composed of two proteins, which allow it to continuously produce even more tTA protein resulting in a positive feedback loop⁹. tTA will interefere with the cellular process causing mosquito larvae to die. However in the presence of tetracycline, tTA expression can be turned off by binding to tetracycline⁹. In other words, scientists can control whether survival of larvae by increasing or removing tetracycline from the environment. Because these constructs use either female or stage-specific promoters, they do not affect male fitness or interfere with other stages of a mosquito’s life⁴. This helps ensure stability of the mosquito’s competitiveness in the wild and reduces the possibility of resistance, which has been a challenge for the SIT method.

Figure 1. Because I always love drawn out explanations, I outlined the stage-specific killing method (conditional lethality)d below in a detailed and graphic visualization:

Some other new GM methods gaining traction

RNAi: Using RNAi, scientists hope to improve the mosquito’s own natural immune defense system. This method calls for a genetic construct to be developed that expresses copies of an inverted repeat from a dengue virus 2 (DENV-2) genomic RNA⁴. Once the virus invades the mosquito, the resulting double stranded RNA forms and triggers an RNAi response degrading the virus and protecting the mosquito⁴. However, this method was only found effective in laboratory so far.

Wolbachia: The other GM technology utilizes the natural symbiotic bacteria Wolbachia, which naturally infects other insects such as Drosophila and protects them against infection by certain RNA viruses¹⁰. The idea aims to boost a mosquito’s defense system by infecting A.aegypti mosquitos with Wolbachia to prevent dengue infection¹⁰. While this is a promising idea and has been successful in small laboratory studies, it has several limitations. Research has only tested infection to protect against DENV-2; its effectiveness against the three other dengue serotypes has yet to investigated⁴. On the other hand, the RIDL method that Oxitec has employed eradicates the entire mosquito species with no challenges of targeting virus serotypes. Most importantly, the mechanism of how Wolbachia blocks pathogens is still unknown⁴. Without knowing this mechanism, it is difficult to foresee long-term effects of implementing Wolbachia in specific mosquito populations and predicting whether they may have adverse effects, such as if resistance will arise and how we may prevent it.

 

Challenges ahead for GM technology

The main challenge for any mosquito suppression technique is sustainability - maintaining stability of the competitiveness of the mosquito and preventing possible resistance⁴. All of the GM techniques including RIDL, have not been tested long enough yet to ascertain long-term effects. However, RIDL has shown successful short-term effects thus far. In 2010, male mosquitoes with modified strains were released in field tests in the Cayman Islands; the results showed a reduction in A.aegypti population by 80%². Currently, RIDL technologies have only used single gene insertions. To avoid the possibility of resistance, future studies can introduce several conditional lethal systems in a genome⁸. RIDL future intervention programs will most likely be used in combination with other traditional or GM methods to boost effectiveness³.

Misconceptions and advantage

• The most common belief is that scientists are aiming to eradicate all mosquitoes, which would possibly disrupt ecological systems. However, the focus of GMM research is on specific species that transmit disease-causing pathogens to humans, most of which are invasive species in an area in the first place³.
• RIDL has several advantages in safety and in acceptance within a community. If RIDL is successful, the population can anticipate a short-lived presence of the GMM in their community once the mosquito species has been eradicated¹¹. Since only males are released, it may also reduce nuisance biting and the risk of crop damage from egg-laying females¹¹. These mosquitoes can also be manufactured and released locally after training communities allowing for capacity building and empowerment through employment¹¹.
• The RIDL technique allows scientists to control lethality timing by controlling tetracycline release to a mosquito’s diet. This tetracycline requirement produces the conditional lethality aspect of RIDL, which also ensures protection against the accidental release of mosquitoes¹¹

References 1. Sifferlin, A. How Mutant Mosquitoes are Fighting Dengue Fever. Time, 9 November 2012. < http://healthland.time.com/2012/11/09/how-mutant-mosquitoes-are-fighting-dengue-fever> 2. Parry, Hadyn. “Re-engineering mosquitos to fight disease.” TedSalon London Fall 2012. November 2012. <http://www.ted.com/talks/hadyn_parry_re_engineering_mosquitos_to_fight_disease.html? 3. Benedict, M.Q., James, A.A., and Collins, F.H. (2011) Safety of Genetically Modified Mosquitoes. JAMA, 305 (20). 4. McGraw, E.A. and O’Neill, S.L. (2013). Beyond insecticides: new thinking on an ancient problem. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 11. 5. Alphey, N., Bonsall, M.B. and Alphey L. (2011) Modeling resistance to genetic control of insects. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 270: 42-55. 6. Fu, et al. (2010) Female-specific flightless phenotype for mosquito control. PNAS, 107 (10). 7. Wise de Valdez, M.R. et al. (2011) Genetic elimination of dengue vector mosquitoes. PNAS, 108 (12). 8. Black, W.C. Alphey, L., and James A.A. (2011) Why RIDL is not SIT. Trends in Parasitology, 27 (8). 9. AmsianV. Dengue Fever, GMOsquitoes, and a “Wolbachian” Invasion. Amasian Science. 3 January 2013. Web. 25 March 2013. < http://amasianv.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/dengue-fever-gmosquitos-and-a-wolbacchian-invasion/> 10. Le, Viet.  Could Wolbachia be an alternative to dengue-fighting GMOsquitos? Plos Blogs. 3 January 2013. Web. 25 March 2013 < http://blogs.plos.org/publichealth/2013/01/03/could-wolbachia-be-an-alternative-to-dengue-fighting-gmosquitos/> 11. “Oxitec: Benefits of RIDL Science,” Oxitec.com. n.d. Web. 25 March 2013. <http://www.oxitec.com/ridl-science/benefits-of-ridl/>